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