There can be no doubt about the proliferation of leftist antisemitism and its acceptance by the Democratic Party establishment. Though there are plenty of antisemites on the right, Republicans have not (yet) yielded control of their party to extremists or used noxious stereotypes and conspiracy theories as templates to shape their Israel policy and relationships with Jews, as the Democrats seem to have done.
And unlike the Democrats, the Republican Party has no “Squad" spewing anti-Jewish rhetoric and has not legitimized conservative counterparts to the growing number of endorsed progressives with antisemitic baggage, like New York socialist mayor Zohran Mamdani and Senatorial candidate Graham Platner (who sported a Nazi tattoo for years, posted online praise for Hamas’s military tactics, and falsely accused Israel of genocide in Gaza).
So why are liberal Jews only now bemoaning their political disaffection?
The descent into racist antisemitism has been going on for decades and has come to characterize the face of a party that portrays itself as caring and tolerant, though its warm self-image is steeped in ironic revisionism. In point of fact, the Democrats originally supported slavery, segregation, and voter suppression, only to realign as the party of social conscience in the 1960s - a few years after their Congressional southern block had attempted to undermine the Civil Rights Act of 1957, signed into law by President Eisenhower.
It could be that, just as water always finds its lowest level, the party is simply returning to its darker past.
Considering that progressives have been on an antisemitic trajectory for decades, the question is why liberal Jews are only now feeling politically adrift and how they could have deluded themselves for so long while supporting progressive candidates and causes with increasingly evident anti-Jewish biases. A good time for reflection would have been when the Obama and Biden administrations were welcoming a parade of anti-Israel ideologues and activists to the table (including BDS advocates) as guests, staffers, or appointees.
In truth, they should have recognized their party’s moral ambiguity when the president they so passionately stumped for in 2008 - Barack Obama - ignored the antisemitism within his progressive base. If they missed that, they should have seen it in his continual failure to acknowledge Islamist Jew-hatred; or his disrespectful treatment of PM Netanyahu during a state visit to Washington; or his administration's penchant for framing antisemitic incidents as pretexts to pontificate about the scourge of so-called "Islamophobia," which statistically has never been a problem in the US.
But the trend goes back even further. Indeed, liberals should have seen the signs in 1991 after the deadly anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights, which were fueled by antisemitic rhetoric from within a minority community inflamed by outside progressive activists. And they should have seen it during Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential run, when he referred to New York derisively as “Hymietown" but continued to engender liberal support after a rote apology.
Is it Stockholm Syndrome that causes so many Jews to identify with progressives who hate Israel and normalize antisemitism, or is it something more elemental? Could it be pathology, ignorance, or self-loathing that stimulates the reflex to perpetuate the twin platitudes (both false) that Jewishness is synonymous with liberalism and affiliating Democratic is somehow a Jewish obligation?
Self-hatred is certainly a factor for many, but there may be a greater correlation with the decline in Jewish literacy; for never has such a large swath of our people been so ignorant about their religion, culture, history, and values. It was not uncommon through the ages for fringe elements of Jewish society to identify with their aggressors, from Jewish Hellenists during Second Temple times; to medieval apostates who urged the Catholic Church to burn the Talmud; to communists who enthusiastically implemented Soviet anti-Jewish policies; to kapos who collaborated with Nazis in the concentration camps; to Jewish “messianics" who betray their spiritual heritage by evangelizing other Jews.
Though such historical treachery was never the communal norm, declining Jewish literacy outside the Orthodox world can lead to similar outcomes, particularly when the non-Orthodox movements and liberal establishment imbue progressive ideology with faux spirituality and conflate it with Jewish identity.
Rather than teach substantive Torah, Halakha (Jewish law), or wisdom literature, they often engage in political indoctrination from the pulpit regarding highly partisan issues, e.g., unrestricted abortion and transgender surgery, for which there is no support in Jewish law. Indeed, there is nothing innately “Jewish" about many of the hot-button issues they claim reflect Jewish values.
Attempts to redefine Jewishness in secular terms began during the Haskalah (Enlightenment) and in the religious sphere were reflected by the early Reform movement’s formulation of a deracinated identity inconsistent with classical Jewish thought and practice.
Jewish scripture and tradition always assumed a distinct people with unique obligations flowing from a divine covenant handed down through ancestral heritage. But the early reformers rejected Jewish peoplehood, identified themselves as Europeans of “the Mosaic persuasion" to suggest common roots with gentile host societies, and reconceived Judaism’s mission in terms reflecting progressive social ideals.
Reform leaders and congregants today elevate “social action" over traditional observance, holding that liberal politics represents the fulfillment of the Jews’ spiritual mission. Ironically, Reform rabbinical activists engage in little that can be called spiritual but instead promote secular causes and agendas. Today’s Conservative movement also considers progressive social action an essential imperative - one that provides a façade of religiosity to secular congregants who identify as “social justice warriors" but do not observe Shabbat, keep kosher, or live ritually observant lifestyles.
Mitzvah observance among the non-Orthodox has been replaced by political activism, as illustrated, for example, by nontraditional religious schools that provide bus transportation for students to attend pro-abortion, pro-trans, or anti-gun rallies, even on Shabbat. When I questioned a teacher involved in one such program about the justification for violating Shabbat in this way, I was told it was based on the principle of pikuach nefesh - saving a life.
Really? This rationalization bore no resemblance to the halakhic meaning of pikuach nefesh and showed absolutely no halakhic understanding of the concept.
In truth, Jewish identity requires allegiance to no political ideology - not liberal, conservative, Democratic, or Republican - and certainly not to an iteration of progressivism that is hostile to Israel and Jewish tradition. The wholesale adoption of progressive ideology by the non-Orthodox does not elevate it to the level of Torah or render it synonymous with Tikkun Olam or Musar as guideposts for ethical living.
On the contrary, confusing political ideology with Jewish values actually weakens Jewish identity, as reflected by the growing acceptance of intermarriage and assimilation, and of self-rejectionism and contempt for Israel as viewpoints worthy of communal discourse. Clearly, the obsession with inclusiveness has made it acceptable to tolerate positions that threaten Jewish survival, and to view anti-Israel and antisemitic hatred through the lens of moral equivalence.
This obsession is not a Jewish value but rather suggests moral disengagement.
As participants in democratic society, Jewish voters can support whatever issues they choose, but they cannot claim fealty to Jewish tradition where the law is inconsistent with those issues. The problem stems from their tendency to sanctify activism over ritual observance and misrepresent progressive dogma as innately Jewish even when it conflicts with genuine tradition; and despite the institutional embrace of progressivism by the nontraditional movements, it has done little to advance Jewish thought or practice. It has alienated many secular Jews who, though not observant, end up searching for more authentic forms of Jewish expression elsewhere.
And those who justify continued progressive allegiances because of their disdain for President Trump should acknowledge that, unlike most Democrats, he has taken concrete steps to combat Jew-hatred, like establishing an Antisemitism Advisory Committee at the Department of Justice.
In many ways, partisan politics subverts the Jewish spirit - and perhaps that’s why so many Jewish liberals now feel politically orphaned. For generations, they have embraced politics to fill the void created by their distance from traditional Jewish concepts of faith, ethics, spirituality, and nationhood. Though politics is a hollow substitute, it gave them something to believe in. They felt grounded by political ideology, only to find that it was an inapposite substitute for the covenantal birthright that ensures Jewish eternality.
They are thus now at odds with a partisan vision they wrongly associated with Jewish identity, but which they discovered often facilitates antisemitism. And their isolation is exacerbated by a cultural illiteracy that renders them unable to recognize the necessity of Torah for Jewish spiritual fulfillment and collective continuity. No amount of rationalization can change the fact that the political identity they conflated with Jewishness for generations is neither intrinsically Jewish nor synonymous with Torah values.
In order to eliminate their sense of isolation, they need to rediscover the pintele yid within and reconnect with authentic Jewish tradition. It’s not about politics; it’s about survival.
Matthew Hausman is a seasoned trial attorney and adjunct professor of law and criminal justice with nearly forty years' experience as a journalist and editor. A former correspondent specializing in science, health and medicine and a legal affairs columnist, Mr. Hausman now writes and speaks about constitutional and international law, foreign policy, Israel and Jewish affairs, and his work has been published throughout the US, Canada, Israel, and Australia.