On the December issue:

How the Democrats Lost

To the Editor:
John Podhoretz’s “The New Democratic Minority” makes a convincing case that the election of 2024 was more a matter of Kamala Harris losing than of Donald Trump winning (December). Election statistics make this clear. Joe Biden received 82,283,501 votes in 2020 to Trump’s 74,223,975, a difference of 8,059,526. The total vote in 2020 was 155,507,476.  According to unofficial figures, three weeks after the 2024 election, Trump received 76,883,434 votes to Harris’s 74,406,434 out of a total of 153,847,372 votes cast. It is surprising that 1,660,104 fewer votes were cast in 2024 than in 2020, considering that the country’s eligible voting population increased during these four years. And because Donald Trump was such a polarizing figure in 2020, his admirers and detractors should have come out in droves. Trump did increase his vote, but only by 2,659,459, or approximately 3.6 percent. 

The key statistic in the 2024 election is the dramatic shrinkage in the Democratic vote. Harris received 7,877,067 fewer votes than Biden did in 2020, and this explains her defeat. What happened to those nearly 8 million potential Democrat votes? Why was Harris so unpopular? Was it simply because she was an awful candidate with poor advisers?  Or was it something more fundamental? Podhoretz hit the nail on its head in arguing that much of the Democratic Party’s base was turned off by its espousal of social policies, including DEI, affirmative action, and identity politics, that they found deeply offensive. It will be interesting to see whether the party’s leadership has learned anything from this disaster.
Edward Shapiro
Boca Raton, Florida


Jew-Hunting

To the Editor:
I mostly agree with John Podhoretz’s description of the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States and abroad (“They’re Hunting Us Down,” December).

However, when Podhoretz writes, “Officials in Amsterdam have made it clear in no uncertain terms that whatever behavior Israelis might have engaged in, they did not precipitate, nor do they bear any responsibility for, the violence,” I must disagree. Those officials, including the mayor of Amsterdam, are already backtracking on that and deferring from calling the pogrom a “pogrom,” for fear of offending Muslims. Once you fail to call something by its proper name, you open the door to hateful interpretation, including victim-blaming.

Podhoretz asserts that either law enforcement will shut down Jew-hunting or Jews will take matters into their own hands. I can only tell you about Georgia, where I live. Here, the police take assault and battery seriously, and we have not (yet) seen the types of incidents that occur in places like New York City. It’s not that there aren’t anti-Semites here. Elite universities, such as Emory, are full of them. It’s just that outlandish crime and disorder are  not tolerated by our state government or local law enforcement in the suburbs of Atlanta. 

As to taking matters into their own hands, it turns out that we have also done that in Georgia.  At my synagogue, and most other Orthodox synagogues in the area, a significant number of members carry weapons—even though we also have police protection. This is, perhaps, a “belt and suspenders” approach. We have law enforcement on our side and provide for our own personal protection. The irony is that in places where real police protection is necessary (e.g., Brooklyn), it is not only lacking, but the ability of the private citizen to intervene with force is limited by draconian gun laws. At best, defense against a deadly assault would end up putting the defender in a situation like that of the New York bodega owner who saved his own life in 2022: It was the public outcry—not the reasonable nature of the district attorney—that got the case dismissed. At worst, the Jew who defends his life would have to face trial—and the perceived whiteness of Ashkenazim would be a mark against him.

In summary, we don’t have an either/or reality in terms of Jewish protection. It’s both or none.
Steven Brown
Marietta, Georgia

To the Editor:
The last line of John Podhoretz’s “They’re Hunting Us Down” made me smile: “And when we decide to do a thing, we do it.” This straightened my posture, helped me to stand tall and proud, and brought tears to my eyes. Thank you, John Podhoretz.
Sue E. Rapp
Vestal, New York


Protecting Jews

To the Editor:
Reading Meir Y. Soloveichik’s column has led me to the conclusion that the Jewish community needs to get ready (“America’s Words and Amsterdam’s Example,” December). And I don’t mean that they must get ready to protest and write angry letters. Some of my more liberal friends are of the opinion that removing all firearms from American society would somehow lead to peace and brotherhood among our citizens. I think not. Others can depend on our police and government authorities for their protection, and so will I and my family. Up to a point. But what happens when you have seconds to act, and the police are minutes away? What happens when the authorities turn a blind eye to the mayhem? I am an American, and I am a firm believer in my constitutional right to keep and bear arms for whatever lawful reason that I so choose. Self- and family protection being one of those reasons.
Rich Hacker
Mukwonago, Wisconsin

To the Editor:
Thank you to Meir Y. Soloveichik for another brilliant column. He mentions that Rabbi Sacks considered that Israel (both ancient and modern) and the United States of America are the only nations to be founded on an idea. I recall that Rabbi Sacks also made the point that Israel was actually a nation before it had any land. Is this in contrast then to all other nations, which were based on geography or language for example?

For Jews, every day is Thanksgiving. After all, aren’t we named for Yehuda, whose name is derived from the verb to thank?
Rod Elkin
Lower Merion, Pennsylvania


Tests and Scholarships

To the Editor:
Reading Naomi Schaefer Riley’s “The Rotting of the College Board” reminded me that there was a time when a great SAT score meant that you could count on great scholarships and even possible full scholarships. Not so today.

I know someone who scored 1,450 on the SAT and had a 4.0-plus grade-point average throughout high school but received scholarships covering only 25 to 50 percent of college tuition. This makes me question the need for these tests altogether. Of course, a 50 percent scholarship sounds great. But when tuition is $60,000 to $80,000 and a scholarship recipient’s family still has to pay $30,000 to $40,000 for access to a major university, even after his child scores among the 1 percent of his peers, it’s clear that the school system and its tests leave much to be desired.
Jean Marescot
Rockland County, New York


Media Bias

To the Editor:
Christine Rosen’s column was great (“The Suicide of the Mainstream Media,” December). As someone who does not trust the media, given the amount of media bias she explained so articulately, I thank her for her thoughtful approach to this topic. In terms of reading, I have had to cast a wider net over the past 18 months to find balanced viewpoints. And I appreciate that COMMENTARY publishes high-value articles like Rosen’s.
Justin Chappell
Mesa, Arizona

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link