Volume 67, Issue 4

A Democrat Torn by War and Israel
by Alexander Chester

Like most American Jews, I consider myself to be socially liberal, and I have generally supported the Democratic Party. Also like most American Jews, Israel is of extreme importance to me, and when she is more prominent in the news, it is reflected in my voting tendency. The attacks last September 11th and the resulting “war on terror” have had a radical effect on the political leanings of most Americans in terms of foreign affairs – causing a shift to the right that is very similar to what has taken place in Israel since the beginning of the Intifada.

But there is a significant difference between America and Israel. In America, security and war are very important issues, and a percentage of the electorate votes based on these issues alone. But in Israel, security and terror and war are virtually the only issues. (To see how much attention voters have paid to the economy or education, look how those two fields have done since the Intifada started.) Most voters in Israel vote for the party that stands the best chance (in their opinion) of enhancing security for the people of Israel. Thus they often ignore social and economic concerns.

In America this has not been the case. That is why it was always possible for American Jews to vote for Democrats even though Republicans hold Israel closer to their hearts.

But this has changed in the last year-and-a-half. I remember that five years ago I suspected Colin Powell to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a closet conservative masquerading as a centrist to court the black vote. Today he’s not conservative enough. Hawks such as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz are my new heroes. I heard conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer speak two weeks ago, and he challenged all the liberal Jews in the room to overlook anti-conservative prejudices and support the party that supports the strongest Israel.

Entering the 2002 elections I am torn. The Democrats in Congress have noticed this, and many of them have shifted to the right as well. In the recent vote to support military action against Iraq, 29 out of 50 Senate Democrats voted with President George Bush and said yes. After months of complaining about “unilateralism,” even Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle gave in.

As The Wall Street Journal pointed out, every Democrat (but one) running in a close contest supported Bush. The candidates seem to be reading public consensus. This even included Tom Harkin from Iowa, who voted against the Gulf War in 1991. The lone exception was Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Interestingly, after that vote Wellstone pulled slightly ahead in polls, indicating once again that Minnesota is the most liberal and unpredictable state in the nation. All of this, of course, is now a moot point, after Wellstone’s tragic death last week.

Being from Minnesota places me in a tough situation. Before Wellstone’s death, I wasn’t sure who to vote for. On social issues and the economy, I strongly support Democrats. I feel that Bush’s fiscal plan is irresponsible and ignores the needs of most of the country. But I am enraptured by Bush’s love for Israel, and I feel that deposing Saddam is necessary and should be done as soon as possible.

So how should I vote? Both of my Senators voted against Bush. Should I really stay loyal to them because of their views on abortion and campaign-finance reform? These issues might be nice for political debate, but they aren’t the ones that keep me up at night.

Making my decision more difficult is the fact that Wellstone’s opponent, Republican Norm Coleman, is a politician devoted to special interests. Nevertheless, my parents told me they were going to support Coleman, because he is loyal to the President when it comes to the Middle East.

The current makeup of the Senate includes a Democratic majority of one. If Norm Coleman wins and the Republicans regain control of the Senate, where will that leave me? Votes on Israel will still pass, they always do; instead of it being 81-19 it might be 82-18. The same seems true with regards to Iraq. As long as many Democrats continue to vote in a bi-partisan fashion, the decisions I support will continue to be passed with or without Paul Wellstone. But giving away control of the Senate is a risky endeavor.

Could I support Wellstone just because he’s a Democrat, even though I find his views on the most important issues to be troubling? But how can I risk supporting Coleman when the only issues on which we’re in agreement will likely pass anyway. The only functional difference with Coleman in power will be that the Republicans have taken over the Senate, which leaves the country in a dangerous predicament.

I had to send in an absentee ballot last week, and I couldn’t make up my mind. The conclusion I made was startling and illogical. The ideal situation for me would be to know that Wellstone could lose but the Democrats could make up a couple extra seats. And so this is what I was hoping would be the result of the 2002 election. But how did I vote? I voted for Wellstone. Just in case the Democrats would not pick up a seat anywhere else, I could not let myself be responsible for their loss of Senatorial control.

It may seem foolish to vote for a candidate you would rather see lose. Americans who vote for fringe-party candidates do it all the time, and I have never understood their willingness to “waste a vote.” But that is in effect what I did. I maintained my loyalties to the Democratic Party, which I believe is most concerned for the American people. But at the same time I sincerely hoped that Mr. Wellstone would lose his campaign for reelection, so that an asinine side-character whose views were often too radical to be in touch with most Americans, would be replaced by someone willing to see the danger of ignoring Iraq and other Arab countries in their continuous threats to world stability.

However, as I said above, this is all moot with the passing of Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was eventually replaced on the Democratic ticket with ex-Vice President and Presidential candidate Walter Mondale, the elder statesmen of Minnesota politicians. Many Minnesotan Jews whom I spoke to, including my parents, now informed me that they would vote for Mondale. Frankly, their primary concern about Wellstone wasn’t that he was liberal, but that he was too liberal. Instead, the choice is now Mondale, a Minnesotan hero, or Coleman, a carpet-bagging New Yorker too conservative for comfort. So the dichotomy that existed has shrunk, and Coleman has fallen further behind in the polls.

Whatever ended up happening to my vote for Wellstone? The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that anyone with an absentee ballot could write-in Walter Mondale, or whoever would eventually become the Democratic candidate, but that those who had already sent in their ballots, like me, would be out of luck unless they came to their polling station and picked up a supplementary ballot. But no new ballots would be mailed out to those who had already voted.

But an act of divine providence struck, because the state of Minnesota accidentally had mailed me two ballots before any of this became an issue, and I had, for unknown reasons, failed to throw away the second one like I had been ordered to do by the authorities. So in the end, I still had another ballot sitting in my desk, and I discovered that if one sends in multiple absentee ballots, all but the one with the most recent postdate are discarded. Hence, I was able to vote again, this time writing in Walter Mondale, and this time I am able to vote for a candidate I actually hope does win his election.

Alexander Chester is a Yeshiva College sophomore. ¨

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.