semitism.net

I posted a few weeks ago on Hillary Clinton’s trip to Israel. She was too busy to meet with any Palestinians, but she did broadcast her committment to Israel’s security and her support for the separation barrier. On her return to New York, she was toasted by the most right-wing of the Jewish pro-Israel activists - many of whom are big political donors and made it clear that the trip had won their support for her re-election campaign (”I was quite critical when she ran last time,” disengagement opponent Mandy Ganchrow declared. “Since that time … she has become a leader who understands the nuances.”).

Today, the New York Times ran an article on how Senator Clinton has angered the left with her support for the Iraq war. It’s a reminder of the political realities that shape candidates’ positions in the Democratic party.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s support for the war in Iraq has outraged many liberal activists in the Democratic Party, who are warning of retribution, including a primary challenge to her re-election campaign next year.

But the activists are in the same sort of political bind that liberals found themselves in a decade ago when Bill Clinton defied liberal orthodoxies: struggling to bring meaningful pressure to bear on a politician who is cherished by many traditional Democrats.

Evidently her support is so high within the party - 88% in a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute - that she has little to fear from the relatively small left wing. Her main intra-party competition is from centrist Democrats like Mark Warner, who will argue that she’s too liberal to win the general election. Hence, she takes a hawkish stand on military action in Iraq; and jumps to sponsor bills like a recent one banning flag-burning.

Tellingly, some Democrats who are not directly connected with her campaign have argued that such positions may be necessary to ensure her political viability in the long run. If she does end up capturing the party’s nomination for the presidency in 2008, these Democrats said, she cannot afford to be seen as a captive of liberal orthodoxies, since she would need the support of moderate and conservative general-election voters.

That argument was at the heart of the politics of Bill Clinton, who succeeded in defusing issues that Republicans had often used against Democrats.

Of course, the Israel trip had less to do with electoral politics per se - few voters care how she stands on the separation wall - than with campaign finance. Jews are major Democratic contributors, and Clinton is trying to keep big Jewish donors in the fold, and in her camp.

In both instances, though, she is excercising the discipline it takes to build a successful campaign: she’s molding her positions to suit the supporters she’ll need in order to win.

I’m afraid this also calls attention to the role of Jewish money, and Jewish activism, in shaping the Democratic platform on Israel. We have traditionally been a pillar of the party. We tend to be liberal on the main Democratic issues - as the Times puts it, “education, health care, civil rights and reproductive rights.”

On Israel, though, the conservative voices have assumed dominance. I don’t know that it has to be this way. There are wealthy Jews who are more moderate on Israel. Take George Soros, for example. But, somehow, the ultra-Zionists have effectively positioned themselves to shape party policy in this area.