Dictatorships boast unrivaled loyalty of their populations, with 99.99% routinely voting for their dear leader, and dazzle a visiting foreigner with huge rallies that unmistakably express people's great love for him.

No matter what he does, the public, for the sake of its own safety, always approves. Hence, such government can do what it pleases. Whatever the well-suppressed private grumbles, in public, the public happily agrees.

The irrational plays a huge, and utterly detrimental, part in politics.

Not in the West. Here, politicians have to compete, selling their vision of proper state policy to the electorate via free and contentious debate, with the public awarding helm of state to those with superior political vision and a more advantageous policy.

This seems an ironclad way to make the government dependant on the electorate, and have it follow people's will. And it is - but only when citizens' votes are based on rational evaluation of candidates' policy proposals.

Yet, not infrequently, electoral decisions are based on irrelevant, if not irrational, criteria - charm, smile, voice, rhetoric, looks - in brief, on "charisma." But why would a ruler thus elected strive to incorporate the public's wishes into his policies? If people will vote for him anyway, as long as he retains his captivating ways, why bother?

That the irrational plays a huge, and utterly detrimental, part in politics is no secret. More than three centuries ago the great English poet John Milton observed that "if men within themselves would be governed by reason, and not generally give up their understanding to a double tyranny of custom from without, and blind affections within, they would discern better, what it is to favor and uphold the Tyrant of a Nation."

Closer to home, relations between American Jews and President Barack Obama are the prime modern example of "custom and blind affections" getting the better of "reason."

The "custom" of American Jews to overwhelmingly vote Democratic started in 1920s, when Jews were attracted by the genuine warmth of the immensely popular four-time New York governor Al Smith. At the time, this was by no means an irrational decision, since Jews saw "progressive" causes as helpful in overcoming the legacy of latent and lingering anti-Semitism, which manifested itself in hiring discrimination and quotas in Ivy League schools. But once equality was achieved, some two generations ago, Jewish allegiance to the Democrats slid into mere "custom;" a symptom of inertia.

This would have been all right had the American Jews not a single care in the world. But the safety and well-being of Israel is their responsibility, too. Israel needs America's understanding and support; and, by and large, previous American administrations, both Democratic and Republican, obliged.

Enter Senator Obama, a candidate for the US presidency. A highly charismatic man, he plays fully on the electorate's susceptibility to "blind affections." A Democrat, he is ready to take advantage of predominating "custom." But his position on Israel, as evinced by the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli company he keeps, as well as his previous statements, is highly problematic, causing a clear conflict for the American Jews. What would they do? Would "reason" prevail, causing them to overwhelmingly vote for the proven friend of Israel, Senator John McCain, though he is a Republican, or would "custom and blind affections" take the upper hand and push them to vote for Obama?

Well, we know the answer: nearly four of every five American Jews did the latter. Moreover, we know that suspicions about Obama were well grounded, as he did not moderate his anti-Israel position once in office, despite the overwhelming Jewish support for him.

And why would he? "Custom and blind affections" are still in full effect. Witness their manifestation when he met with the leaders of several major American Jewish organizations: they were non-confrontational, advising him only to change the tone, not the substance, of his Middle East policy. And the coverage from Jewish papers was mainly sycophantic. Why would President Obama worry that his hostility to Israel may cost him Jewish support when reading something like this:

"He met with a group of 16 Jewish leaders representing most points on the Jewish political spectrum.... President Obama's penchant for listening to divergent points of view will serve him well with a Jewish community that may be united on some core issues, such as support for Israel, but which is an exemplar of diversity when it comes to the details."

The paper chose to flatter him in the last paragraph for his "penchant for listening to divergent points of view", while it is obvious to anyone who read the beginning that he prefers to surround himself with "yes" men. He invited merely "leaders representing most points on the Jewish political spectrum," not all; i.e. those who would have been tough on the substance of Obama's policy, not just its style, were simply not invited. But to point that out would have been to criticize a charismatic Democrat - a clear breach of "custom and blind affections."

Or how about the recent op-ed in another paper much revered by the well-educated, middle-class American Jews - the New York Times? Thomas Friedman thus enlightens us on the subject of settlements: "For the last 40 years, a succession of Israeli governments has misled, manipulated or persuaded naive US presidents" into not objecting to settlement activity, which created "a huge moral, security and economic burden for Israel and its friends." The article concludes that, with regards to his stance on settlements, Mr. Obama "has nothing to apologize for policy-wise." Mr. Friedman's bizarre "argument", which ignores facts that are common knowledge everywhere except the White House, could only have been made under the intoxicating influence of "custom and blind affections."

And if those rule, then why need Obama learn about the Middle East conflict, rather than proceeding with the current policy based on utter ignorance of realities? Why change policies? Whether he is pro- or anti-Israel, it is all the same as far as American Jews and their support and votes are concerned.

George H. W. Bush's Secretary of state James Baker is said to have uttered, "F--- the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway." He was clearly a cold, calculating, quid-pro-quo politician, giving nothing without expectation of political support in exchange. Having no hope that he could sway them to vote Republican, he no longer treated the Jews as a constituency. But being taken for granted, Obama style, does not provide leverage either. Obama simply takes the "don't" out of James Baker's assessment, and proceeds just like him.

The crush Jews have on the Democrats started with Al Smith and should end with Barack Obama.

The lesson is simple. As anyone else, Jews should utilize their heads, not hearts, if they want to influence America's policy. The crush Jews have on the Democrats started with Al Smith and should end with Barack Obama. "Reason" - the cold evaluation of each candidate's potential policies, rather than the warm and fuzzy feeling he emits - is what needs to be in the driver's seat as one plans to give a political donation or heads to a voting booth. Be ruled by "custom and blind affections," and the man in the White House will either take you for granted or give up on you.

America has a two-party system, which serves the country rather well and will serve the Jewish community well, too. Competition invariably works to the advantage of a consumer, in politics just as in business. Turn away from your current one-party allegiance and make good use of the competition offered by the two-party system. Use your reason, and don't rely on "custom and blind affections" that are very much prone to let you down, as the case of Barack Obama so dangerously shows.