THE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR OF AMERICAN JEWS By Lawrence H. Fuchs 203 pp. Glencoe, Illinois The Free Press US$4.00
The author of this book uses the term "ethno-religious groups" to refer to those who possess continuity through biological descent, who share a distinctive social and cultural tradition, such as the Irish-Catholics, or the Jews. His purpose is to analyze the political behavior of the Jewish minority in America from colonial days until now.
Objective studies of minority groups are nearly always profitable, and sometimes produce surprises contrary to popular opinion. Thus, while most Americans would probably say "there is a Jewish vote," without knowing precisely whether it is Republican or Democratic, the author shows that "No group splits tickets, votes for third party candidates, or switches major party loyalties more than the Jews.” And while most people think—rightly so, as far as other ethnic, religious or national minorities are concerned—that people become more and more conservative as they attain to greater wealth, this has not proved true as far as the Jews of America are concerned.
The author, presumably Jewish himself, received his B.A. in American Government from New York University, and his Ph. D. from Harvard where he was a teaching fellow. He is today Assistant Professor of American Politics at Brandeis University, and a widely traveled lecturer, especially popular in the Jewish communities of American cities.
Being a Jew admittedly sometimes influences one's political attitudes, just as being Irish or Polish, or even Baptist or Episcopalian, but if one asks, "Will Jews vote for a Jew?" the author's answer (based on wide research) is: Sometimes they will and sometimes they will not. He found one 70-year-old woman who chose the Jewish names on a ballot regardless of party, and again a young Jewish teacher who always voted for one non-Jewish candidate to show she was broadminded.
It would be undemocratic to attempt to prevent group influence on politics. When assertions are made that American Jews helped formulate American policy in the Middle East, it should not be denied. Instead the right to help influence their country's policy in the way they think best for the country should be defended. The Methodists or the National Association of Manufacturers may do the same.
Except in South Carolina, early Jewish settlers in America were not permitted to hold office or vote in the colonies. Later even South Carolina restricted their political freedoms. But beginning with the American Revolution the influence of American Jews began to be felt, as relatively few supported the British, even though their economic interests would have dictated cooperation with the British. This tendency to stand for freedoms and civil liberties, regardless of their own well-being, became more marked as time went on. This was partly because, even when political 'freedom was limited, they knew no European Jewish community had so high a degree of equality, freedom and wealth as the Jews of the American colonies.
After the Revolution, Jews were elected as Congressmen, Governors, and appointed to high administrative and judicial posts. Gradually all political discriminations were removed by State legislatures. It took the French Revolution, however, to really arouse the Jews politically. They followed Thomas Jefferson in favoring the revolutionaries, against the Federalists who opposed them. The American Jews thought so much of Jefferson, and also Madison, that they sometimes named their children for them, contrary to religious tradition of using the names of deceased relatives. Later the Jews of America —15,000 by 1840— were devoted to President Van Buren for his prompt action in preventing injustice to the Jew; of Damascus, and from then until Polk's election 44 years later, they were almost solidly Democratic.
But then in 1848 about 100,000 German-Jews emigrated to the U.S. The transition of disillusioned Jewry under President Buchanan when the policy of aiding distressed or mistreated Jews abroad was abandoned, was the result of several episodes involving Jews abroad. Domestically, because of slavery, the Jews turned to the Whig Party. They were not largely Democratic for another 100 years. By 1860, Democrats were the exception among Jews in the North.
The German-Jews found the Democrats supporting slavery which they abhorred (though there were no abolitionists among Southern Jews.) Others turned against the Whigs because of their idea that only the native-born should vote. Many were ripe for a third party, and welcomed the new Republican Party, called the party of free men and free soil. Some in the South were pro-Jeff Davis. They were individualistic. One Judah Benjamin roee from the humblest origin to the Senate, to be Attorney General, and finally to the Supreme Court. He was indifferent to religion, and finally buried in a Catholic cemetery, so he had little influence on other Jews.
Jews of all political opinions were united in honoring Abraham Lincoln. They were drawn to him by his great humanitarianism, and sensitivity to the problem of discrimination. When Congress passed a law that all Chaplains in the Army must be Christians, Lincoln listened to the entreaties of Hebrew citizens and intervened to have the law changed. When Lincoln was assassinated, Jewish congregations throughout the nation met for prayers.
At the end of the Civil War, there were about 200,000 Jews in the nation, and the vast majority supported the new Republican Party. Only in far-off Utah, where the Republican Party was the Mormon's party, did the Jews start an opposition movement which became the Liberal Party.
The number of Jews in the U.S. grew rapidly in three decades (1860-90) from 200,000 to 900,000. By 1904 there were 700,000 in New York City alone.
Three prominent brothers raised in the southern state of Georgia—Oscar, Isador and Mathan Sraus—were naturally Democrats. They remained so when they came north, where they founded Macy's great department store. Isador (later lost on the Titanic) was elected to Congress; Oscar was appointed by President Cleveland Minister to Turkey, and became the best-known and most widely-respected Jew of his day, serving under Theodore Roosevelt as America's representative at the Hague, and then as Secretary of Commerce and Labor.
President Wilson was the first Democratic president to crash the Republican hold on the Jews in half a century, largely because Taft had promised in his campaign to abolish a discriminatory Trade Treaty with Russia, and then had reneged on his campaign promise, saying it would not be in the national interest. Wilson's idealism and professorial background com· mended him to Jewish voters also. He was the first to enlist the advice of multimillionaire Bernard Baruch, who has become known as "an advisor of presidents."
The Jews were strong supporters of Franklin D. Roosevelt from the time he was Governor of New York, right through his three presidential elections. Again this was not because they needed his welfare measures; in spite of their general wealth they liked the New Deal and its social measures. In 1912 President Taft had said: "Jews make the best Republicans." By 1952, Adlai Stevenson could paraphrase the cliché and say in Boston: "Jews make the best Democrats."
In the face of the Eisenhower landslide, American Jews mostly remained democratic. It was not the poorer Jews, the older Jews, the college-educated Jews, or even the more Jewish Jews who preferred Stevenson. The key seems to be that they thought of him as the more "liberal" candidate. They have by and large stood for civil rights in general, including negro rights, and 7 out of 10 in Roanoke, Virginia, recently favored the Supreme Court decision on desegregation.
Sometimes there is a left-wing tinge to their liberalism. Strong for "freedom of the mind," more than any other group they have defended the non-conformists and were shocked by the behavior of McCarthy. But they were negative on charges of Communists in the Truman administration. And though they insist on the "right to be unpopular" for those who hide behind the Fifth Amendment, they do not grant a McCarthy, Nixon or Jenner the right to be unpopular-the non-conformists on the other side.
The book is an interesting study, except when it becomes over-weighted with statistical tables analyzing this poll or that survey. Then it seems like a thesis for a Ph. D. degree on a specialized study. — GERALDINE FITCH
THE ENEMY AT HIS BACK By Elizabeth Churchill Brown Free Enterprise Publication, Distributed by The Bookmailer, New York 1956, 234 pp.
A newspaper business woman, turned housewife, was disturbed by the things she heard and read and saw. Since the end of World War II she has seen the aggrandizement of Communist influence and power all over the world-the fall of the whole Chinese mainland to the Chinese Communists; the start and the ignoble termination of the Korean War; the loss of half of Indo-China; the infiltration by the Communists of the Eastern areas where, under the guise of nationalism, the Russians are expanding their political and ideological influence unchallenged; and the unmitigated and growing antipathy of the Japanese people toward the most benevolent and generous conqueror in history — which, in eleven short years since the time of Yalta, has resulted in the loss of freedom by about seven hundred million more people to the Communist tyranny. Knowing that her own country was, has been and still is the most powerful country in the world, she was puzzled by the senile manner in which her leaders during the War solicited the friendship of her treacherous ally, Soviet Russia, and the leaders in the present Government shamelessly eat their own words and promises and obediently follow the Russian lead instead of taking any initiative of their own. She simply could not understand why the United States had to be so friendly with Soviet Russia during the War, why she has to be always on the receiving end of aggression, and why her leaders have to follow this weak-kneed foreign policy even to-day in face of proven Russian intention to isolate her country and ultimately overthrow her Government.
She could find only one answer: the foreign policy of USA was, and still is, influenced if not controlled by a group of politicians who are faithful not to their own country but to the interest of their enemy, the Russians. With this suspicion in her mind, she started to dig up all available data and to ask questions of the leaders both in and out of the Government. Her curiosity led her to discoveries that became "curiouser and curiouser" as she plodded along until she became so absorbed by them that she neglected all her housewife duties and finally produced a book that should be read by every true American as well as by every freedom-loving man.
This book is not written in a brilliant style, nor are the materials used all new or unfamiliar to most students of international affairs. It is rather a dull and heavily-documented piece of work. It is notable, however, because the author has collected in a handy volume all the data on her subject and leaves the readers to make their own conclusions.
Her investigation begins from the early battles of the Pacific through the notorious Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the delayed Japanese surrender, up to the MacArthur hearings. Besides the numerous verbal opinions and comments she has collected from prominent people, she quotes from about forty books and an equal number of heavy government publications and documents. At each stage of- the history she discovers and proves the existence of Russian intrigue and the collaboration of a group of Americans in high government posts to carry the scheme out, not only to the general satisfaction of the Communists but sometimes to a degree more than the Russians had originally expected.
During the early stages of the Pacific war she finds and proves that victory would have been much more swift had not the military authorities in Washington, for which General George C. Marshall was usually the spokesman, taken a policy of "defensive" warfare· or delayed the logistical support in favor of Europe and Russia. She proves that Japan lost her entire fleet in 1944 in the largest naval battle in history at Saipan, when 68 of her ships were destroyed; and that she was then already willing to capitulate on the only condition that her Emperor would not be deposed but her peace feelers were treacherously ignored because Russia wanted to enter into war with Japan and the moment was not yet ripe. At Yalta she finds and proves that the Russians got their favorable terms, thanks to an ill-advised US. President. The same was true at Potsdam. In between, she finds and proves that the resignation of Joseph Grew and the ascent of James Byrnes and later Acheson & Co. were all, in accord with Russian interest. The use of the atomic bomb or Russian participation in the war were not necessary to secure Japanese surrender, since with her fleet broken Japan could not easily transport her troops back for home defense, which Marshall insisted on describing, against the judgment of the navy, as so strong that it would cause a casualty of one more million American boys without Russian help. The use of the bomb actually perpetuated the hatred of the Japanese people against the Americans, which has been borne out by later events. The value of Russian participation in winning the war against Japan is best appraised by two simple dates:
Aug. 8, 1945 — Russia declares war on Japan
Aug. 10, 1945 — Japan sues for peace.
The last chapter of the book is devoted to the MacArthur hearings. Due to scarcity of data it is incomplete but it sufficiently reveals the machinations of American politicians to shield the guilt of the Acheson group. "When a 'hot' subject is before a Congressional hearing, the questioning progresses much like a football game. The 'hot pigskin' in this case was passed, intercepted, fumbled, got out of bounds, and time would be called when the play would start all over again. During the MacArthur hearings, Manchuria and the agreement to permit Russia to send troops there, produced plain and fancy football. Senator Wayne Morse, the renegade Republican, later Democrat from Oregon, and the Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, 'pass' the pigskin back and forth in an attempt to make a touchdown."
The readers are naturally most interested to know who these groups of unscrupulous politicians were. Their names are spread from the beginning to the end of the book. The 500 million of our countrymen on the mainland under Communist tyranny already know one name. The other name, Charles E. Bohlen, is hardly known to ordinary Chinese.
In giving her book the title, "The Enemy at His Back", the author is still optimistic enough to think that American soldiers will have a "back" at the next conflict. If the U.S. foreign policy is allowed to drift as it did, it is not impossible that the American people will find no "back', at all. From a global viewpoint such a book might as well be entitled "Enemies of Humanity". —NATHAN S. Y. YUAN