The Torah portion that we read from this morning tells the beginning of one of the Bible’s best known stories, the tale of the long running conflict between the brothers Jacob and Esau. We saw this morning that the conflict began before the twins were even born, as they wrestled with one another while still in their mother Rebecca’s womb. Although later in their lives they are able to make at least some peace, the tension between them and their struggle for domination one over the other will never be fully resolved.
The nature of the conflict between Jacob and Esau hinges on an ancient concept which we call today primogeniture, or the idea that the oldest male in a household has the unquestioned right of inheritance to his father’s worldly goods, land, and in some cases spiritual legacy as well. And the narrative in this morning’s Torah portion revolves around that concept - Esau is the first born, emerging from the birth canal before his brother. And it is clear in the Torah that Esau is understood as being the one who will inherit two things primarily - on the one hand, the birthright, which seems to be a code word for material goods. But on the other hand Esau is supposed to also inherit from his father Isaac the blessing, which seems to be a sort of paternal guarantee of future success, but which can also be understood as the responsibility for carrying on the family traditions once the patriarch is gone.
Of course we know the story well - by the end of this morning’s portion Jacob will have taken both birthright and blessing from his brother Esau - the birthright he purchases from Esau - what is the purchase price? A bowl of lentil stew. And the blessing he obtains through trickery, but convincing Isaac the father that he is his older brother - how does he do it?
But without this concept of primogeniture, this concept that the first born male must inherit, there would be no story. It is the desire of Jacob, and his mother Rebecca, to upend the normal structure, that gives the story its drama. And one of the things that is striking about this idea of the first born inheriting is that it stayed in place for such a long time. Scholars would tend to date the Jacob and Esau story probably to about 15 or 1600 before the common era. Some 3000 years later in Western Europe the concept of primogeniture was still in place - the first born son of the king would one day become King. Even here in the United States there were laws on the books for some of the original colonies that had as their basis the idea that the first born male inherits property, and it wasn’t until almost 1800 that those laws were taken off the books in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
But politically the United States never went that way. In fact in many ways it was the suspicion of a king and the traditional system of royal inheritance that convinced the founding fathers that they should have a democratic system of government, by the people for the people, with elected officials serving as representatives. In this system it doesn’t matter where a candidate is in the birth order of his, or of course her, family. Instead, as we know, the candidate goes through a vetting process, where record of service is examined, the candidate debates opponents, and works to get out his or her message. This is of course exactly the process we are watching unfold right now in the Republican primary race, and as various candidate make mistakes the race is gradually narrowing itself down, and at this point it seems likely that the Republican candidate who will emerge from the primary process is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.
There are those in the Jewish community who are closely watching the Republican primary process, and they are wondering if the process will produce a Republican candidate that would be able to attract a significant percentage of the Jewish vote. As we know, Jews tend to vote for Democratic candidates. In fact, no Republican presidential candidate in the last 85 years has even been close to capturing 50 percent of the Jewish vote - the highest number in that period - anyone know? In 1980, Reagan had 39% of the Jewish vote. The only other candidate close to him was Nixon in 72, who had 35%. In the last 7 presidential elections, the Jewish vote has averaged 78% for the Democratic candidate, only about 22% of Jews voting for the Republicans.
It will be very interesting to see, going into an election year, if those numbers shift at all given the discomfort in some segments of the Jewish community with President Obama and how he has handled Israel. But most political experts are predicting that Jews will still predominantly vote the Democratic ticket - if it is not 78%, it is still expected to be in the mid to high 60s. And the question, of course, is why? What draws the Jewish vote, or in this case it might be better to ask, what pushes it away?
We first have to acknowledge that the answer to this mystery is not Israel. Going back to the last election, John McCain had one of the strongest pro-Israel records in the Senate, and he was an unabashed and unequivocal supporter of the Jewish state while on the campaign trail. But he was crushed in the Jewish vote, 78% of Jews voting for President Obama. So if it isn’t Israel, what makes it so hard for Jews to vote Republican?
Michael Medved, the conservative columnist and talk show host, offered an interesting explanation in a column he published last week in USA Today. He talked in the article about how secular the Jewish community is today in the US, and how the secular mindset of many Jews makes them particularly uncomfortable with the religious flavor of today’s Republican party and so many of its candidates. Medved’s idea is borne out by the polls that show that the Republican primary contender Jews are least comfortable with is Michelle Bachman - and you may know that you can’t find a more pro Israel public figure than Michelle Bachman, who also spent time working on a kibbutz after she graduated from high school. But Jews don’t like her - and it is no coincidence that of all of the Republican primary candidates, she is by far the most outspokenly Christian.
Medved’s advice to the Republican party is that it should begin to cut its ties with the conservative Christian community. This would probably be good for politics in general, and might loosen the logjam that we watch day in and day out in Washington, which is clearly driven as much by ideology as it is by politics.
Whether that will happen any time soon we can only wait to find out. But it seems clear that most Jews are not comfortable with politics that are driven by a religious agenda, especially that of the Christian right. If the Republican party can distance itself from that agenda more Jews might cross the isle in upcoming elections. But for now, in 2012 and probably quite a few years beyond that, things are not likely to change, and most Jews will remain in the space where they feel most comfortable - and that is riding on the back of the donkey, and not walking in the shadow of the elephant.
|
