The late member of Congress Morris Udall (D-Ariz.) often noted that “Everything that needs to be said has been said, but not everyone has the chance to say it.”
Toward that end, most sentient and opiniated American Jews (i.e. almost all of us) have expressed their opinions on New York Times columnist Bret Stephens’ provocative State of World Jewry Address earlier this month. As most of the world knows, Stephens argued that the Jewish community should stop funding the fight against antisemitism — which he dismissed as a “mostly wasted effort” — to instead invest more heavily in Jewish education, day schools, and other tools for strengthening Jewish identity and cultural confidence.
As antisemitism continues to flourish in this political and cultural post-Oct. 7, 2023 environment, Stephens raises critically important questions about how Jews navigate this increasingly hostile landscape. Most of us, who have long assumed that the battle against anti-Jewish hate had been largely fought and won by our parents and grandparents, have struggled to adjust to this new reality. So it shouldn’t be surprising that our longtime network of community and advocacy organizations have not yet figured out a new path forward either.
Stephens, one of this generation’s most thoughtful and insightful political commentators, deserves immense credit for taking on such an essential topic even while he would attract strong criticism for raising these questions. His speech was courageous, astute and necessary. It was also wrong.
Many of us have argued that Stephens, in pointing out some of the deficiencies of our community’s outdated and misdirected approach to combatting antisemitism, seems to have established a false choice. We don’t have the luxury of opting for either a defensive plan for fighting anti-Jewish hatred or a pro-active strategy for building up our own institutions and pride. We have to do both. Stephens is correct that we must devote more time and effort to rebuilding our own internal belief structure. That’s what will fuel us when we need something with which to defend ourselves when the haters attack. But abandoning the fight against the barbarians at the gate will make us less safe, not more.
When the original concept for achieving a particular goal is unsuccessful, the response should be to develop a more effective alternative. The fact that crimes are still committed or that air and water pollution still exist does not mean we abandon our efforts to achieve public safety and environmental protection. If one of our children does poorly on a test, we do not withdraw them from school. In each of these cases, we revise our strategy and we work twice as hard to achieve success. The same principle should apply to the protection of our people, our heritage and our faith.
Stephens’ attempts to shake us out of our complacency misses another fundamental point, one that most political strategists are taught early in our careers. We learn that when we criticize the opposing candidate, it is not to convince our foes’ loyalists to switch sides. The reason for such aggression is to inspire our own followers by showing them that we are willing to fight for our cause and that they should be willing to do the same.
The other tactical benefit that comes from pushing back against the opposition is to demonstrate to those who are undecided that our agenda should be more appealing to them than the alternative. Again, we don’t disparage our adversaries to get them to change their minds. They are merely a prop we use to direct our message to the swing voters who are the real targets of our persuasive efforts.
In other words, even the most effective strategies for fighting antisemitism are not designed to stop antisemites. Rather, our goal is to keep them from increasing their ranks, to isolate them from mainstream political and cultural discourse and to help those who have not yet devoted much thought to these questions to decide that hating another human because of their religion is beneath them.
And if we remember that these are the reasons we continue to battle antisemitism, that fight becomes much more winnable.
Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.
