Foxholes, Enemies, and Allies
"Politics makes for strange bedfellows." This slogan has been around for a long time, probably for about as long as there have been politicians. This observation applies outside of politics.
One of the strangest developments over the last 50 years has been a growing social and political alliance of left-wing Jews and left-wing Gentiles on the one hand, and right-wing Jews and right-wing Gentiles on the other hand. It has to do with common enemies.
The Left-wing alliance was described colorfully by Judge Jonah Goldstein in early 1945. "The Jews have three veltn (worlds): di velt (this world), yene velt (the next world), and Roosevelt." Goldstein was a Republican politician who ran for mayor of New York City. He lost.
Another slogan is now referred to as an old saying. "Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans." It is not a very old saying. It was coined by Milton Himmelfarb, brother of Gertrude Himmelfarb, the neoconservative historian, who was married to Irving Kristol and is the mother of William Kristol. These two families were a neoconservative dynasty.
In contrast are the Orthodox Jews. They have been involved in a conflict with liberal Jews, atheistic Jews, assimilationist Jews, and Reform Jews for two centuries. Even the term "Orthodox Jew" came as a term of derision from liberal Jews in the mid-19th century. The term was accepted by the great theological leader of Orthodox Judaism, S. R. Hirsch.
When I wrote my 17-volume commentary on the economics of the Pentateuch, I repeatedly used the five-volume commentary by Rabbi Hirsch. He had sensible things to say about the meaning of the texts. Yet when I went to almost all other Protestant commentaries on these texts, I found an amazing ignorance of both the background and implication of these texts. Why should I be closer in my interpretations to those set forth by Rabbi Hirsch? Because he took the texts seriously. He also believed they remain applicable in modern times.
In the era of the Reformation, Protestants and Jews, meaning Orthodox Jews, had almost nothing to do with each other. Jews lived in urban ghettos: enclaves where Talmudic law was enforced by Rabbis. The main exception to this was Oliver Cromwell, who in the 1640s invited Jews to come to England. He was not doing this in order to get loans. His theology was committed to the idea that Jews have a legitimate place in modern life. He saw Jews as important in Christian eschatology. So did the Puritans in general. So did many of the Presbyterian Scottish theologians. There is even a section in the Scottish churches' Larger Catechism that says that Christians should pray for the conversion of Jews (Answer 191). No other ethnic or religious group is singled out by the catechism.
I suppose the best example I know of this somewhat strange alliance is in the classic Gary Cooper movie, Sergeant York. One of the characters was from New York City, obviously Jewish, who was a friend of York's. They fought the same Germans. One of the script writers was Abem Finkel, who does not sound Puerto Rican. The character was played by George Tobias, a Jewish character actor from New York City.
Corporal York killed 28 Germans and captured 132 more. Eight men took them in. For this, he got the Congressional Medal of Honor.
So, if you were a Jewish lawyer from New York City, and the German attack had begun, and there were two foxholes to jump into, with York in one of them and a guy named Schwartz in the other, which foxhole would you jump into?
Here was the question: Who can shoot the best? That would determine your choice of foxholes.
Ever since the mid-1870s, Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians have faced the same enemy: liberal humanists. Jews have had to face higher critics of the Old Testament, who called the texts into question. The Jews who taught this got their training in universities from Gentiles, which is where liberal Protestants were trained also. The methodologies of the critics are the same, and the resistance tactics of the conservatives are the same.
Back in 1988, I spoke at a large gathering of charismatics in Jamaica. There were about 1200 people in the audience. Some of them were Roman Catholic nuns. I regarded this as remarkable. I made a point in my speech that Protestants and Catholics had been at war with each other ever since the 16th century, but after Vatican II, both camps find that they are suffering from what looks like terminal cancer. The two conservative camps were doing their best to deal with the two liberal camps, which constituted the cancer. What I said about Roman Catholics has been true of Christians in general and Jews in general. That is because there are no Christians in general, and there are no Jews in general. There are people espousing rival theologies inside each of the camps. Both sides refer to themselves generically. But, confessionally speaking, these are rival religions. (The clearest statement of this was written by J. Gresham [GRESSum] Machin [MAYchin] and published in 1923: Christianity and Liberalism.)
In the old days, Jews were not to rely publicly on insights of Gentiles. But today, because Orthodox Jews face the same confessional enemies inside their camp as conservative Christians face inside their camp, Orthodox Jews can be found offering footnotes to Gentile commentators who score direct hits on liberal Christians. A direct hit on a liberal Christian higher critic constitutes a direct hit on a liberal Jewish higher critic. Each side is looking for ammo. Neither side has a monopoly on ammo. But because there are numerically more conservative Christians in the battlefield than Orthodox Jews, we find that Orthodox Jews will sometimes accept ammo deliveries from conservative Gentiles.
I remember a situation in the mid-1980s when a charismatic candidate for Congress was running in the district that liberal Jew Henry Waxman had won every two years since 1974 (and has won ever since). An Orthodox Rabbi said that his congregation was considering voting for the charismatic, who was socially conservative. This would have been unthinkable a century ago. But, then again, Henry Waxman would have been unthinkable a century ago.
This is why politics makes for strange bedfellows. When you are in a foxhole, and the enemy troops are coming over the ridge, the main thing you want to know about the guy next to you is how well he can shoot. And if you are not a very good shot, you are going to have to be the person that keeps running to the back of the lines to get more ammunition, and then running back to the foxhole.
Then there is a complication of the larger battle, which is a battle between the welfare state and the free market. Here, with the main exception of Israel Kirzner, the Jews involved in the fight have either been agnostics or atheists. The classic examples are Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, but I would also add Milton Friedman and other Chicago School Jews in certain areas. I have found repeatedly in my own work that I have footnoted agnostic and atheistic Jews, but not with respect to their three main (rival) concepts of permanent law. I cite their conclusions, and in the case of Rothbard, he sometimes cited mine.
My point is, the battlefield is constantly shifting. It is not the same enemy forces that are coming over the ridge in every battlefield. Depending on which enemy forces are coming over the ridge, you pick your foxhole.