With the Republican Party taking control of the House of Representatives, much will be written of what this means for health care, taxes, women in Congress, and Barack Obama’s agenda. But what does it mean for Jews in Congress?
Assuming the current Minority Leader, Representative John Boehner of Ohio, moves up to the post of Speaker of the House (replacing Nancy Pelosi), this could mean that the Number 2 Republican in the House – Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, the current Republican whip and the only Jewish Republican in Congress (since Arlen Specter switched parties) – could become the next Majority Leader (and the second most powerful person in the House).
Cantor, who keeps a kosher household, is known for being very vocal on foreign policy – and especially on those issues that concern Israel or Iran.
If he becomes Majority Leader – an unprecedentedly powerful position for a Jew in Congress, in a role usually populated with McCormacks and O’Neills – Cantor could hold a tremendous amount of legislative power, as the role normally includes the power to set the House floor agenda, and determine which bills are brought to the House floor, when, and in what form. I would be hard-pressed to think of another way for a single person to wield more power over the actions taken by a legislative body.
While foreign policy is generally controlled directly by the President and Secretary of State, a powerful Congressional leader with an interest in foreign policy could certainly have an impact on the direction of such policy, should he choose to exercise his power in that direction.
So what would a Cantor leadership role look like, as far as Israel and Iran are concerned?
Last March, I posted some excerpts from Cantor’s speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference Capitol Club Reception. I am reposting the main highlights from his speech below. I guess we’ll just have to wait to see what a Cantor term in House majority leadership will mean in practice. But for all those interested in foreign policy, and especially for pro-Israel Americans, and all those worried about a nuclear Iran, this seems to be a hopeful moment. I’m sure Cantor’s bubbe is kvelling, too.
Without any further ado – Eric Cantor on Israel and Iran
(Excerpts from Cantor’s speech to the AIPAC Capitol Club, 2010 AIPAC Policy Conference)
[Image: Wikimedia]Now is the time when the United States must stand with Israel in the global struggle against the threats posed by radical Islam.
…we must do all we can to ensure the survival of the State of Israel. At a time like this, it is crucial to stress the message that a strong Israel is in the best interest of American national security.
Should any of us waver in our resolve, we must let the lessons of history propel us to action. If you deal with Iran, you are not welcome to deal with the United States. Our willingness to use force is on the table.
We know well who our one true and reliable friend in the Middle East is. We know who stands with us in our fight against terrorism. Who wept at candlelight vigils when America was attacked on 9/11. And who sends teams of doctors to save lives in Haiti. In the same way, we also know who teaches their children to emulate suicide bombers. Who danced and tossed candy around on 9/11. And who names their schools and public squares after terrorists.
This is more than a Jewish cause or an Israeli issue. These are challenges to America. Israel’s security is synonymous with our own. People who point guns at Israel with murder in their eyes will next turn on us. Israel is a critically important strategic ally, who brings stability to a volatile region.
I don’t appreciate when people, whether Democratic or Republican (but especially the latter), associate and link their politics to Judaism in any way, as has Eric Cantor. As an Israeli myself, Cantor’s Jewish views and his beliefs on Israel’s best interests are far from what I, living here in Israel, would ever wish for my country.
That said, the implications of Jews in Congress is quite irrelevant. How do the recent election results change the Roman Catholic makeup, and what does it mean for Roman Catholics in Congress? Not much. Same for the Jews in Congress.
Morris,
Thank you for your comments.
To be honest, we could argue that for all committed Jews, their Judaism – their values, their perspectives, their experiences – necessarily shape their political opinions, and it would be silly to expect otherwise.
In fact, I hear Jews all the time speak about how their positions on everything from immigration to affirmative action to the minimum wage are based in their Jewish values. We could argue whether they’re right or wrong in saying that their particular position is strongly rooted in Judaism or not, but it is certainly a common positions.
In this case, however, I don’t believe I have ever heard Rep. Eric Cantor speak of his particular positions as being based in or related to his Judaism. He just happens to be Jewish, and to hold the particular positions that he holds. Not one because of the other (though it may certainly be so). So it would be hard to take him to task for claiming something he has not claimed. (Please do let me know if you know of him having publically tied his politics to his Judaism. I would certainly love to hear about it.)
Specifically on his positions on Israel, he has the positions he has. I’m sure they are likely shaped by his Jewish upbringing (for instance, he is likely to be more familiar with, say, the Holocaust, Antisemitism, and Israeli history than your average Joe Smith down the block). But certainly few single detailed policy positions are inherent in Judaism. And just as certainly, quite a few non-Jews hold political positions on Israel very similar to his. So while you may not agree with him, his Jewishness has little to do with that.
On your second point, however, I would have to respectfully disagree. Certainly you’re right that today, with a large number of Roman Catholics in Congress, and a majority of the Supreme Court being active Roman Catholics, few people would be concerned about their particular standing after a given election. But they certainly would have been concerned with it in, say, 1965. Quite a few people, on the other hand, are (quite rightly, in my opinion) concerned about the number of African-Americans, Hispanics, and women in Congress. There are articles being published everywhere you care to look about this election lowering the numbers of women in Congress. And it does matter. In fact, it matters a lot.
In the case of Jews specifically, we are still living the life of a definite minority in a US (I would say that Roman Catholics no longer are). Outside of New York, we still often have to have our holidays explained to our children’s schools, get strange looks at work about our mandatory days off at weird times, and unwillingness to eat someone’s food. Whether or not Joe Lieberman would be able to work on Shabbat was still a major issue when he was running for Vice President. It’s still a big deal whether the President celebrates a Passover Seder at the White House or not.
At this point, it is also the case that while there is a large number of Jews in Congress generally, very few are on the Republican side of the aisle. Now someone could argue that Jews may think that their religious values just line up so neatly with the Democratic political position. And it may. But that brings us back to the earlier argument about religion vs. political position. Personally, I think it is unusual that so few Jews really line up with an entire half of the country that just about all the Jews in Congress have ended up Democratic. And I don’t think it is necessarily a healthy position, either. Italians, for instance, now line up all across party lines. As do the Irish. As do the Poles. Even African-American and Hispanic Republicans definitely exist. But so few Jewish ones?
It is also the case that no Jew has held a high position of leadership in Congress, on the level of Majority Leader of the House. It has simply never happened. And I think it is a big deal if is about to happen for the very first time. The first black President matters. And the first female Presidential candidate mattered. And the first Jewish President would matter. And the first Jewish Majority Leader will matter, too. Perhaps not the second or third. But the first one does. Certainly a female Speaker of the House mattered a whole lot. I don’t see this as being any different.
Incidentally, as far as pro-Israel politics go, you may not personally agree with all of Rep. Cantor’s stated positions on Israel. But I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that having an informed, committed Jew in a position of leadership in Congress is likely to matter to the US-Israel relationship, and is likely to do more to improve that relationship than having any random other person. If nothing else, it may help the American political leadership understand and have more compassion for the Israeli experience. And it may help the Israelis feel more comfortable with the idea that the American leadership is on their side – something that has been rather strained lately, and that is not doing American influence in the region any favors.
~Jenna
Bravo, Jenna. American Jews may know more about the Middle East than others, primarily since we have sources of information other than conventional media. But, support for Israel and opposition to Iran’s nuclear threat represent American interests.
Jenna,
Thanks for your thorough response. The internet is no forum for debating these things at length. We shall agree to disagree on certain aspects.
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with True Blue American who said, “American Jews may know more about the Middle East than others.” From my personal experience, the average American Palestinian knows far more about the ongoings in the Middle-East than their American Jewish counterpart.
And as someone who lived much of his life in the States and is now living in Israel, I’ve come to realize that the interests of American Jews and those of secular Israelis towards Israel’s international policies, peace treaties and all, do not line up. I say this in hopes that Jewish Americans (especially the more conservative) will realize that their views are not full-heartedly supported by many Israelis. Even in Israel, there is no single homogeneous opinion on hot button topics. An obvious fact — but one that tends to get lost in people’s over-generalization tendencies. I too am susceptible to this fact.
Thank you, Jenna! I agree with so much of what you say that I can’t find much more to add – except to say that Israel has been vilified for too long and too much lately, and Cantor’s voice will be a welcome change.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/cantor-pre-empts-clinton.html
This is not ok.