Jews in the 111th Congress: Down to One...

Personally, I find it very odd that Eric Cantor and Norm Coleman are pro-life enough to oppose even embryonic stem cell research when even the most Orthodox Jews (who generally oppose abortion on demand) support ESCR. The official position of the Orthodox Union (which is no liberal group, as it officially opposes same-sex marriage) is in support of ESCR. Rabbi Hirschfield, do you have any idea why some politically conservative Jews such as Cantor, Coleman, and David Klinghoffer oppose ESCR when most Orthodox rabbis/unions seem to support it?

marans,

So you are saying that Cantor might be a little more to the left on the abortion/stem cell research issue if he were not representing a Bible Belt district in Virginia? He made a statement disapproving of Obama's decision to fund ESCR, and he made it sound like he was sincerely against that research. And are the politics of Ayn Rand conservative on economic issues, but liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage? Orthodox Jews can be just as strict about the Bible as evangelical Christians, can they not? And the question is, why would a Jew like Eric Cantor WANT to get elected in a Bible Belt district if he wasn't in agreement with the social values held by conservative evangelicals? Might he have been better off running as a Randian Republican in a more moderate district?

I can understand Coleman's wife and her family putting pressure on him to adopt the Catholic position on abortion and stem cell research (against the vast majority of abortions and against ESCR)rather than the Jewish one (against abortion on demand, but for ESCR and abortion to save the mother's life).

As for Klinghoffer, would he really need to "convert" to Orthodox Judaism if he was born Jewish and raised as a Reform Jew? I thought a born-Jew wouldn't need to convert to Orthodox Judaism. But your comment about him identifying more with Jews For Jesus than Reform Jews was right on-it seems that he is more dedicated to conservatism than Judaism-which is why he is in the pocket of the Discovery Institute.

Even while pointing out that Jews are not all the same, this article encourages the common, more fundatmetal mistake of collectivism. It worries about how "Jews" vote and are represented.

It speaks more of Jews as a group than as individuals. Similar to those who speak of the number of women and Blacks in congress, as if these factors determined -- or should determine -- views.

As if Jews should support Jews because they are Jews -- not because individuals deserve it or not. As if people should support Israel or not based on whether they are Jewish or not, rather than the principles of Israel's political system. Being "Jew" or not should not come into anyone's thinking on this and other issues.

The 'Jewish problem' is 'Jewish collectivism,' which furthers collectivism in general, leading to the socio-political motivations that became Nazi Germany, to the socialist floundering of Israel, to Jews voting Democratic, etc. (To blindness to the fact that collectivism destroys productivity and fosters failure. Muslim groups being even more collectivist.)

I suggest Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels" for pre-Nazi Jewish influences and Sowell's "Black Rednecks & White Liberals" for Jews against Jews in American immigration patterns -- based on their collectivist motivations.

Some "Jews" are leaders in individualism and capitalism today, not because they are Jewish, but because they don't care whether they are or not! They are individualists.

The author here says, "Jewish is a big category." Collectivist to the core. A significantly large "category" makes Jewish meaningless as a descriptor of values. Lumps together moral opponents.

(Greenspan admires most of Rand, but never fully grasped or agreed with her basic premises; so, he does not fully implement them.)

I would say that we are mainly moderate-liberals, though. Very few of us are far-left radicals.