2 Friday, September Purely.Commentary The 'Jewish Vote' Theory: Is It Fantasy for Power Aspiration? Does It Reject the Basic Principle of Striving for Justice in the American Fashion? By Philip Slomovitz . The Sensation-Expanding 'Jewish Vote' Fable: The Older View That Places Principle Above Power Numerous meetings held with Jewish groups bythe three major candidates for President have given political speculators, columnists, commentators and vote solicitors material to transform fantasy into an ideal. Overwhelming numbers of Jews who in the past would have been infuriated to be labeled "Jewish voters" now are walking with pride in the belief that they have become the Chosen Voters. • Therefore, it is not the media alone that are subjected to the spell of the so-called "Jewish Vote." It is the Jew himself who now believes it. Example: At a meeting of academicians, a highly respected attorney expressed joy over the special attention given Jewish groups by the Carter-Reagan-Anderson Suppor- ters and by the candidates themselves. He described it as "flattering" to Jewry. Example: In several synagogues, the rabbis' sermons included comments that there is a new day for the Jew in politics; that the Jew now can make demands for pledges assuring protection for Israel and rejection of the threats of the Arabs who are bent upon forcing another genocide upon Jewry. This raises important questions. Are the assurances that Israel will not be aban- doned, that the American-Israel friendship is to be uninterrupted, to be based on the power of the vote? Where is the basic principle involving justice to the Jew, the obligation to prevent the destruction of the Jewish state, the strengthening of Israel as the most dependable U.S. ally, to be abandoned and sacrificed to selfish interests? The fact remains that there is a basic principle involved here. The question should be asked: is it possible for Jewish representatives to meet with political aspirants other than on a vote trading basis? The answer is in the fact that all the candidates, except for the bigots and the Communists in the minor parties, stand firm in their assurances for a safe Israel, and also for an undivided Jerusalem. Therefore, the issue is as primary as the economic and the social and is part of the involvement in foreign affairs. Therefore, Jews can approach candidates, and candidates can approach Jews, on matters involving foreign policies in the same way the candidates and the voters are obligated to discuss and make demands for the strengthening of the social services, economic inprovement, military defense for the nation and guaranteeing of the Separation of Church and State principles. Included in these is the role of Israel as America's ally and her protection from onslaught by the genocide-minded. If these ideas are accepted, then once again the emphasis on "Jewish Vote" shout ' abandoned. In that case there must be a return to the views of Louis Marshall and t who objected to this type of political maneuvering. A Detroit News editorial (it dealt with Reagan's alleged ultra-friendly attitude toward Israel_and read like an endorsement of the candidate) sized up the "Jewish Vote" in the traditional rejection of splitting the Amercan electorate into ethnic-religious- racial groups by stating: "Such solicitousness is part of the democratic process, and therefore unexceptional. But at times, frankly, the candidates' courting of Jewish voters strikes us as so obviously contrived, so steeped in insincerity, and so laden with tenuous promises that we wonder if it all isn't a little insulting." This should be accepted as making sense. It is also in order to resort again to the analyses in a Purely Commentary column, dated Nov. 3, 1972, on this challenging issue: History of the 'Jewish Vote' . . . Trend Among Jews Toward the Social Aspects We are put to the test. Serious decisions are to be reached on the Day of Judgment, Tuesday. Is it to be four more years, or are we to call ill the opposition to take over the guardianship of our nation? Have we been properly educated to express our preferences? Have the foreign policies been fully evaluated, do we understand the status of our judiciary, are we aware of the domestic needs that call for an end to miseries suffered by many of the im- poverished, the elder citizens who must have our protec- tion, the children in schools who must be assured ever- rising standards worthy of a great nation like ours? These factors will enter into consideration as much as the personality factors when many of us go to the polls on Tuesday. We have a duty to ourselves and to the nation not to be swayed by deluding rhetoric and to deal with the serious issues objectively, with a view to a future that is affected by fluctuations evolving from the minds of men who seek high office as well as the carefully evaluated principles that inspire most careful approach to the issues at hand. The voters have been molested with many suspicions, accusations, claims that often bordered on distortions. That Jewish citizens have been hoisted into a limelight that has proved embarrassing for many. Suddenly a new breed of pollsters began to test us. Not unlike previous elections but with an emphasis that often proved repulsive, we became guinea pigs. Every speculator felt free to count our votes before we reach the polling booths. Monetary values be- came factors. Factually the Jewish voter, in his inseparability from membership in the larger American electorate, has been moved into association with various political elements on the basis of his (or her, of course) interests in social welfare and the needs of the masses of the American people. There were times when Jews on New York's East Side were lean- ing to Socialism. for these very reasons, and it was not an accident that Meyer London should have been the first Socialist to become an American Congressman in 1914 with a mandate from the heavily populated Jewish area of New York's East Side. Many JewS were active in the Republican Party in the early years of this century, yet it was no surprise that in the era of Louis D. Brandeis and Stephen S. Wise there was an overwhelming Jewish backing for the Democratic Party. In all instances, the action was by Jews as Americans and the party line was often an alliance based on economics and on the welfare needs of the country. Foreign policies became the subject for discussion and serious consideration in the current campaign. Has it been settled that the issues affecting Israel and the Middle East are non-partisan, that support for Israel is bi-partisan? If it has not already been agreed upon, then we are surely a rather naive populace. Support for Israel has become na- tional American policy. It is in this country's interest to assure the security of the only truly democratic country in the Middle East. Therefore, the issue is no longer debata- ble. A matter that cannot be erased from discussion is the one to which has been appended the Jewish Vote label. It certainly gave many, many prognosticators and political speculators something to juggle, and it remains something to expose. It's an old, very old, issue, and it dates back as far as 1864, when the then editor, Myer S. Issacs, of then appear- ing English-Jewish weekly, the Jewish Messenger, elabo- rated on the question in a letter to President Abraham Lincoln. It was reported at the time in the American press — there were then only about 55,000 Jews in this country, no more than about one percent of the world Jewish popula- tion — that a Jewish delegation had visited President Lin- coln to pledge him the Jewish vote. That's when -Myer S. Isaacs wrote to President Lincoln — on Oct. 26, 1864: "Jewish Messenger" Office, 119 West Houston Street, NeW York, October 26th, 1864 To the President Private Your Excellency: As a firm and earnest Union man, I deem it my duty to add a word to those that have doubtless been communicated to you from other sources, with reference to a recent "visitation" on the part of persons claiming to represent the Israelites of New York or the United States and pledging the "Jewish Vote" to your support, and, I am in- formed, succeeding in a deception that resulted to their pecuniary profit. Having peculiar facilities for obtaining infor- mation as to the Israelites of the United States, I feel authorized to caution you, sir, against any such representations as those understood to have been made. There are a large number of faithful Unionists among our prominent co-religionists — but there are also supporters of the opposition, and indeed, the Israelites are not, as a body, distinctively (either) Union or Democratic (Secessionist) in their politics. In the conduct of our journal, for example, while from the first fitting upon our na- tional flag, there has been a steady support of the government in its efforts to maintain the integrity of the Union and crush the unhallowed rebellion, there has also been a studied persistence in the expression of what is our implicit belief, that the Jews, as a body, have no politics; and while we (The Jewish Messenger) have earnestly coun- seled and implored attachment to the Union at whatever cost, we have refrained from interfering with the private political views of individual readers. This is predicated on our direct knowl- edge of the character of the Jewish people of this city and my position as secretary of their central organization, the "Board of Delegates" — in which capacity I have had the honor heretofore of communicating with opinions of our co- religionists. Therefore, sir, I am pained and mortified to find that you have been imposed upon by irresponsi- ble men, animated, I am sure, by mercenary mo- tives; and I wish to inform you, with all promptitude, that such acts are discountenanced and condemned most cordially by the community of American Israelites. As an illustration that an influential class of Jewish citizens are warm adherents of the administration, you have the fact that a Hebrew will cast for you the vote of a New York city congressional district. A single Union meeting this week presented these facts: the chairman of the Executive Committee and Com- mittee of Arrangements, the gentleman who pre- sented the resolutions, two principal speakers and many prominent persons upon the platform were Jews — I refer to the German Union mass meeting on Monday night. It is because I sympathize heart and soul with the action of (the) government in using every means to restore the Union and overthrow the machinations of those who seek its disruption, that I the more regret this attempt to deceive you. There is no "Jewish Vote" — if there were, it could not be bought. As a body of intelligent men, we are advocates of the cherished principles of liberty and justice, and must inevitably support and ad- vocate those who are the exponents of such a plat- form — "liberty and Union, now and forever." Pardon the liberty I take in thus trespassing on your attention, but I pray that you will attribute it to the sole motive I have, that of undeceiving you and assuring you that there is no necessity for "pledging" the Jewish vote which does not exist — but at the same time that the majority of Israel- ite citizens must concur in attachment for the Union and a determination to leave no means un- tried to maintain its honor and integrity. With the expression of high esteem, I am, sir, Yours Most Respectfully, MYER S. ISAACS It was 60 years later that the debate assumed greater proportions when the late Louis Marshall, president of the American Jewish Committee, was angered by the forma- tion of the "Hebrew American League of New Jersey. On Oct. 31, 1924, Marshall wrote to Felix Fuld, an eminent American Jew: "It is needless to say that there is no such thing as a Jewish vote. It would be a misfortune if there were. As citizens we give our adher- ence to the several political parties in accordance with our political convictions. It would be just as bad for the Jews to vote as Jews as it would be for any other reli- gious denominations to vote as Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians or Free- Thinkers. Such action would only stimulate movements like that of the LOUIS MARSHALL Ku Klux Klan. This in itself would be sufficient cause for condemning the men who are responsible for this circular (announcing the formation of the New Jersey Hebrew American League) and for the degradation of the faith to which they pretend to belong." This was one of numerous statements Marshall had made on the question. On Nov. 1, 1916, he protested, in a letter to the editor of Der Tog (The Day), against the appeal for support of President Woodrow Wilson by Henry Morgenthau and Herman Bernstein "because of what he (Wilson) had done for the Jews." Marshall then wrote: "What has he done for them that it was not his duty Ps the President to do? What has he done that, unde conditions, any other President would not be likely do. He permitted vessels belonging to the government to be used in transporting food and money to Palestine. That was an act of humanity which was almost inevitable under the extrordinary conditions which prevailed . . ." Isn't this the reasoning in our time — in the emphasis that is needed that support for Israel is not a one-party obligation but is an American principle? There were numerous other declarations on the sub- ject, primarily those by Louis Marshall, and to this day politicians come to us with Jewish appeals while the Jewish voter, treasuring his mandate and his citizenship, is moved by considerations of human needs, of American ideals, bas- ing his touch of the lever as he enters the voting booth on principles motivated by the need to raise the standards of (Continued on Page 5)