8 January 3 • 2019
jn

I 

recently attend-
ed the 2018 
Jewish Leadership 
Conference in midtown 
Manhattan, “Jews and 
Conservative Politics.
” 
I was one of few liber-
als in an assemblage of 
800 people. Though not 
politically conservative 
— far from it — I was drawn to this con-
ference in no small part by the opportu-
nity to imbibe the scholarly prowess of 
several of the speakers, but also by the 
prospect of hearing conservative pun-
dits and lay people discuss and debate 
the issues of the day from a perspective 
different from my own. After all, events 
like conferences, colloquia and symposia 
typically include an exchange of ideas 
and constructive debate and criticism; 
not least of all, I assumed that 800 Jews 
in a single room would have more than 
one opinion. 
To be sure, the experts did not disap-
point. Frankly, I could listen to Rabbi 
Meir Soloveichik and Professor Ruth 
Wisse speak and teach for days on end, 
and hearing Natan Scharansky talk about 
his life and career never disappoints. 
Scholarly expertise transcends political 
ideology and outlook. The occasional 
strand of conservative polemic not-
withstanding, Soloveichik exploring the 
mentality of 19th-century American 
Jews and Wisse talking about the Yiddish 
poet Jacob Glatstein addressed broadly 
the entirety of the America Jewish expe-
rience, conservative and otherwise; and 
Scharansky’
s life in the Soviet Union and 
Israel cannot be pigeon-holed into the 
framework and worldview of any one 
political ideology. 
In contrast to these masterful presen-
tations, the pundits left my expectation 
for debate and discourse largely unful-
filled. Instead of conservative thinkers 
debating the nuances of their convic-
tions, this was a day of self-affirmation, 
a collective pat on the back. Never mind 
two Jews, three opinions — this was, 
quite eerily, 800 Jews with one largely 
undifferentiated opinion. 
The glaring absence of a tapestry of 
opinions pointed to a larger oddity: a 
seemingly limited understanding among 
the majority of those in attendance as 
to what conservatism means. One got 
the impression that few in attendance 
had more than a cursory understanding 

of the ideas of Sir Edmund Burke, the 
father of modern political conservatism, 
let alone had read anything by him. 
This was apparent right at the outset, 
when one of the first speakers paid hom-
age to the “connection to history” as a 
hallmark of the conservative outlook but 
proceeded to ignore an obviously and 
immediately relevant lesson of history. 
The conference took place the day 
after the tragic shooting at the Tree of 
Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh; while 
every person who came to the micro-
phone acknowledged the event and 
offered heartfelt sympathy, there was no 
attempt to raise even the possibility of a 
connection between President Trump’
s 
anti-immigrant, xenophobic rhetoric 
(and how it is amplified by Fox News 
and the alt-right) and the fact that the 
shooter was driven by an anti-Semitism 
born of the same anti-immigrant xeno-
phobia. There was no attempt to under-
line the parallel surges of anti-Semitism 
in an increasingly anti-immigrant, xeno-
phobic America during the 1920s and 
1930s and in 2018 — a Burkean oppor-
tunity to learn from history recklessly 
squandered.
The larger impression that emerged 
from the day was a blurring of the line 
between conservative and reactionary. 
The latter is, more often than not, driven 
mainly by fear — fear of change, fear of a 
loss of privilege and, above all, fear of an 
ever-imminent catastrophe. 
Conservatism is not an ideology 
driven by fear, but by caution and, 
more often than not, cautious progress. 
Burke, in his career-making criticism of 
the French Revolution and its leaders, 
did not reject out of hand their aims. 
He believed there were aspects of late 
18th-century European society and pol-
itics that needed to change. His criticism 
focused on the methods and pace of the 
French Revolution. He preferred the 
steady, gradual English march toward 
Liberalism to the frenetic and abrupt 
changes in France that had devolved 
into violence and social upheaval. Yet 
he was no less critical of the autocratic 
policies of the Romanov, Habsburg and 
Hohenzollern dynasties. His conserva-
tism was centrist — right of center, to be 
sure — and moderate. He opposed radi-
calism and extremism in all directions.
This Burkean mentality was lost on 
some of the pundits who spoke at the 
conference, whose outlook was more 

a fear-driven reactionary posture than 
one of Burkean cautious progress. One 
pundit began by citing (Bibi’
s father) 
Ben Zion Netanyahu’
s assertion that 
“all anti-Semitism is eliminationist 
anti-Semitism,
” as a point of departure 
to preempt the audience from seeing any 
form of anti-Semitism as anything other 
than a prelude to Hitler, Nazism and 
another Shoah; and, more specifically, 
to see any criticism of the State of Israel 
as not only anti-Zionist but also as an 
“unrecognized” form of eliminationist 
anti-Semitism. 
Unfortunately for this argument, 
the history of anti-Semitism does not 
come close to supporting this claim. 
Historians of anti-Semitism distinguish 
non-violent, polemical and systemic 
forms of anti-Semitism from violent, 
eliminationist forms of anti-Semitism. 
And to impugn all criticisms of Zionism 
and the State of Israel as anti-Semitic 
carelessly overlooks the fact some of the 
most strident critics of Zionism and the 
State of Israel were not leftists — assim-
ilated-Jewish or otherwise — but rather 
Zionists and Israelis. 
By this pundit’
s argument, Ahad 
Ha’
am’
s criticism of Herzl, Ben-Gurion’
s 
criticism of Jabotinsky, Jabotinsky’
s crit-
icism of Ben-Gurion and Weitzmann, 
and the Haredi rejection of the validity 
of Zionism and the State of Israel are all 
examples of anti-Zionism and, by exten-
sion, anti-Semitism. 
The Burkean conservative would 
approach the problem of anti-Semitism 
differently; first and foremost, by draw-
ing the historical conclusion that not all 
expressions of anti-Semitism led inevita-
bly to Hitler and Nazism; and that Jewish 
responses to anti-Semitism during the 
last century and a half recognized this 
distinction and were, for the most part, 
proportional to the level anti-Semitic 
intensity. 
Natan Sharansky captured this per-
spective eloquently when, in response 
to the leading question as to whether 
American Jews should rush to Israel, 
answered that Jews should not come to 
Israel as an escape but rather as a choice 
— in effect, opting for Burkean cautious 
optimism over fear-driven reaction.

Professor Howard Lupovitch is associate professor 
of history and director of the Cohn-Haddow 
Center for Judaic Studies at Wayne State 
University.

commentary

Conservative Fear vs Caution

Howard 
Lupovitch

views

usurpers of this land. 
Right or wrong, Palestinians 
who live in the West Bank have 
a right to this opinion without 
being hypocritical. But what 
about people living in America 
like Ms. Tlaib? Are they not 
also living and exploiting land 
that was taken from Native 
Americans — occupied land? 
Just because more time has 
passed is the appropriation of 
this land any more just? Just 
because there may have been 
proportionately fewer Native 
Americans living in the United 
States than in Palestine (unclear 
about this) does it make it any 
more right? 
The Palestinian question 
is serious and deserves 
introspection from all 
parties. One part of that is 
to acknowledge one’
s own 
precarious vantage point when 
pointing fingers at others.

Henry Pinkney

Farmington Hills

 

Hypocritical ‘
Concern’
I’
m touched at your concern 
for the 13th Congressional 
District just because their 
U.S. Representative-elect 
Rashida Tlaib is taking a trip 
to the Middle East (Tlaib 
Seeking Global Spotlight to the 
Detriment of her District 9, Dec. 
13, page 8). I don’
t remember 
seeing any columns expressing 
worry about the district being 
without representation at all for 
almost a year due to a conscious 
decision by Snyder to leave it 
that way. And I’
ve never seen a 
column complaining about any 
other U.S. representative taking 
a foreign trip, through AIPAC 
or otherwise. I’
m sure, and you 
should be, too, that Rashida will 
do a wonderful, energetic job 
representing her constituents. 
MI-13 is going to be just fine.

Cynthia Brody

Beverly Hills

continued from page 5

