October 30, 2024|כ"ח תשרי ה' אלפים תשפ"ה Should We Vote Based on Our Own Narrow Jewish Interests or What’s Best for America? By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

Each election cycle raises the question: how should American Jews decide whom to support? Should we prioritize issues uniquely impacting the Jewish community, or broaden our scope to what benefits the country as a whole? Both perspectives carry substantial moral and communal weight, and finding the right balance is especially challenging in times of rising anti-Semitism and persistent concerns for Israel’s security.

One view, voiced by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and embraced by Agudath Israel of America, highlights the value of advocating for the Orthodox Jewish community’s unique concerns. In a 1992 article in The Jewish Observer, Rabbi Scherman outlined Agudath Israel’s criteria for political engagement: is there a specifically Orthodox position not represented by mainstream Jewish organizations? Would taking a stand benefit the Orthodox community? And even if neither applies, is there a question of k’vod Shamayim (honoring God’s name) that mandates voicing a Torah perspective? This approach often focuses on preserving Jewish values and protecting Jewish interests, adopting what might be called a “single-issue” focus.

However, a strong case can be made for a broader approach. This view, articulated by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, calls for contributing positively to the world. Rav Kook spoke of two currents within Jewish spirituality: one directed inward, aimed at deepening Jewish identity, and one directed outward, committed to being an Or LaGoyim, a “light unto the nations.” His view was that Jewish values can serve as guiding principles not only for the Jewish people but also for society at large, justifying broader societal involvement.

Similarly, Rabbi Soloveitchik’s essay Confrontation emphasizes the importance of collaboration between Jewish and non-Jewish communities on secular matters. While placing boundaries on interfaith theological dialogue, Rav Soloveitchik encouraged Jews to join with other communities in addressing social issues. Jews, he argued, are called upon to work for the “general welfare and progress of mankind,” motivated by shared human responsibility. This perspective suggests that Jewish voters should consider both their particular interests and their role as citizens committed to the betterment of society as a whole.

This outward perspective aligns with the Jewish concept of tikkun olam, or repairing the world, which calls upon Jews to work toward societal improvement. Following this view, Jewish voters might weigh policies and candidates who prioritize justice, welfare, and rights for all, striving to positively impact society.

Balancing these approaches raises a tough question: how do we prioritize communal self-interest while upholding responsibility toward the larger society? The Talmud offers guidance in Bava Metzia 71a, stating that priority should be given to the poor of one’s own city before helping those in another. This teaching underscores that while one’s primary duty is to their community, a balance should be struck with concern for the broader society.

Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm encapsulated this idea as “enlightened self-interest.” Citing Hillel’s famous maxim in Pirkei Avot—“If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I?”—Dr. Lamm advocated for a balanced approach where Jewish voters consider both their responsibilities to the Jewish community and their duty as citizens in a multicultural society.

Applying this approach to voting means evaluating candidates on issues not only related to Israel and Jewish concerns but also on policies that affect the larger population. Jewish voters might assess policies on healthcare, education, and justice reform by considering both their impact on the Jewish community and their broader ethical implications.

Typically, this balanced approach makes sense. However, this year feels different. The events of October 7 and a marked rise in anti-Semitism have been a wake-up call, heightening the awareness of threats faced by the Jewish community. These recent tragedies have made a strong case for a single-issue mindset: prioritizing candidates and policies supportive of Israel’s security and dedicated to combating anti-Semitism.

This perspective doesn’t disregard other issues but rather reflects a pragmatic response to an urgent, existential threat. In such a context, a focus on self-preservation—much like the Talmudic principle of prioritizing one’s own community—seems both reasonable and necessary.

In conclusion, Jewish voters are at a unique crossroads. Our tradition and values teach us to advocate for our community while also contributing to society’s broader welfare. As Rabbi Kook, Rabbi Soloveitchik, and Dr. Lamm suggest, a nuanced approach is ideal, balancing Jewish values with the universal ethical mandate to work for the betterment of society.

Yet sometimes, especially when a community feels under siege, priorities may temporarily shift. This year, as anti-Semitism and concerns for Israel’s safety intensify, we may need to focus our votes on candidates who will best support Israel in combating terror and rescuing hostages while opposing domestic anti-Semitism. Although this approach may appear narrow, it reflects the age-old principle of ensuring the survival and well-being of our community—enabling us to continue contributing to society at large.

Voting based on support for Israel and opposition to anti-Semitism also has global implications. It influences how America addresses terrorism, manages Middle East actors, and ultimately shapes how the next president will approach anti-Semitism and those who wish to harm Israel. These decisions not only impact the Jewish community but also affect America’s role on the world stage, its security, and moral leadership. Supporting Israel and countering anti-Semitism are thus essential not only for Jewish welfare but for American stability.

Ultimately, voting is personal, rooted in one’s values and understanding of Judaism’s dual responsibilities. By balancing these perspectives thoughtfully, we can cast our votes with clarity of purpose, committed to the well-being of both our community and society as a whole.