|
David Saperstein
Rabbi David Saperstein is the Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism - an organization which "not only advocates on a broad range of social justice issues but provides extensive legislative and programmatic materials used by synagogues, federations and Jewish community relations councils nationwide, and coordinates social action education programs that train nearly 3,000 Jewish adults, youth, rabbinic and lay leaders each year." Also an attorney, Rabbi Saperstein teaches seminars in both First Amendment Church-State Law and in Jewish Law at Georgetown University Law School (Full bio here).
Saperstein was mentioned in many columns I wrote in the past year. On the revised guidelines on religious expression released by the Air Force; on the Jews and Darfur; on liberal American Jews and Israel. Some of these issues will come up in our dialog - but since it is also an election week, politics will be front and center. You can send your questions to rabbi Saperstein to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.
Dear David
In my last question for this week I want to ask for your reaction to something that was written a while ago by two scholars, Steven Cohen, research professor of Jewish social policy at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York, and Jack Wertheimer, provost and professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary. It's an article in Commentary that was headlined "Whatever Happened to the Jewish People?"
And this is one of the things they write: "one should mention the new 'globalist' consciousness. Absorbed into the mindset of educated Jews, this cluster of ideas works powerfully to undermine the concept of a distinctive Jewish people." For some,they argue, giving to Jewish causes became a thing that should even be condemned "as unseemly, or retrograde." Thus, it is easier today to attract Jewish activism for causes not "specifically Jewish". Darfur is the obvious example.
As one of the leading voices on such issues, do you think that causes like Darfur, or the war against AIDS in Africa, or other "globalist" issues, really undermines the Jewish agenda?
Thank you for your answer and for the time and effort you invested in this dialog in this very busy week.
Best
Rosner
Dear Shmuel,
The argument you make, inspired by Profs. Cohen and Wertheimer, is only half right. There are, indeed, SOME Jews who have become relatively unaffiliated from most expressions of Jewish life. For such people, it is far more likely they will give of their resources, their passion, and their time to universal political issues and to non-Jewish cultural, humanitarian, and civic involvements, all of which can serve as a surrogate for their engagement in Jewish life.
I do not believe, however, that substituting such endeavors for their Judaism represents the majority of Jews so involved. Indeed, neither demographic data nor my experience crossing the country speaking to synagogues, federations and politically involved Jews of both parties, affirms that impression. For most Jews, there is a profound and authentic Jewish moral religious obligation to be involved in addressing issues of both particular and universal concerns. For the prophets, speaking of international peace and justice, even for enemy nations like Nineveh (to where Jonah was sent), in no way "undermined the Jewish agenda." It WAS the Jewish agenda and remains so today. Polls show that large numbers of Jews believe that they are fulfilling Jewish obligations by being involved in social justice of all kinds.
Rather than bemoaning this passion for social justice that have been nurtured in our children's religious school experiences, youth group experiences, their Jewish studies and holiday observances, we ought to take advantage of it as a gateway to reach large numbers of otherwise uninvolved Jews and help show them as young adults the connections between their social idealism and Jewish values. We can use this idealism as an entrance way back to engagement with Jewish study, spirituality and community.
This is a major part of our work at the Religious Action Center. Yearly, we run 2,000 high school and college students through our Rapaport L'taken and MACHON Kaplan social justice skills training seminars in which they explore these Jewish and American connections. Graduates are now rabbis and legislative aides on Capitol Hill; Jewish educators and staff of public interest and social service agencies throughout the country - most involved in Jewish life personally or professionally. JESNA, the educational arm of the national federation system, recently did an assessment concluding that rarely does a short term program have such a long lasting impact. Similarly, Tsedek Hillel has made this understanding an organizing principle within Hillel life, bringing many young people back into Jewish life who heretofore might have never stepped through the door.
There is another pragmatic reason as well. In realpolitk terms, there is a robust interaction between our Jewish particular and universal concerns that we ignore at our peril. How can we, for example, condemn the conscience of the world for having remained silent in the face of our Holocaust that took 6 million of our brothers and sisters if we in turn can remain silent in the face of genocidal activity elsewhere? Our modeling of opposition to genocide and our leadership of the compelling moral engagement of large swaths of America in addressing the crisis in Darfur has created coalitions and relationships that will help us in battles against anti-Semitism and racism across the world.
Consider the inherent connections between our universal and particular concerns. How can you be really concerned about Israel without worrying about the general proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? The Reform Movement's involvement in these issues goes back 40 years but often, until the recent threat of Iranian nuclear proliferation, we have been the only Jewish presence in coalitions aimed at stopping this proliferation. Similarly, you cannot worry about Israel without worrying about energy policy (reliance on Arab oil has given them the lever to manipulate foreign polices of nations across the globe into anti-Israel postures) and you cannot worry about energy policy without worrying about environmental policy. Fifty years from now, when the world has freed itself from reliance on fossil fuels, it is secular environmental groups and Jewish organizations like the umbrella Coalition on Environment and Jewish Life (COEJL) who will be regarded as having contributed greatly to Israel's security and well-being.
You cannot worry about anti-Semitism in America without worrying about educational standards and public education in America since we know that the higher the level of education, the less likely you are to hold racist or anti-Semitic attitudes. (Not an inoculation, as too many college campus experiences testify; but when measuring the 300 million Americans as a whole, this pattern consistently holds true). The Jewish community is the oldest in America, i.e. the median age is higher than any other identifiable group. You cannot worry about our escalating numbers of Jewish elderly without worrying about Medicare, pension, nursing home, and social security reforms. And you can't worry about our ability to secure the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. or any other Jewish concerns without ensuring the vibrancy and security of our first amendment civil liberties and our civil rights. On all these issues and so many more of the kind of issues about which you asked, the universal and particular are connected at the hip.
The notion that somehow focusing on universal issues at any given time is inauthentically Jewish or functionally irrelevant to particular Jewish concerns misreads both the reality of our world and the heart and soul of our Jewish community.
Let's stay with the numbers, and get your reaction to these numbers, also from the RJC poll: "younger Jewish voters are more inclined to support Republican candidates. Among those under age 55, 30.7% voted Republican, compared to those aged 55 and over, 23.8% of whom voted Republican. This is a good sign for the future, as Republicans continue to make inroads among younger voters."
Is this a sign for the future?
Rosner
Dear Shmuel,
I want to stress again: the RJC poll was not a random national sampling. They have not yet published all the details, but as I understand it, not only was it limited to just three geographical locations but they phoned people at numbers taken from phone lists of those involved in Jewish organizational life. This selection skews their sampling, affirmed by the numbers of those describing themselves as Republicans and Orthodox much higher than the findings of all other polls I have seen over the past decades. Hopefully they will publicly describe their methodology and full findings. In the meantime, the national exit polls use methodology that has been used consistently for decades. Therefore matching the 87% against the findings of similar past polls provides a more accurate trend of Jewish political behavior, matching, as they say, apples to apples rather than apples to oranges.
As to the voting patterns of younger Jewish voters trending Republican, such claims have been made for years but there is conflicting evidence. In the 2004 election, there was a statistically large enough sampling to give a read. Among women under 30, it broke 90-10 democratic. Among similarly aged men it broke 65-35. Both Republicans and Democrats could claim the young to be trending their way. It should be noted, however, the most important factor, according to the polls, in deciding their vote in 2004 was security issues. In 2004 the Republicans held a major edge on security; but in 2006, the edge disappeared. It would be interesting to know how under 55 or under 30 Jews actually voted in 2006 but there is no national sampling large enough to know that. For any of us who work with teens and college students, however, (we run 2,000 through our Rapaport Social Justice Seminars each year) while we have no evidence as to how they vote/will vote, their social justice passions and general liberal politics seem to be anything but waning. For those who are interested in reading more on why some of the nation's preeminent political pollsters reject the evidence of a distinct Republican trend among younger Jews, check out http://www.thesolomonproject.org/jewishvote.pdf.
Dear Rabbi,
It seems to me that most of the stands you take are fairly conventional and uncontroversial for a Reform Jew. You are pro-First amendment, pro-gay rights, pro choice, pro-Darfur, etc. But when it comes to Israel, you are down the line with AIPAC. My question is the following. Do you support the AIPAC line on Israel so you are free to take a stand on other issues, or do you really believe that the AIPAC approach is right for Israel? Is hiding your real feelings on the Mideast conflict the price you pay for taking a "brave" stand opposing genocide in Africa? Or are you in fact, a right winger on Israel? Is not the test of courage the willingness to take a brave stand that comes at a cost? Israel is in a terrible fix and I have never heard about you doing much of anything to help her achieve peace. Courage starts at home, doesn't it.
Sign me "Very Unimpressed."
Jake Cohen
Newton, MA
Dear Mr. Cohen,
A "right winger" on Israel or anything - now that is a refreshing new take. I don't think I have ever been accused of that before.
I fail to see the connection between active support for the victims in Darfur and support for peace in Israel nor how involvement in one might require reducing involvement in the other. The Reform Jewish Movement is actively involved in both causes. But I think your concern is about Israel so let me focus on that.
The position of our Movement is that there is no solely military resolution to securing Israel's well-being and safety. While acting to ensure Israel's ability to defend itself against terrorism and actual warfare, we recognize that only a diplomatic resolution of underlying conflicts can lead to a stable and real peace. A two state solution that gives Israel security and the Palestinians a viable state is indispensable in the long run to ensuring Israel's security and Palestinians aspirations. We have called on the U.S. government to encourage actively the parties to find a way back to diplomatic negotiations. The U.S. should use its influence with surrounding nations (who themselves will be threatened if Gaza and/or the West Bank descend into chaos), to urge them to assertively act to pressure Hamas to accept the three conditions. Further the U.S. can support Israel in efforts to enter into negotiations with those elements of the PA and Palestinian society who do accept the three conditions. Further, we will do everything we can to open the debate on Middle East issues in American Jewish life so that all views, from doves to hawks, get an open hearing and will be understood as pro-Israel, just as it is the case in Israel.
Our active efforts in this regard will not, however, stop us from working with AIPAC to support the U.S. aid package to Israel and to strengthen the special relation between Israel and the U.S.
David Saperstein
Let's dive right into the political storm: according to exit polls, 87 percent of Jews voted for Democrats. According to the RJC exit polls of 1000 voters, support for the GOP among Jewish voters was 26.4%. I'm not sure if you have any data to confirm any of these numbers, but this is the right time to ask for your sense of the "Jewish agenda" in this election cycle. Was it about Iraq, Bush, social issues? And did Israel play a part in the voters' considerations?
Best
Rosner
Shmuel,
The exit polls were a national random sampling. The RJC poll was taken from only 2 of 435 congressional districts and 1 of the 33 states that had Senate elections. Despite having the larger numbers in the RJC sample, most demographers and pollsters will assert the increased accuracy of the national random sample.
But there are two commonalities of the polls. First, both polls affirm what polls routinely find: the American Jewish community is overwhelmingly democratic and far more liberal than other Americans. Whether it is three quarters of the community voting democratic (as the RJC poll indicates) or 87 percent (as the national exit polls found), no group other than African Americans comes even close to the democratic vote of the Jewish community. Second, since even the RJC numbers approximate their numbers from the 2004 election, there seems to be little move towards the right in American Jewish life.
What is particularly interesting are the significant changes in voting patterns among religious voters generally between 2004 and 2006. In 2004, for those who went to worship once a week or more frequently, there was a 22% voting difference in favor of Republicans. In 2006 it slipped nearly in half to 12% i.e. about 56% of such voters voting for Republicans. (By the way, the RJC reports that, in contrast, for Jews who davvened daily, only 35% supported Republicans; of those praying weekly, the Republican vote was 32%.) The Democrats made gains among a core base of Republican voters, white evangelical Christians, whose Republican support dropped from 78% in 2004 to 69%. Even more starkly, among those who went to worship monthly (the so-called "moderately religious voter") the Republicans had a 2% advantage, in 2004. By 2006, Democrats had gained an 18% advantage. This closing of the gap among the religious voters is explained by two dynamics. Democrats have become more comfortable talking about their religious values and faith and therefore connected more strongly with these voters. Secondly, polls indicate that we are seeing a major shift in the agenda of Evangelicals, away from issues like abortion and gay marriage to issues of poverty, jobs, corruption in government, and the war in Iraq. These changes open the opportunity for new coalitions between the mainstream Jewish community and evangelicals on such issues, as well as on Israel, which may further moderate the views of Evangelicals.
As to why Jews voted so pro-Democrat, the exit-polling consortium does not release the cross-tabs information regarding which issues Jews voted on. I can only answer that question anecdotally and from what we know from other polls. First, Israel was not an issue in this campaign and pro-Israel Jews generally felt, in terms of Israel, as comfortable in one party as another. Without that issue in play, the general liberal proclivities of the Jewish community led it to cast votes for the more liberal party i.e. the Democrats. Like other Americans, Jews were sharply critical of the war in Iraq. In particular, there is a growing sense that not only has the war been bad for America but that the solidarity of the Iraq-Iranian Shiite communities, the growth and success of the insurgency, and the destabilization of the region have all served to make Israel more vulnerable. On economic justice issues, immigration issues, stem cell research, abortion rights and other issues of key concern to many Jews, the Democratic party held views closer to those of the Jewish community. Finally, the continued linkage between the conservative religious right and Republican party continues to make many Jews uncomfortable and the fear of strengthening their agenda can serve as a block to casting votes for Republicans even when otherwise Jews might be sympathetic.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that Jewish interests and values are best represented in America when they are felt across the political spectrum. Good moral Jews are as likely to be Republicans as Democrats. It is Jewish Republicans who helped lead the efforts to prevent the Pat Robertsons and Pat Buchanans from taking over the Republican party. It was Jewish Republicans who helped end the traditional strand of isolationism in the party (making it more pro-foreign aid than it had traditionally been). It was Jewish Republicans who brought Republican Members of Congress to Israel and moved the party to as strong a pro-Israel stance as the Democrats had been. Indeed, there have been no achievements which Jews have supported in the 20th century that happened because of purely partisan votes in Congress. Achievements for labor, civil rights, the anti-war movement, the environment, Israel, Soviet Jewry, abortion rights, fighting anti-Semitism - all the good things that happened did so because of bipartisan coalitions of decency on Capitol Hill and Jewish Republicans helped make this happen.
David Saperstein
Dear David - four questions from readers:
I would be interested to hear Rabbi Saperstein's comments on the Gay Rights Parade scheduled for this week in Jerusalem.
Norm Frankel
Peninsula Temple Beth El
In the U.S., a significant majority of American Jewry favors equal civil rights for gays and lesbians. In the Reform Jewish Movement, we would accord equal rights as well within the religious life of our synagogues and communities. We do so based on the clear Jewish mandate that we are all created in the image of God and we believe that sexual orientation is an inherent disposition. But whether one agrees or not, the notion that a march of ohavei Yisrael in Jerusalem should evoke such hatred and efforts to restrict their legal rights of free expression is deeply saddening.
So close to the 11th anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination by a religious bigot, the manifestations of such bigotry aimed at this march are even more alarming. There have been reports of a flyer distributed to hundreds of mailboxes promising "NIS 20,000 to anyone who will bring the death of one of those people of Sodom and Gomorrah." Another flyer teaches how to make a Molotov cocktail, for which there is a chilling special name - a Schleisle Special - named after Baruch Schleisle who stabbed 3 marchers at last year's parade and is now serving a 12 year sentence for attempted murder. If these are true, where are the rabbinic voices, particularly from the more traditional streams of the Jewish community, denouncing such hatred and calls to violence?
I know among my acquaintances in Israel that many more non-gays will now be marching this week, including some who do not support gay rights, because they believe that all people of conscience must march against religious bigotry, violence and incitement.
Rabbi Saperstein's arguments regarding the Reform movement's involvement in politics leave me uneasy. He lists the Reform movement's political priorities: These range from gay rights to supporting 'living wage' campaigns. These may be worthy goals in and of themselves (although it is unclear to me how Rabbi Saperstein relates to those Jews who may not share his bent on these issues - are they politically misinformed, or are they contravening Judaism as he sees it?), but they are essentially universalist. Judaism is a particularist phenomenon, and Zionism - Jewish nationalism, a concern for other Jews qua Jews - is increasingly the preserve of the Orthodox. Doesn't Reform Judaism's universalism and broad progressivism prioritise a vague upper-middle class progressivism over Jewish issues? And don't Reform Jews increasingly resemble mainline Protestants in their outlook, rather than other Jews?
Benaiah Moses
London
I infer that Mr. Moses wrote after the first posting, not after the second that addressed in detail our emphasis on pro-Israel activity. Yes, declining engagment with Israel is a challenge that confrotns every component of American Jewry. But considering that the Reform And Cosnervative Movements are growing robustly in Israel; that the Movements send many thousands of people, young and old alike, on visits to Israel every year; that Reform and Conservative Movements are dominant forces in the voting for the World Zionist Congress; that the vast majority of contributors, leaders and activists for AIPAC and UJC are Reform and Conservative Jews - I reject Mr. Moses' description that Zionism is increasingly the preserve of the Orthodox.
As to our universal concerns discussed in my first posting, I was, of course, referencing our positions on those specific issues that are on the ballot in state initiatives in the election today - not our overall agenda. Israel issues are not any ballots. I fully concur with AIPAC, which wrote recently in a public letter, that both parties are staunchly pro-Israel and no matter which party controls Congress, the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. will not be changed.
As to the minority of the congregational members who do not share the formal positions of the Movement: No Jewish organization tries to pretend it speaks for the unanimous views of all its members. We speak for the national organizations of which we are part. But the Reform Movement's biennial convention that sets policy, with 5,000 attendees representing synagogues across the nation, is one of the most representative, democratic bodies in American Jewish life. And the polls show that our views are those held by the significant majority of American Jews generally. So on universal issues , on which Jews tend to hold distinctly liberal/moderate positions, it is not surprising that those positions resemble other liberal/,moderate organizations including the Catholic church (except on the social issues) and the mailnline Protestant churches. On our issues of particular concern, we tend to hold views often quite different from those organizaitons. Central to our belief, however, is the view that authentic Judaism requires that we be concerned with both particular and universal issues
A recent AJC survey shows that approximately 25% of American Jews consider themselves to be politically conservative. In my experience, many such individuals are put off by the relentless leftism of the organized Jewish community, as reflected in your Religious Action Center and the Reform movement more generally. The message that is often communicated in subtle and not so subtle ways is that one must be politically liberal to be a good Jew. Yet I think it's fair to say that Jewish tradition allows for a wide range of political views on the American political spectrum, so long as one is personally committed to tzedakah and mitzvot. What do you have to say to that significant fraction of American Jews whose views are not represented by the major Jewish religious and communal organizations?
Some of these interesting issues were addressed in the response to the last question. Here is the paradox. If you take positions by majority vote of your conventions or boards and liberals are always in the majority, conservatives will feel left out. It you say that you will not take positions because 25% disagree with the 75%, then you neutralize your voice on the great moral issues that confront America and the world. There are three ways we try to get involved but be sensitive to the minority. First, we ensure that before we make decisions all sides are heard and considered. No one should feel that their view did not get a fair hearing. Further, our decision making process is enriched when we have to consider the moral arguments on both sides of an issue. And good moral Jews can differ over issues. Neither liberals nor conservatives, democrats nor republicans have a lock on authentic Jewish morality. No organization should suggest that they do. Second, we bend over backward to urge our leaders, convention attendees, and congregational members to be respectful of those who hold differing views. This is probably the area most difficult to actualize. And third, we avoid language such as "we speak for all the members of our synagogues" but rather stress that we represent the national organizations. And indeed, no senator or congressperson would be fooled if we tried to suggest that we spoke for all our individual members. They know the polls on the Jewish community and they know the issues on which there is an overwhelming consensus e.g. Israel, abortion rights, separation of church and state, religious freedom (in our movement that would be well over 90% approval) and those where there is a greater divide such as e.g. tax cuts or affirmative action. But that is true of every stream of the Jewish community, Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Reconstructionist; every national religious denomination and faith group; and every labor union and membership organization. We all speak for the consensus views of our members, not the unanimous views of every individual. But none of us allow the fact that there are minority views to neutralize our voice representing the consensus views in the policy debates of our nation.
And last but not least, a question my friend and colleague Akiva Eldar asked me to present as he was visiting Washington this past weekend: Why didn't we hear your voice denouncing the comments made by Israel's minister Avigdor Lieberman?
One dilutes one's effectiveness if we speak on every single possible issue. There is always a confluence of considerations as to the timing and manner of speaking out. Minister Lieberman issued his statements just as our national Commission on Social Action began their semi-annual meetings where they were going to discuss the situation in Israel. We did not want to preempt the CSA. At the same time, our entire Movement was focused on the national elections in the U.S. Further, Prime Minister Olmert distanced himself from the remarks, mitigating the need to speak at this moment. If the government ever suggested they would consider such a position, there would be a clamor from the grassroots national leadership of our Movement, indeed from most American Jews. We can only hope we never come to that point.
Dear David,
How would you answer those who'd say, for example, that Jewish involvement in politics in regard to Israel distorts the "American interest" as it is applying a "tribal" agenda to an issue better decided by policy experts?
Rosner
This is, of course, a hot topic today in light of recent controversies around the Mearsheimer, Walt article, the Council on National Interest ad in The New York Times Sunday (suggesting almost exactly the argument of your question), and the Tony Judt canceled speech. It speaks to the misconception of Jewish influences in Congress - especially where Israel is concerned.
Most political issues are decided by the interplay of the views of policy experts with the views of those individuals and groups who have direct economic, political, social, or ideological interests at stake. When a particular group lifts up an issue as a priority because it disproportionately affects their group (e.g. civil rights to Blacks; gun control to hunters; gay rights to gays and lesbians; immigration reform for Latino Americans) it doesn't make it a "tribal" interest in the sense that it speaks only to the culture or aesthetic of that one group.
None of these kinds of groups use social doctrine or religious dogma accessible only to members of that group when justifying a policy position publicly. They express their concerns in policy terms and ideological ideas that are available to all Americans.
By placing those arguments into the free marketplace of ideas (that is at the center of democratic political life for all to debate) and by using their legitimate democratic rights to transform those arguments into policy, pro-Israel advocates have prevailed. Further, American support of Israel is also a reflection of the depth of the support that Israel has among the general voting public who have also been convinced by those arguments.
To be clear, Israel is of utmost importance to the American Jewish community. Israel's well-being is seen as a literal survival issue for most Jews. Hawks, centrists and doves alike start with the postulate that there are many of the surrounding nations, which, if they believed they could militarily destroy Israel today, would not hesitate to do so and only Israel's strength, backed by American support, prevents that from happening. (The pro-Israel community splits on how to achieve Israel's long-term security, with many American Jews still deeply committed to the belief that there is no purely military solution to the crisis and that therefore the U.S. ought to urgently encourage the parties to return to efforts to find a diplomatic resolution of the crisis that does not entail direct negotiations with Hamas until it changes its policies.) None of this means that the Jewish community is distorting America's interests vis-a-vis Israel.
Most policy experts and the Jewish community would concur that for both ideological and strategic reasons, the United States and Israel have been strong allies over the decades. The U.S. has benefited strategically, militarily, and ideologically from having a friend of this stable democracy in the region. Israel, in turn, has benefited from American aid packages and tactical support throughout its tumultuous history. And to varying degrees over the years, the leadership of the United States and Israel have partnered together to broker peace agreements for Israel, the Palestinians, and the surrounding Arab nations aimed at pursuing both their interests.
That is not to say that American Jews care only
|
