Reviewed by:

• The Foundations of American Jewish Liberalism by Kenneth D. Wald
• Eli Lederhendler (bio)

Which of us has not asked about the liberal tilt of American Jewish attitudes and voting behavior? This is a perennial feature of electionyear punditry; a challenge to rational-behavior theorists; a shibboleth in popular discourse about Jewish traditions. It is also a question that has spawned many articles and books. What is new in this book?

First, Wald sets out to identify the root cause of the phenomenon, not just its effects. There is something "foundational" in the nature of the American republic, he argues, that provided the context and format of American Jews' civic attitudes. This has received mostly pro forma recognition in the literature, which is frequently flawed by "Judeo-centric" cultural determinism. Jews are not bound to become liberals because of something primordial in the heritage of Judaism. "Although their religious heritage was largely responsible for their status as strangers and outsiders, it was incidental to the process by which American Jews developed a distinctive political role" (7).

Second, many observers adopt what is, to Wald, a truncated chronology, focusing on the twentieth century (or, at most, on the years since the late 1800s). That is a chronology that has much to justify it: How liberal were most American Jews during the Civil War, after all? How much Jewish political behavior (as such) is identifiable, anyway, before Jews began to create organizations that enabled them to act as an interest group? However, Wald argues that the structure of a Jewish "political culture" was hardwired into the American Jewish experience long before the era of ethnic identity politics and that a "classic liberalism" rooted in the federal Constitution has lain at the heart of that Jewish political culture. Classic liberalism revolves around issues of church-state separation, civic participation and representation, equality of protection under the law, and the protection of citizens' basic civil liberties. There is a catch here, of course, that is never resolved, since these commitments and concerns are largely shared by left, right, and center in mainstream American politics.

Third, Wald uses historical data, but he is essentially a social scientist looking for theoretical concepts. He uses both quantitative and qualitative data and is willing (as he puts it) to risk "running roughshod" over certain historical intricacies. He seeks to establish a wider theory that would explain more than other treatments have done. Readers are rewarded by a book that will stand the test of being more nearly comprehensive, more sophisticated and systematic, and more balanced than previous works. [End Page 478]

Wald sets out to demonstrate that the "anomaly" of American Jewish politics indeed exists. Here, his analysis will be familiar to most readers, as he produces electoral data to show that Jewish voters diverge from patterns to which voters with their social characteristics typically conform. Jews position themselves differently from those to whom they are most similar (levels of education, income, occupational status, age). He acknowledges that Jews, like some other stalwart Democrats, began to turn away from the left after the 1960s but points out that it is harder to account for why "Jews alone turned back in large numbers to the Democrats in the 1990s" (72).

Next, Wald addresses the "Judaic theories" of American Jewish liberalism: values-based compatibility, a collective memory of the heritage of emancipation, and the trauma of persecution. His critique is one of the best parts of this book. It comes down, in the end, to making sense of Jews' selectivity in applying these perspectives within the American system: Jewish politics are filtered versions—not perfect emanations—of the heritage of their ancestors, and the filters they use are derivative from the American system. This is most effectively demonstrated by looking at Jews in other lands, as well as examining political postures among Orthodox Jews in America and other dissenters.

Wald provides a set of nuanced questions that refresh the discussion. It is not enough, he argues, to depict a "generic" Jewish American liberalism: "How did liberalism manifest itself when American Jews...

审核人：

• 肯尼斯·沃尔德（Kenneth D.Wald）撰写的美国犹太自由主义基金会
• 伊莱·莱德亨德勒（Eli Lederhendler）（生物）

我们哪个没有问过美国犹太人态度和投票行为的自由倾向？这是选举年制的常年特征。对理性行为理论家的挑战；关于犹太传统的流行话语中的一个粗话。这也是一个产生许多文章和书籍的问题。这本书有什么新内容？

首先，Wald着手确定现象的根本原因，而不仅仅是其影响。他认为，美利坚合众国的本质具有某种“基础性”，为美国犹太人的公民态度提供了背景和形式。这在文献中已获得大多数形式上的认可，而这常常因“以犹太人为中心”的文化决定论而存在缺陷。由于犹太教遗产中的某些原始内容，犹太人不一定要成为自由主义者。“尽管他们的宗教遗产在很大程度上决定了他们作为陌生人和外来者的地位，但这与美国犹太人发展独特政治角色的过程有关”（7）。

其次，对于瓦尔德来说，许多观察者采用的是截断的年表，着眼于二十世纪（或者最多是自1800年代后期以来的年份）。这是一个可以证明其合理性的年表：毕竟，南北战争期间大多数美国犹太人的自由度到底有多大？无论如何，在犹太人开始建立使他们能够充当利益集团的组织之前，有多少犹太人的政治行为（如此）是可以识别的？但是，瓦尔德（Wald）认为，犹太“政治文化”的结构早在种族认同政治时代之前就已经硬连接到美国犹太人的经历中，并且源于联邦宪法的“古典自由主义”已经奠定了该犹太政治的核心地位。文化。古典自由主义围绕着教会与国家分离，公民参与和代表制的问题，平等的法律保护以及对公民基本公民自由的保护。当然，这里有一个问题永远不会解决，因为这些承诺和担忧在美国主流政治中几乎是由左，右和中心共同承担的。

第三，Wald使用历史数据，但本质上他是一位寻求理论概念的社会科学家。他既使用定量数据又使用定性数据，并且愿意（如他所说）冒着对某些历史复杂性进行“粗暴对待”的风险。他试图建立一个更广泛的理论，该理论比其他治疗方法能解释的更多。一本书将使读者受益匪浅，它将经受住比以前的著作更加全面，更加复杂和系统化以及更加平衡的考验。[结束页478]

沃尔德着手证明美国犹太政治的“反常”确实存在。在这里，他的分析将为大多数读者所熟悉，因为他产生的选举数据表明，犹太选民与具有其社会特征的选民通常所遵循的模式不同。犹太人与最相似的犹太人（文化程度，收入，职业状况，年龄）的处境不同。他承认，犹太人和其他一些坚定的民主党人一样，在1960年代后开始从左转向左，但他指出，很难解释为什么“仅犹太人在1990年代就大量向民主党人返回”（72） 。

接下来，沃尔德探讨了美国犹太自由主义的“犹太理论”：基于价值的兼容性，对解放传统的集体记忆以及迫害的创伤。他的批评是这本书最好的部分之一。最后，归结为使犹太人在美国体系中应用这些观点时的选择性理解：犹太政治是祖先的遗产的被过滤的版本，而不是完美的表述，并且他们使用的过滤器是从犹太人的派生而来的。美国系统。通过查看其他国家的犹太人，以及检查美国东正教犹太人和其他持不同政见者之间的政治立场，可以最有效地证明这一点。

Wald提供了一组细微的问题，可以使讨论更加新颖。他认为，仅仅描绘一种“泛型”的犹太美国自由主义是不够的：“当美国犹太人...时，自由主义是如何表现出来的……