Current Thing: The Coming Jewish Dilemma

When people who are like us don't like us

Note: when I put “current thing” in the title of a post, I am signaling that I may be reacting too quickly and too emotionally to an event that is receiving excessive attention relative to its long-term significance.

As I see it, the goal of the “pro-Palestinian” protest movement is to delegitimize Israel. In this essay, I consider a scenario in which by the end of this decade the Democratic Party is captured by this cause. If this scenario unfolds, I predict that many Jews will stick with the Democrats and join in the delegitimization of Israel.

Well-educated. Urban. Professionals. Many American Jews fall within that stereotype.¹

The current sociology of American politics is that the Democrats have become the party of well-educated urban professionals. They are People Like Us, from a Jewish point of view. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become the party of People Not Like Us.

Other things equal, you would expect American Jews to bind even more closely to the Democratic Party today than they have in the past. And I see this with many of my friends.

This year’s Senate race in Maryland pits Larry Hogan, a popular moderate Republican who strongly supports Israel, against Angela Alsobrooks, a Democrat who seems likely to align with the more Israel-hostile wing in her party.

How do my Jewish friends plan to vote? “We cannot have a Republican Senate” is what they tell me. So they will help ensure that Ms. Alsobrooks gets elected.

But what if the Democratic Party becomes a party that does not like Jews? I can picture a scenario in which that might happen.

From Protest Movement to Consensus Position

I was struck by Tanner Greer’s recent essay, which is based in part on papers written a few decades ago by feminist activist Jo Freeman. Greer writes,

when you look at the trajectory of leftist movements over the 2010s—such as the Black Lives Matter movement—you find a similar pattern. Protests that closed with policy defeat, changing nothing but media coverage, did not lead to the marginalization of protest leaders or their moment. Quite the opposite: with each defeat the influence these movements held over the Democratic establishment grew.

Indeed, in my adult life, every progressive cause has followed a three-stage pattern.

Stage 1: the cause is a protest movement

Stage 2: Democratic Party leaders express sympathy for the cause, but they criticize the radicalism of the movement.

Stage 3: The cause becomes a strict consensus within the Democratic Party, such that no one who deviates from the orthodoxy can run as a Democrat.

Note that Stage 2 never lasts very long. It usually takes only one election cycle to go from Stage 2 to Stage 3.

For example, consider the cause of “withdraw from South Vietnam.” In 1968, the Democrats were at Stage 2. Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey courted the support of the anti-war movement, but he viewed unilateral withdrawal as too radical. Stage 3 was reached in the early 1970s, when Democrats in Congress voted for unilateral withdrawal.

Or consider the cause of gay marriage. In 2008, Democrats were at Stage 2. Democratic candidate Barack Obama was against it. Within four years, he was for it. By the time the Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage in 2015, the Democrats were at Stage 3.

The Anti-Zionism Cause

Let me define anti-Zionism as the cause that believes that the state of Israel has no moral right to exist. This goes way beyond a disagreement with its current government. It goes way beyond frustration with the West Bank settlement movement.

Right now, anti-Zionism is somewhere between Stage 1 and early Stage 2. It will become clearer during the Democratic Convention. Will we see some Palestinian flags scattered among the delegates? When a speaker expresses sympathy for the people of Gaza, will the applause go on longer than when (if?) a speaker expresses sympathy for Israel? If so, then I will say that we are at Stage 2.

Stage 3, assuming we reach it, will probably be arrived at by the end of this decade. At that point, anti-Zionism will be a strict consensus among Democrats. Anyone who supports Israel’s right to exist will no longer be welcome in the party.

Anti-Zionism will not cost the Democratic Party an overwhelming number of Jewish voters. For many Jews, Israel is not an important issue.

Others, especially younger Jews, are ready to be convinced that Israel has no moral right to exist. That way, they can stay within the Democratic fold, with People Like Us. This will result in a sharp break between Jews who remain Democrats on the one hand and Israelis and Zionist American Jews on the other.

Another small problem for Jews will be the revival of DEI, which Eric Kaufmann predicts will take place, based on its popularity with young people. Already, with the Harris nomination, the window in which it was safe to criticize DEI has closed.

If the Democratic Party goes down the path that I have sketched out, then I expect to lose a lot of friends. Because I would prefer the party that is Not Like Us over the party that does not like us.

substacks referenced above: @

Why Republican Party Leaders Matter More Than Democratic Ones

1. There are many theories of why this is the case. For example, Maristella Botticini and Zvi Eckstein suggest that 2000 years ago, when rabbis mandated that Jews teach their children to study Torah, this forced them to select urban occupations, because on a farm the burden of teaching children Torah would be too great.