A Short History of Jewish Conservatism in America

While American Jewry still identifies overwhelmingly with the Democratic party and the political left, Jewish support for the GOP has been gradually on the rise. Steven Windmueller notes that this is not a new phenomenon. From the founding of the republic until the early 20th century, U.S. Jews tended to be diverse in their political allegiances and counted in their ranks many prominent conservative voices:

During the closing decades of the 19th century and the early periods of the 20th, [some] American Jewish leaders not only voted their passions but also articulated a well-founded conservative political and economic philosophy. The late 1800s would see a number of Jewish business leaders embracing the notion of “sound money” and a commitment to align the dollar to the gold standard. Jacob H. Schiff (1847-1920), the community’s major philanthropist, embraced the Republican party, as he publicly supported “conservative methods” [and] feared “social revolution.” A staunch believer in the Puritan tradition and the “American dream,” Schiff lived, according to his biographers, “by a sense of duty and strict morality.”

Louis Marshall (1856-1929), the lawyer who played a central role in the formation of the American Jewish Committee, would invoke a socially conservative orientation in managing the Jewish affairs of this era. Marshall even considered it “unpatriotic” to desert the Republican party when, in 1912, so many other prominent Jewish leaders—including Jacob Schiff—voted for Woodrow Wilson. “I am absolutely convinced,” he wrote, “that the Republican party presents the only hope against the onslaught which is now in process against our cherished institutions.”

Read more at eJewish Philanthropy

More about: American Jewish Committee, American Jewish History, Economics, History & Ideas, Jewish conservatives, Republicans

How America Sowed the Seeds of the Current Middle East Crisis in 2015

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”

Read more at Free Press

More about: Barack Obama, Gaza War 2023, Iran, Iran nuclear deal, U.S. Foreign policy