By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO— Readers sent in 12 thoughtful letters
in response to the
column I wrote about why Nancy and I have switched our registrations from
the Democratic party to being "independents" which California calls
"decline to state." I want to thank all of the letter writers
for sharing their views and propose here to deal with some of the main themes
raised by those who thought our actions were misguided—and those were 9 out
of the 12.
I think it fair to say that these nine letters fell into several categories.
One line of thought was that U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman's steadfast
support for the war in Iraq earned him his defeat in Connecticut's primary
election. Another was that it's too bad about old Joe, but it wasn't the
Democratic party, per se, which sought to end his career, it was the
voters. A third line of reasoning went that whereas our complaints about both
Lieberman and the actions of Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein
concerning the Mount Soledad Cross were on the money, our interests
nevertheless still lie squarely within the Democratic party.
With deep respect for all these viewpoints, let me proceed to address them
one-by-one. First, that Lieberman deserved to be dumped because he has
supported the Iraqi War. I agree that the Iraqi War has become a morass.
Thus far, however, I have not heard a consensus position from the Democratic
party about what to do about it. Withdraw now? What would be the
consequences? Set a time limit for withdrawal? Again, what would be the
likely results?
Should we try to figure out some way to turn the fighting over to the Iraqis
themselves? I remember the "Vietnamization" of the War in
Vietnam in 1975. The U.S-supported South Vietnamese regime promptly
collapsed. In that case, the people whom Americans had miscast as global
enemies were relatively benign. Are we prepared to say the same thing
about the Iranian-backed Islamic Fundamentalists who are likely to come to
power in Iraq?
I don't agree that it is enough for the Democrats to criticize President
Bush's administration on the conduct of the war and to hope to ride the wave
of discontent into the elections without suggesting any solutions. I
believe whatever America does in Iraq has very serious ramifications. I trust
that Senator Lieberman—if presented with alternatives that offer outcomes
more beneficial in the long run than our present course—would cast his vote
accordingly. I also believe that because he was "steadfast" on the
war, that should Lieberman be persuaded to vote for a new approach, his
"conversion" will have tremendous impact on American political
opinion. Unlike other critics of the war, he would be seen as one who
had national, rather than partisan, interests uppermost in his mind. If
people really want to end the war, they ought to keep a fair-minded man with
such gravitas around.
So, with due respect, I continue to disagree with those who felt that
Lieberman deserved his defeat. The second argument was that we should
blame the voters but not the party for Lieberman's defeat. The argument
was made that plenty of important Democratic party figures campaigned for
Lieberman in the primary, but now the voters have spoken.
There were times in American history when political parties were run by party
"bosses" like Tweed, Pendergast and Daley, but that long colorful
era thankfully is in the past. Today, the voters are the
party. The voters make the decisions. Functionaries like
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean are merely competing with such other
voices as those of media commentators, celebrities, academic personages,
and politicians for the ears of the voters.
Someone might have argued that the voters of Connecticut are a breed apart,
and that we ought not to have judged California Democrats by the actions of
those in Connecticut. But, of course, the Lieberman defeat was only one
component leading to our decision to quit the Democratic party. The
other was the active support our two Democratic U.S. Senators from California
gave to the forces that want to make the Christian Cross not only a symbol of
religion but also the symbol of American Patriotism.
We can blame Senators Boxer and Feinstein for placing upon the U.S.
Senate's "consent calendar" the bill to
"nationalize" Mt. Soledad. I am heartened that none of the
letter writers thought that these two U.S. senators were correct in this
course of action. This may have been because the letter writers recognized the
danger for non-Christians when patriotism as a matter of public policy is
equated with Christianity. That's what a "war memorial" does
when its major feature, the one that can be seen for miles, is the Cross.
The other day, I saw a fundraising invitation for U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray
(R-San Diego) showing him, fellow Reps. Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa, along
with some of the local Mount Soledad Cross supporters, smiling with
satisfaction as President Bush signed the bill nationalizing the Cross in
order to move the "Separation of Church and State" controversy into
the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Senators Boxer and Feinstein may try to become Republican look-alikes to
placate assumed Christian majorities on this issue, but it's pretty clear as
far as the GOP is concerned, they're not even in the picture. It gives
me very small satisfaction that for their ill-considered action our two Jewish
senators will receive none of the "credit," and all of the blame.
Now, to move onto those letters which argued that we made a tactical error,
even if we are right on the separate issues of the Cross and Lieberman's
defeat. One letter writer feared that if we, as Jews, base our votes on what
we perceive as being in the best interest of the Jews, we open ourselves up to
the old canard of dual loyalty.
We know that there are many voters who look at the world through the lenses of
their particular interests—for example, how candidates stand on such issues
as the environment, or abortion, or gay rights, or immigration, or civil
rights—and no one suggests that there is anything un-American in their
having such a preoccupation. But if Nancy and I look at the world
through Jewish lenses, the writer fears that somehow we may be perceived as
disloyal.
To the contrary, because I am an American, because the idea of American
democracy is to advocate one's viewpoint peacefully in the marketplace
of ideas, I not only have the right, it seems to me I even have the duty, to
speak up in behalf of Jews as well as other religious minorities in America.
Some writers misinterpreted our decision to become independents (with a small
"i") with becoming members of some third party. In their view,
anytime someone joins a third party, it simply subtracts potential votes from
the two "real" parties. That's a debatable point, but not
relevant to the course of action Nancy and I have taken. As small-i
"independents," we're not committing ourselves to any party.
Instead, we'll decide in November among the various candidates offered on the
ballot, and choose those whose views come closest to ours. In other words,
we'll do exactly what voters who are registered in either of the two major
parties do: vote not for the party, but for the person.
Another writer suggested that if we failed to make known our viewpoint about
the Cross, we have only ourselves to blame. Although, in fact, I had written
columns about the Cross issue on numerous occasions, I let it go at
that. I didn't write letters, make phone calls, buttonhole the
politicians, go to their offices and lobby them, nor take any of those other
actions a political activist is supposed to take. So mea culpa.
(I, in turn, have blamed the official San Diego Jewish community for
consciously remaining unengaged on this issue in the belief that atheist
Philip Paulson and his lawyer not only could win on this issue but would take
the unwelcome heat.)
Finally, let me address the argument that by opting out of the Democratic
primaries, we are potentially turning the party over to those whose interests
are adverse to ours. This line of reasoning concludes that it is better
to stay in there and advocate.
I believe, to the contrary, that it is better for some Jews, not all, to say,
"we're tired of being taken for granted. We won't be co-opted
anymore. If you really want our votes, you will have to take
positions that recognize that America is a pluralistic country, to which all
religions, not just Christianity, have contributed. Although Christians
are in the majority in this country, please don't court them at our expense.
Find ways to court us all. Unite us, don't divide us!"
There are interesting mathematics to elections that go something like
this. The assumption is that neither party has enough loyal voters to
win elections without also appealing to people who are either unaffiliated
(those small-i independents) or are willing to cross over from the ranks of
the other party. Accordingly, in general elections, Republican
candidates tend to move to the left, while Democratic candidates tend to move
to the right in the hopes of capturing those voters presumed to be in the
middle.
What Nancy and I are suggesting is that a substantial number of Jews should
consider repositioning themselves so as to be perceived as voters in that
general election middle ground. We need to be the people for whose votes
the general election candidates battle. If the bulk of us remain
"good, loyal Democrats," we end up being taken for granted. Once the
primaries are over, our interests, our concerns, get sacrificed as candidates
woo the middle ground voters.
Therefore it behooves us, as a politically aware people, for some Jews to
advocate in the Democratic party. It is wise if others advocate within
the Republican party. And, more and more, there must be still others who
will tell both parties: "We don't want you to love us Jews only during
the honeymoon of the primaries. We want to be able to count on you as
full marriage partners through the general elections and into the old
age of your public service."