Matt Brooks

Matthew Brooks serves as executive director of both the In the Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization dedicated to enhancing ties between the Jewish community and the Republican Party, and the In the Jewish Policy Center, a think tank that examines public policy from a Jewish perspective.

Brooks began his political career as state chairman of the Massachusetts College Republicans while still an undergraduate at Brandeis University. Brooks became the political director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in 1988. Taking a leave of absence from the RJC, he served as the national field director for Victory ?88 Jewish Campaign Committee, designing and implementing campaign strategy on behalf of the Bush-Quayle ?88 campaign. Brooks was appointed executive director of the RJC in 1990.

He has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and has been quoted extensively in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other major newspapers.

Readers can send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

Mr. Rosner,

My question for Mr. Brooks relates to the first question you asked, whether the Republican agenda is compatible with Judaism. I don't actually know what that means but I suspect it is an inherent belief held by many American Jews. Mr. Brooks must deal with that perception every day, so my question is about what concerns he hears from American Jews about the Republican agenda and how he deals with them.
Thank you. Great topic!

Doug Fechter
Wilton CT

Dear Mr. Fechter,

Thank you for your question and for giving me the chance to respond.

As I travel around the country and speak in different Jewish communities, the biggest concern that I hear is regarding the Religious Right. The thrust of your question, however, asks how I respond when these concerns are raised.

I respond in the following way: I believe the State of Israel and American Jews have never had better friends than in the Evangelical community. And during this time of tremendous danger and uncertainty, we need all the friends we can get. Evangelicals stand shoulder to shoulder with us in support of Israel and in solidarity against Iran. They are united and resolved in standing up to global terror and facing the threat of Islamofacism.

Unfortunately, there are some in the Jewish community unwilling to work with Evangelicals. They fear what they perceive as a theological agenda or they strongly disagree with many Evangelical positions on "social issues" such as abortion.

But many in our community do support a strong working partnership with the Evangelicals. This is why Pastor John Hagee received multiple ovations and a thunderous applause when he addressed over 6,000 people at the last AIPAC policy conference.

Whatever their reasons, I would argue that Americans and Jews don¹t have the luxury of having litmus tests for people wanting to be our friend and ally. To do so, is unfair and shortsighted. I find it sad when some in our community demonized Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals are our neighbors. They teach our kids at school, own the pizza place down the street, work in our hospitals and serve on our police force. Yet some in our community hold them in fear.

Instead, we should welcome their friendship and support to ensure Israel¹s survival and long-term security. Sure, we can disagree with them on other issues. Where appropriate, we should debate and discuss our differences. But we should also try to find common ground or agree to simply disagree. On issues where we do agree, we should embrace their support. This is what I would like to see.

Regrettably, for many, they would rather keep our Evangelical allies at arm's length.

Dear Mr. Brooks,

How can you twist history in such manner. Democratic Presidents from Truman to Clinton were mostly great for Israel - Republicans from Eisenhower to Ford to G.H.W Bush not so much. I don't deny that the current President is friendly toward the Jewish State, but isn't he the exception rather than the Republican rule?

Thank you,

Matti Rosenblum


Dear Mr. Rosenblum,

Thank you for your question and for taking the time to write. I am, however, a bit confused by what you are asking. I reread my previous responses and I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say I'm "twisting history." In fact, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, I don't think I mentioned any other president.

What I did say - and this is an undisputed fact - is that since 1992 the Republicans have received a larger share of the Jewish vote each election. In 1992, it was 11%, then 16% (1996), 19% (2000), and 25% in 2004. I laid out my argument why I think this trend is taking place and what I see as the positive indicators for the future.

So again, I'm not sure what you are referencing in your question.

Having said that, the real question we need to ask ourselves is not whether - going back to FDR and Truman - the Democratic presidents were better for Israel than the Republicans. That's a question for historians. The question we need to ask ourselves is, who is the best president for Israel - in the here and now?

I'm glad that you recognize President Bush as a good friend. As Prime Minister Sharon said, he is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

But going forward, where are we headed? Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran and Syria all pose tremendous challenges and threats. Our next president will be forced to deal with these matters from day one.

As the 2008 presidential campaign unfolds, the Jewish community will have the chance to hear and debate the various candidates on where they stand on these matters.

And there are important differences between the Republicans and the Democrats.

For example, on Iran. You have leading Democrats, running for president, who believe we need to sit down and negotiate with the ruling Ahmadinejad. Yet he is at work acquiring nuclear weapons for the stated purpose of wiping Israel of the map.

The Republicans, by contrast, have learned two vital lessons from the 20th century: a) when madmen tell you what they are going to do, listen; and b) appeasement and negotiation with despots does not work. It never has!

The choices we make in 2008 are profoundly important. The stakes for America and Israel could not be higher. There is a very clear difference between where the two parties stand on addressing these challenges. Anyone who tries to argue there is not much of a difference, and blurs the lines, is not accurately representing reality.

Dear Matt,

Many readers were asking me to send a question about John McCain and the "Christian Nation" quote. I don't want us to deal specifically with one quote, but rather to ask something else: in what cases will you feel the need to denounce or distance yourself from something a member of your Party was saying? Let me remind the readers that When Jimmy Carter published his last book you're quoted as saying that "Obviously we will look to key Democratic leaders and hear what they have to say about it. So far, there's been nothing but silence on the part of the Democratic establishment in terms of holding Carter accountable".

You mentioned Carter and Moran - the examples you used in your previous response - I mention McCain. My goal is to better understand your criteria: when does a Jewish political activist needs to take a stand against someone within his own Party?

Best

Shmuel,

What a fascinating and profoundly provocative question.

Having been in this wonderful position at the RJC for almost 20 years now, my decision matrix on how or when to respond to a troubling statement made by someone in our own party has become somewhat intuitive. To paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart: we'll know when we need to respond when we see it.

In fact, the RJC has a long history of publicly challenging members of our own party, including a sitting president (George H. W. Bush), on important policy issues or taking issue with rebukable comments.

If I were to reduce all the considerations down to the essential core, the crucial issue in deciding whether or not to rebuke one of our own, is understanding the context of the offending comment. Was it a slip of the tongue, a clumsy off-the-cuff construct, a botched attempt at humor? Or was it someone espousing deeply-held views?

Let me illustrate by showing an example. In January 2004, Hillary Clinton said that Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in St. Louis." Certainly not an appropriate comment, however, does anyone believe she has a deep-seated animus to Indian-Americans? I don't think so. Everyone understood she was trying to be funny and it failed.

By contrast, when looking at comments by Jimmy Carter and Jim Moran, you can come to no other conclusion than these individuals have deeply-held, offensive and dangerous views. In cases like these, it is critical that Democratic leaders, not only disavow their screeds, but also take punitive measures - like removing Jimmy Carter as the honorary chairman of Democrats Abroad.

The latest "controversy du jour," this time involving Sen. John McCain and his interview with Beliefnet.com, clearly falls into my first category. Sen. McCain's record on religious tolerance is exemplary. As Sen. Joe Lieberman stated, "he doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body."

Therefore, I think that the answer to your question lies in being able to tell the difference between offenses that are little more than a slip of the tongue versus patterns of commentary that are indicative of something more deep-seated and dangerous.

Dear Matt,

Maybe it's because the Jews are not a single issue voters, and the stand of the Party on Israel is not the only thing important for them? And do you really believe that Democrats are weaker on Israel - choosing as example the people on the margins is not exactly fair. Look at the leading Presidential candidates: Don't you think that both the leading Republicans AND Democrats are quite supportive?

Best

Rosner

Dear Shmuel,

Boy, you certainly fit a lot into one question. Let me try to answer all
the different facets of your follow-up question.

Regarding the point you raised about whether the Jews are single-issue
voters, the answer is: of course not. That was not the point I was trying
to make in my previous answer. Rather, the increased threats facing Israel make this an issue of high priority.

When terrorists and rogue states talk openly about destroying Israel (and
attacking America), it raises people's concern.

My point, in my earlier response, is that the strong GOP support for Israel, coupled with an awareness, again as Ed Koch stated, that "the Democrats lack the resolve to wage the war on global terrorism," is an important contributing factor to the trend of increased GOP support.

As for your questions about the leading presidential candidates and their
support for Israel, let me answer by quoting you.

In your "Israel Factor" report (September 21, 2007), you wrote: "Our Israel Factor panel keeps ranking Hillary Clinton as the best Democratic candidate for Israel but consistently gives her lower marks than those it gives to the top Republicans."

I agree with your conclusion.

I believe there are important differences between the Democratic candidates for president and those running on the GOP side. Throughout the course of 2008, those differences will continue to be highlighted and debated.

Sure, the leading Democratic candidates are "ok" on Israel. But, I would
argue, they are not great. Just think for a moment, if you were being
wheeled into surgery and your life was on the line, would you want an ³ok²
surgeon or a great one?

Israel¹s survival is at stake; her life is on the line. We need a president who will be great, not just "ok."

Dear Matt,

I'll start with an easy question: why is it that Jewish Republicans are so few in numbers?

Is it possible that the Republican agenda simply isn't compatible with Judaism?

Best

Rosner


Dear Shmuel,

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this important conversation.

Your question is an important one. However, let me respectfully suggest that the focus is wrong. Your question applies a backward analysis -- akin to trying to drive a car by looking in the rearview mirror.

Rather, the more relevant question is: why are conditions changing in such a way that the GOP is making steady and undisputed gains in the national share of the Jewish vote?

Here are the facts. Since 1992, Republican presidential candidates have received more and more of the Jewish vote each year. Conversely, the Democrats have lost Jewish votes year after year. According to CNN election polls, the percentages of Jewish votes for the Republican presidential candidate were: 11% (1992), to 16% (1996), to 19% (2000), and to 25% (2004).

Here?s why.

Demographics:

Historically, the strongest part of the Democrats? base of support in the Jewish community has been among the ?New Deal? generation. But this demographic group is shrinking. Recent surveys show that younger Jewish voters are more supportive of the GOP than their older age cohorts. This is positive for the GOP in the Jewish community.

Another positive and encouraging trend is within the Orthodox community. Surveys consistently show Republicans getting 40-50% of the Orthodox vote. And it is important to note that the fastest growing segment of the Jewish community is the Orthodox community. This is encouraging as well.

Issues:

We are at a very dangerous time. America and Israel face an existential threat to our safety and way of life. Look at Iran, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, and others to see the risk that radical Islamic terror groups and nation-states pose to our security. We are at war. This is a clash of civilizations and we must have the resolve to fight and to win. If we surrender to those forces, and lack the will to prevail, it will be a very different world for us and our children.

There is a clear difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on these issues. That is also why leading Democrats like New York Mayor Ed Koch have supported President Bush. As Koch has stated, ?the Democrats lack the resolve to wage the war against international terror.? The Jewish community understands this and it is a big factor in why we are earning more support.

The New Face of the Democrat Party

The Democrat Party today is not my grandmother?s Democrat Party. The Party of Truman, Kennedy, Scoop Jackson and Humphrey has become the Party of Jimmy Carter (who serves as Honorary Chairman of an important DNC organization), Jim Moran, MoveOn.org and Dennis Kucinich. It is a Democrat Party that voted out Joe Lieberman. It is a Democrat Party which, at the grassroots level, according to a July 2006 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, only supported Israel 43% during the Lebanon war as compared to 84% support among Republicans. Many Jews are asking themselves, do I still have a home in this Democrat party?

Looking at these three main factors I am confident that the GOP will continue to build on this over 12 year trend of increasing Jewish support.