A response and a reply
My previous column, “The Privilege of Responsibility,” was, in part, a reaction to an article, “A Mitzvah Like Maror,” by Rabbis Michael J. Broyde and Gidon G. Rothstein. This article by two “smart, knowledgeable people whom I respect,” as I said then and still believe, concerned how Trump-supporting members of the Orthodox community should view and couch their support. I had a different take.
Rabbis Broyde and Rothstein continued our discussion and disagreement in a written response to my column, which began “Dear Joseph” and ended “With respect, Michael & Gidon.” It appears immediately below. My reply follows.
•
Get The Jewish Standard Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up
We read with interest your comments on our op-ed as part of your recent blog post, “The Privilege of Responsibility,” and have two points in response. You took us to task for failing to lead, because we conceded that “we each do our own math…and…do not write here to tell you the ‘correct’ calculus [on whether to vote for former President Trump or Vice President Harris].”
In your view, as teachers, it was our responsibility to “emphasize that Trump is a systemic threat to America who cannot be trusted again with power.” Rather than urging readers to see the bitterness in voting for Trump even if they think it a mitzvah, you thought we were obligated to compare supporting Trump to “eating a cheeseburger, even worse than eating on Yom Kippur.”
We disagree with you on one point and wish to suggest you missed another.
First, it really does not matter if it is maror or a cheeseburger — we all agree that we would eat maror or a cheeseburger if it saves lives in Israel. You completely choose not to confront the core argument of Trump’s Orthodox Jewish supporters, which is that they fear that Harris will betray Israel and deeply harm the Jewish state. By refusing to confront the argument — Harris is a danger to 10 million Jews — you miss the issue. Maybe you do not feel that way (and maybe we do not), but that is the claim you need to address, if you want to be relevant to the people you wanted us to convince. What say you on this point?
In other words, even if we both agreed with you fully and thought Harris posed no danger to Israel, we still would not have written the article you wanted, because that article would only have preached to the choir, pleased those who already agree. Spitting in the wind is not leadership, it’s giving some segment of the community the satisfaction of seeing what they think in print, so they can say “as so and so just said…” We sought to make a point: Even if you support Trump because of the Israel issue, it needs to be with sadness that we have this terrible choice in front of us — two flawed candidates.
That point, which we confess we thought of as a bit of an act of leadership, we needed to make in a way the audience would have engaged.
What would you say to someone who believes Harris is a greater danger to Israel (and hence Judaism) than Trump is to U.S. democracy? We’re not saying that’s true (or false), we’re saying, how do you speak to such people? We were saying they may decide they had to vote for Trump, to avoid the greater danger, but should feel the pain involved. (Surely, the specific analogy, maror or cheeseburger, does not matter.)
Finally, we recognize healthy disagreement, even between the two of us, on how to evaluate Trump’s character, how to evaluate the level of threat to Israel posed by a Harris presidency, and more. We are far apart on many issues and yet write op-eds together. We do this because we see a value in addressing areas where we do agree, to present such middle points to the public. You should try it — find someone who is a friend who sees the world differently and write jointly.
Finding ways to agree on some points, we think, is itself generally a more valuable model than being completely right but all alone. Over many years, the Jewish world and the world in general has segregated into innumerable small soap boxes of true believers. If more of those people came together to find shared common ground (as used to be true of the United States Congress), we would all be better off.
So here’s our challenge to you: what do you have to say that a true believer on the “other side” might not yet have known but could accept? Saying that would be true leadership.
•
Thank you, Michael and Gidon, for giving me the opportunity to grapple with your thought-provoking analysis and questions. First, though, I’ll note that I appreciate the “sweet and nice” tone (your words) of your response. That is how I read it, and I trust you’ll read my words likewise. But as you also noted, our approaches are not the same. As to that, we agree.
I begin with what you call the “core argument” about Israel — what would I say to people who believe Harris is a great danger to Israel, Jews, and Judaism? I’d first point to the record of Harris’s strongly supportive statements and policies regarding Israel. Take her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention — “I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival” — or her 2023 Yom HaAtzma’ut speech. Or the fact that a Palestinian was not given a speaking spot at the DNC. Or, probably the most critical fact, that the administration in which she plays a major role has, through the provision of immensely essential arms, diplomatic backing and votes, and anti-missile equipment and military support, significantly assisted Israel in its post-10/7 battles.
It’s neither fair nor truthful to say that those who made this possible are, or will be, a “danger to 10 million Jews.”
Of course, no one has to agree with Harris on all issues relating to Israel. Disagreement is surely acceptable about matters like a two-state solution, the wisdom of withdrawing from the JCPOA, or the empathy she shows to the civilians killed in Gaza and the destruction of their homes, schools, and hospitals. (Note: It is also acceptable to agree, as I and many Israelis and other American Orthodox Jews do.) Thus, while not agreeing with Harris on these types of matters is understandable, saying those positions make her a danger to Israel is baseless, as is conflating American disagreement with a particular position of the current Israeli administration with being a danger to Israel.
In normal times, such types of disagreements would be a legitimate reason to vote for one candidate rather than another. But not this year. As I discuss in detail below, this isn’t a normal election, where some support the Democrat, others the Republican, and all, without fear for the future, let the chips fall where they may. This year, Israeli policy differences with Harris are not a sufficient reason to vote for Trump, because a demagogic, truth-denying, anti-democratic, often incoherent narcissist like Trump can never be trusted with Israel’s or America’s security. I wouldn’t trust him to sit at a Shabbat meal with my grandchildren; how can I possibly trust him with something equally precious, such as Israel’s and America’s future?
And that’s what I think you missed. Just like, as I discuss below, I would never have spoken about any candidate in other presidential elections the way I do about Trump, your job, and that of other leaders of the community that the three of us all cherish, is different this year. It’s not only to convince; if you choose to participate in political discussions as rabbis, you must boldly speak the truth to the members of our community, whether or not they will listen.
And here I turn again to Rabbi Lamm’s sermon (“If I Were a Prophet”), which I quoted in my column. He describes two models of leadership — the navi (prophet) and the kohen (priest) — and explains how their tasks differ. The former is “the angry critic” who “smashe[s] the Tablets to bits,” and raises his voice in harsh criticism or indignant protest. The latter is “the tolerant teacher” who “picks up the broken pieces,” and encourages, inspires, and loves.
In Election 2024 we need leaders who wrap themselves in the mantle of the prophet and speak truth bluntly, even if the multitudes don’t listen. This isn’t “spitting in the wind”; it’s doing what Jerimiah, Ezekiel, and Amos did. There will be a time, I pray, for the kohen and his sweet and gentle teaching. But that time is not now.
I understand, of course, that most robust Trump-supporting Orthodox Jews most probably won’t listen to me or you if or when we do that. But we’re not only preaching to the choir or criticizing the tone-deaf. We’re also speaking to those who quietly read our articles and haven’t yet made up their minds. We need to make them understand that they must express their Jewish and American values on November 5 by voting to defeat the “morally repugnant” candidate decisively.
I say all this because of my foundational belief that Donald Trump is, to use a term from my legal days, sui generis — the only one of his kind. And I mean that in the most uncomplimentary way. He has broken the paradigm of what a presidential candidate should be; of what a role model can be; of what a leader must be. And if you don’t believe me, listen to those he appointed to high office in his administration; a secretary of state, two secretaries of defense, an attorney general, several chiefs of staff and national security advisers, his vice president, and numerous other officials and advisers who worked closely with him all say he cannot be trusted again with the reins of power. This is unprecedented.
It is likewise unprecedented for me to think this way about a presidential candidate. Never in the first 13 presidential elections in which I voted (this is my 15th) did I think that our democracy was at stake; that our character as a country, its leadership of the free world, and compassion, humanity, and simple decency were at stake. But in 2024, not only does one candidate seek to undermine everything my American Orthodox Jewish community should value, but he is actually being supported by many members of that community.
Why do I see serious danger in his candidacy? Perhaps foremost is his assault on democracy, beginning with his breach of our more than 220-year tradition of peaceful transfers of power. And it continues; just the other day he called the non-peaceful insurrection that he instigated to stop an essential element of that transfer a “day of love.” He also admires and praises despots, despises leaders of democracies, and undermined our relationships with their countries; he wants to give Putin a victory in Ukraine and insults African countries with vulgarities; he disdains the rule of law, denigrates judges, and belittles juries; he has called for the “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution” in certain cases; and said he will be a dictator on day one of a new term (only on day one, he clarified, as if that makes it okay). And he resurrected a classic McCarthy trope by calling Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi “enemies from within” while suggesting that the army and National Guard be called out on election day to deal with such “enemies.”
This latter suggestion is just one more example of how his rhetoric is filled with violence. He proposes “one really violent day” in which police officers could get “extraordinarily rough” with impunity, and promises mass deportations that would be “a bloody story.” He talks about weaponizing the Justice Department, jailing political opponents, and purging the government of non-loyalists.
I won’t detail all his nasty, childish insults, aimed at all who disagree with him, or his increasingly incomprehensible and boorish rallies. However, his incessant misogynistic insults of women — “horseface,” “crazy,” “low-life,” “wacky,” “low IQ,” “bleeding badly from a face-lift,” “dumb,” “demented,” “filthy, dirty, disgusting,” and on and on — need be noted because they have real-life consequences, like his sexual assault, in a manner equivalent to rape, that a jury found he committed.
The response by many of Trump’s supporters to this litany of serious flaws (and there are many more) is that it’s just Trump being Trump. That, however, makes the problem worse, not better because the Trump he is being is, in the words of no less than a Wall Street Journal op-ed, a “morally repugnant man” who uses “vile language” and “disgusting[ly] promotes falsehoods;” it is a Trump without values, decency, fairness, compassion, appreciation of truth and democracy, and more. Moral Americans never voted for repugnant candidates. It’s wrong to start now. And that goes double for members of a Torah community.
Two smaller points in reply to your response. My argument with your analogy was not to make a culinary distinction between maror and a cheeseburger; it was to differentiate between mitzvah and aveirah (sin). Both dishes may taste bitter to the palate of an observant Jew, but one is a good deed and the other an offense. It was that distinction that I was trying to highlight — that is, voting for Trump cannot be a mitzvah (good deed) by any definition of that term — though, obviously, I wasn’t clear enough.
And finally, I appreciate your suggestion that I try to find someone who sees the world differently and write jointly with that person. I actually once tried to do that with a highly respected community leader whom I consider both my teacher and friend, when we publicly disagreed about an important issue. Sadly, he declined my invitation.
Nonetheless, I try to do something similar by often engaging with readers who explain to me in polite, though often strong, emails just how very wrong I am. (And every once in a [hopefully] rare while, they may be right.) Indeed, shortly before I received your response I had such an exchange with a dear, decades-long friend in which we hashed out our disagreement while still remaining, at the end of that series of emails, close friends who, not for the last time I’m sure, don’t see eye to eye.
That, I hope, is what I’m doing here. And, I trust, the result will be the same.
Joseph C. Kaplan, a retired lawyer, longtime Teaneck resident, and regular columnist for the Jewish Standard and the New Jersey Jewish News, is the author of “A Passionate Writing Life: From ‘In my Opinion’ to ‘I’ve Been Thinking’” (available at Teaneck’s Judaica House). He and his wife, Sharon, have been blessed with four wonderful daughters and five delicious grandchildren.
comments