To the Editor:

I have been following with great interest the series of articles you have recently published concerning the Jewish response to the current political climate, a series that includes the excellent and witty article by Milton Himmelfarb, “Another Look at the Jewish Vote” [December 1985]. Some points of the debate seem to me confused, however, and, when clarified, make the case presented by Mr. Himmelfarb, Irving Kristol [“The Political Dilemma of American Jews,” July 1984], and others stronger still.

A theme that runs through these essays is the need for Jews to relinquish their ethical universalism and recognize that they too form a specific voting population with specific concerns. It is argued, for instance, that Jews must jettison their largely sentimental attachment to racial “goals” and recognize that quotas harm Jewish interests. In fact, however, it is liberalism that has jettisoned universalistic values, at least in this instance, and conservative Jews who seek to recapture universalism. There is nothing “universalistic” in the desire to see some subgroups receive special favors; on the contrary, the desire that all play and succeed or fail by the same rules is the essence of ethical universalism, whether of the Jewish or Kantian sort. Conservative Jews can lay a most plausible claim to that fabled high ground of morality if they make this quite clear.

Speaking more generally, it is a mistake in both fact and rhetoric to represent the issue as one of tough-mindedness versus high-mindedness. Jews who refuse to support military spending—although it is vital for Israel’s security and indeed for the security of Jews in America—and Jews who find excuses for Jesse Jackson are refusing to stand up for their rights. Israel has a right to exist in peace; Jews in America have a right to equal protection of the law. None of this has anything to do with Jewish interests, and to urge these things is not to apply interest-group pressure: it is to insist upon what one is already entitled to. Conversely, Jews who will not endorse these positions (or who refuse to vote for those who do) are like children who willingly submit to the schoolyard bully. Despite their prattle about moral superiority, they seem to be the victim of some sort of psychological disorder. One does not show a superior love of mankind by wearing a sign that says “Kick me.”

Michael Levin
City College-CUNY
New York City

_____________

To the Editor:

Once again Milton Himmelfarb has examined what by common wisdom was over-examined and found significant new insights.

As I read his numbers, the clear implication is that for most American Jews the security of Israel simply is not the primary factor determining their vote; most American Jews are not sufficiently Zionist. The factors that do go into determining their vote are far more likely to be those that provide them with a sense of being psychologically comfortable in America: these . . . include a sense of virtue stemming from a concern for the poor and powerless and a concern that religion be as absent as possible from the public sector so that Jews will not be made to feel even more like outsiders than they already do in a society overwhelmingly populated by Christians.

The sad truth to emerge from the article, as Mr. Himmelfarb points out in his conclusion, is that, in the long run, Israel will be the political victim of the voting patterns of American Jews. . . .

Lawrence J. Epstein
Suffolk County Community College
Seiden, New York

_____________

To the Editor:

In his analysis of the Jewish vote, Milton Himmelfarb continues to misunderstand what is going on. Mr. Himmelfarb believes that either Jesse Jackson or the need for a strong defense to protect Israel should have logically led Jews to support the Republicans. Never mind the minor point that no one has yet offered this argument who would not have preferred Mr. Reagan and the Republicans anyway. The real problem is that Mr. Himmelfarb assumes voting preferences are based on logic rather than instinct.

While Reverend Jackson’s views may be less favorable to Jews than Reverend Falwell’s, many Jews instinctively regard them as less threatening. That is because blacks must necessarily perceive themselves as a minority. Reverend Falwell, however, has clearly claimed the rights of a majority, and the difference as regards the possible imposition of his values is considerable. The anti-Semitism of blacks does not carry over to whites, in large part because whites correctly see it as anti-white rather than anti-Jewish in origin.

It is, of course, no accident that Reverend Falwell finds his home in the Republican party while Reverend Jackson sides with the Democrats. The philosophical and emotional difference between the two parties for most of this century has been the greater receptivity of the Democrats to the diversity of different ethnic and minority groups. The Republicans, by contrast, supported a homogenized Americanization. I suppose . . . I should also note that in recent years the Democrats have come perilously close to endorsing tribalism, which accounts in no small measure for their getting clobbered at the polls.

The reason Jews remain overwhelmingly Democratic is that, despite all efforts to persuade them that a homogenized America can embrace them too, they still support the ideal of an American embrace of diversity. . . .

All this has nothing whatever to do with rational arguments Mr. Himmelfarb might offer for Jews to vote Republican. It does attempt to explain why Jews feel more emotionally comfortable with the Democrats, so that, when tempted to waver, they need relatively little excuse to return to the fold. . . .

William A. Baker
New York City