Jews are turning conservative almost everywhere. Judaism’s traditional philosophy is merging with political and geopolitical realities.
I’ve always considered it self-evident that Judaism is most at home with conservatism, both as a worldview and as a modern political movement.
How so? Conservatives can be defined first and foremost as anti-utopians. They tend to think that communities and nations are best organized from the bottom up—in a piecemeal, self-adjusting, idiosyncratic way—rather than from the top down through an all-embracing rationalism imposed by means of social engineering. Accordingly, conservatives pay more attention to means than to ends; tend to trust established elites unless proved ineffectual or corrupt; and value tradition as a time-tested repository of human experience.
To me, all this sounds pretty compatible with Judaism. The normative Jewish political tradition, as outlined by the ancient rabbis in the Talmud, warns against anarchy and chaos, but also against excessive trust in government; stresses that deeds are more consequential than theory, and that the fulfillment of God’s teaching is inextricably entwined with the duty to take care of earthly fundamentals; posits tradition as non-negotiable and yet is ready to amend and adapt many parts of the Torah for pragmatic reasons; and, while never relinquishing the Jewish people’s right to the land of Israel, takes into account the role of what we would now call international law.
Such views went uncontested among Jews for centuries—because they were handed down by the rabbis and because they fit the conditions of life. Surviving as a minority within a frequently hostile majority required a healthy dose of no-nonsense realism. The habit remained in place even after the advent of constitutional regimes: once accorded civic rights, Jews were mainly loyalists, whatever the government in charge, and usually more at ease with moderately-minded conservatives than with the extremes of either right or left.
In many countries, Jews did eventually turn leftward—but often less as a matter of choice than in response to Gentile attitudes and conduct: parties of the right were less welcoming than parties of the left. Dire economic conditions also rendered the growing Jewish proletariat susceptible to the lure of socialist utopianism. Later, as Jews began to climb socially through access to the professions, many tended to adopt modernist or “progressive” attitudes. The rise of Nazism, followed by World War II and the Holocaust, solidified the Jewish attachment to liberal democracy, further confirmed by the birth of Israel in 1948.
But the left moment in Jewish history could not last. Global prosperity gradually extinguished most Jewish poverty in the West, and with it much Jewish social utopianism. Communism, in the form mainly of the Soviet Union, proved radically inhospitable to Jews and implacably opposed to Israel. Eventually, social democrats and liberals would also distance themselves from Zionism, Israel, and even the Jews, dealing a further blow to previous generations’ illusions.
As of today, the majority of Jews in Israel, France, and Britain vote for conservative parties. Even in the U.S., a conservative minority has been growing in numbers and influence. Although two out of three American Jews still define themselves as liberals rather than conservatives, and tend to support, no matter what, the Democrats over the Republicans, there are signs that things may be changing even in this respect. When it comes to Israel’s survival and security, everyone knows that Republicans are now the friendlier of America’s two parties.
Among younger American Jews, most have been to college or are now in college, where it is hard to escape the clamorous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic atmosphere—of which they themselves are targets. Meanwhile, on the positive side of the ledger, Birthright and similar initiatives are reconnecting American Jewish youth with Israel and the Jewish people, even as Chabad and the modern-Orthodox movement provide attractive homes on campus for young Jewish seekers of affirmative purpose.
The moment, in other words, is ripe for an infusion of “the spirit of Jewish conservatism”—perhaps even riper than Eric Cohen imagines. What does it signify, after all, when a conservative Israeli prime minister is invited repeatedly to address the U.S. Congress on the most vital issues affecting both the Jewish state and the entire democratic West, and is received with overflowing warmth and applause? The answer is blowing in the wind.
© Michel Gurfinkiel & Mosaic, 2015
This article was published by Mosaic as part of a symposium on Jewish Conservatism.
Michel Gurfinkiel is the founder and president of the Jean-Jacques Rousseau Institute, a conservative think tank in France, and a Shillman/Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.
URGENT IL MANQUE 50 VESTES DE COMBAT POUR LES PARACHUTISTES DE TSAHAL
http://www.europe-israel.org/2015/05/appel-aux-dons-une-unite-de-golani-a-besoin-de-vestes-de-combat-modernes-aidons-les-faites-un-don/
Je ne suis pas cet article. Les Juifs Séfarades ont toujours été Conservateurs politiquement en ce sens qu’ils ont conservé, dans la gestion de leurs communautés autonomes, les principes de la République Hébraïque de l’Antiquité. Ils ne se sont pas laissé contaminer ni par le christianisme, ni par l’islam, et n’ont connu ni Moyen-Âge, ni Haskala.
“yet is ready to amend and adapt many parts of the Torah for pragmatic reasons”
Pourriez-vous préciser de quelles parties de la Thora il s’agirait? Le Juif qui réformerait la Thora se prendrait pour Dieu.
“takes into account the role of what we would now call international law. ”
Je crois justement que le courage des Sionistes, notamment après l’expérience de 1939-45, a été de rester fidèles à la Loi Juive “Divine”, refuser de se soumettre aux Lois Internationales (humaines donc imparfaites), et donc de n’avoir jamais hésité à employer la force et la violence pour obtenir la recréation, puis le maintien en vie, de leur Etat, envers et contre tous. Par exemple, les Juifs n’ont, depuis 1967, jamais appliqué la résolution 242 de l’ONU, et l’Histoire montre qu’ils avaient eu raison, envers et contre la loi internationale.
“once accorded civic rights, Jews were mainly loyalists, whatever the government in charge, and usually more at ease with moderately-minded conservatives than with the extremes of either right or left. ”
En Europe, l’élite Juive jouissait, dès le 17ième siècle, de Droits et de privilèges souvent supérieurs aux citoyens lambda des pays. Selon A.Harendt, l’Emancipation n’avait fait qu’étendre aux masses Juives la jouissance de Droits acquis par l’élite plus d’un siècle auparavant. Mais, par exemple en France, les Rothshild étaient plus en faveur de la monarchie que la république, donc plutôt à l’Extrême droite qu’au Centre, alors que les masses Juives étaient à Gauche. Pour ma part, je crois qu’en obtenant la loyauté des Juifs aux Nations Européennes, l’Emancipation du 19ième siècle a réussi à attaquer, mais pas à détruire, la Nation Juive qui prospérait au siècle précédent. La guerre de 1914-18 qui a vu des Juifs s’entretuer au profit de Nations Européennes a été le point culminant de cette destruction. On peut affirmer que l’antisémitisme, l’Affaire Dreyfus et le développement du Sionisme politique ont sauvé le Peuple Juif de la disparition, et dès les années 1920, les Juifs Allemands et Polonais ont été parmi les premiers à l’alyah. Comme Marx le soulignait dans sa Question Juive, avant l’Emancipation les Juifs se considéraient comme membres de la Nation Juive internationale, donc supra-nationale, et ainsi ne se mêlaient pas des affaires politiques de l’Etat dans lequel ils vivaient, car prêts à le fuir à la moindre secousse.
Je pense que l’Histoire Politique du Peuple Juif est très complexe et qu’à chaque fois que des Juifs ont subi une secousse dans une partie du Monde, il y a eu un courant de pensée juive venu d’ailleurs revivifier le Peuple Juif dans son ensemble.