On October 7, as Hamas marauded through southern Israel, its agonizing massacre upended much more than routine Israeli life. Of all the attack’s implications, most significantly, it exposed deep civilizational rot, revealing the waywardness of Western elite ideologies and, in particular, unmasking a deep incongruity between Jewishness[1] and progressivism. The euphoric and callous support for Hamas and the associated antisemitism that has poured forth from the progressive left has been a cold shower for many leftwing Jews. Feelings of abandonment and betrayal have been bewailed across the internet, turning into disillusionment, as numerous Jews begin to retreat from progressivism.
But this is – or at least should be – more than a simple mugged-by-reality moment for diaspora Jewry. The vitriolic response from campuses and the darkest corners of Congress should have been expected – it certainly was by those Jews further to the right – given the inherent contradiction between Jewishness and progressivism.
A Totalitarian Ideology…
The contradiction lies in the truth – often ignored or dismissed – that progressivism is fundamentally a totalitarian ideology. Like all such ideologies, it strives to inflict its vision on every aspect of a society and will resort to any method deemed necessary and useful to eliminate opposition. In 1941, while discussing the rise of Nazism and Stalinism, James Burnham famously said, “nearly every side of life, business and art and science and education and religion and recreation and morality are not merely influenced by but directly subjected to the totalitarian regime.”
Sound familiar? Progressivism follows this total model as it marches through government, education, the family, corporations and even language, waving the banners of wokeness, critical race theory (CRT), diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and environmental, social and governance (ESG). This approach stands in marked contrast to non-totalitarian systems, such as liberal democracies and even monarchies and empires, that acknowledge the (sometimes partial) autonomy of different domains within a society.
…Even if Not Identical
Partisans of progressivism will undoubtedly resist such charges, arguing that it has not displayed the horrors or reach of the Nazis or Soviets. While it is certainly true that modern progressivism is a “softer” totalitarianism than its fascist and communist cousins – it has yet to establish mass killing machines like those of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia – this fact is merely an interesting intellectual problem. Whether progressivism’s relative humaneness is, for instance, because it does not have enough power or because using less heavy-handed means is a better tactic to achieve its goals does not negate its totalitarian nature.
What is relevant is that the fundamentals of progressivism are undeniably parallel to those of its brethren – it aims to infect all areas of life with its ideology, is built on power, seeks to eradicate any dissent and disparages true diversity. This latter point is key for Jews. Differing perspectives, arguments, cultures or beliefs undermine the total unity of a totalitarian system and are, indeed, what inevitably lead to cracks in its foundation. Anyone who is not fully a German nationalist, international communist or champion of the progressive gospel becomes an existential threat.
Particularism Threatens Totalitarianism
Accordingly, the individual (if he remains an individual) can maintain a separate identity only in a superficial form. In other words, the particular cannot exist within a totalitarian system. Particularism, which is the notion that different groups have unique characteristics, views, cultures, desires, needs and the like, and in some regards are distinct from others, stands in opposition to totalitarianism. The latter requires a one-size-fits all approach; the former, true diversity and tolerance.
The progressive totalitarian model pretends a certain affinity for the particular. It loves skin-deep displays of difference – cuisines from different cultures, non-appropriated clothing and a rainbow of skin colors – because they facilitate a smokescreen. But in line with its total vision, it can go no further than such shallowness. This is why a black conservative is rejected from the fold and even rejected from “blackness” or why a female conservative cannot possibly understand “women’s issues.” It explains why a blind eye can be turned to the horridly illiberal nature of Hamas and many of its Muslim compatriots, when they cloak themselves with a keffiyeh of the oppressed.
In the modern Western context, progressivism has obfuscated the irreconcilability between particularism and totalitarianism. It exploits the language and sentiments of liberal democracy, which has led to an explosion of support on the left. Yet, in truth, liberalism and progressivism are not the same, and are more appropriately considered antagonists – an argument made in the New York Times of all places. By wearing the skin of liberalism, this subterfuge has helped progressivism to present itself as protector of the minority, as a natural home for a “diverse” group of Americans. But this is mere window dressing, a misdirection of its unspoken (or quietly spoken) cynical grab for power. In truth, minorities can join the progressive coalition, but only if they suppress or erase their distinctiveness and accept progressive orthodoxy.
Jewishness is Particular
And this is where progressivism inevitably clashes with Jewishness.
Jewishness is, by definition, particular. Jews always have, and always will, stand apart from the majority. In some regards, Jews constitute the most particular – certainly the most ubiquitous – minority group in the world. In modern contexts, the precise boundaries of Jewishness may be somewhat ambiguous or fluid – is it a people, culture, religion, nationality, ethnicity, race? – yet a rock-solid core exists that is impossible to eliminate. A Jew is a Jew and, despite his or others’ preferences, he will always be a Jew.
Such particularism has been the timeless experience of Jewishness. Jews’ persistent “otherness” explains a lot (not all) of the pervasiveness of antisemitism. Whether under a religious, fascist or communist system, Jewishness is a threat to the purity of the system’s ideology and must be stamped out – literally, as with the Nazis, religiously as in the Spanish Inquisition. The same is true for progressivism. It abhors Jewishness, because its particular presence directly challenges the total progressive vision — it has a lodestar that may point elsewhere. Progressivism thus needs to erase the Jewishness from the Jews.
The Great Incompatibility for Jewish Progressives
In line with its penchant for obfuscation, the movement may allow a Jew to inhabit a husk of Jewish identity, if he concedes to all substantial ideological points. Unlike Nazism, progressivism does not require the death of individual Jews. Political allies are hard to come by and progressivism has no qualms in exploiting the well-intentioned (albeit misguided) to achieve its objectives. And so, we find ourselves with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now. But make no mistake, the relationship is one-sided. Insofar as a Jew maintains his Jewishness, committed to precepts outside the progressive canon, he must be abandoned. Such abandonment happens on two levels. The movement and progressive allies abandon their Jewish compatriot and his Jewish causes, such as Israel, while, simultaneously, the progressive Jew must sacrifice his Jewishness.
Undeniably, this poses grave challenges for progressive Jews striving to reconcile two halves of a great incompatibility. Cognitive dissonance has been a frequent response; slow erosion of Jewishness has been another, especially among a subset of Jews where the cultural politics of the left are a more significant social force. Some progressive Jews have willfully played along when they can. Rabbis thunder from the pulpit in opposition to Supreme Court rulings promoting religious liberties and Jews-in-name-only parrot the vilest antisemitic rhetoric. Or a Jewish college president refuses to condemn calls for genocide of her people, while “as-a-Jews” are marched out to undermine the very people they profess to come from.
In recent years, the tension has publicly manifested with increasing frequency, although not as starkly as following the October 7 massacres. Only a few years ago, many Jewish congregations struggled to determine their allegiances as Black Lives Matters’s antisemitism and anti-Zionism exploded following the death of George Floyd. Last year, controversy surrounding the Netanyahu government’s proposed reforms to the Israeli Supreme Court saw Jewish synagogues abandon Israel in droves owing to the perception that the reforms undermined progressive gospel.
Consequently, left-leaning congregations have increasingly become political outposts, more concerned with activism than Jewish content. One only needs to spend a few minutes skimming through many congregations’ websites to be appalled at the simultaneous glut of progressive religion and the dearth of the Jewish one. Similarly, the recent overwrought and inaccurate portrayal of domestic Israeli politics was nothing more than progressivism’s attempt at yoking Jews into dismantling Israel from the inside – a response, no doubt, of the inability of its external enemies to eliminate the Jewish state.
Not Policies but Particularism
While Jewishness and progressivism ultimately remain incompatible, it must be noted, that this irreconcilability does not mean that Jews cannot support certain policies or positions that happen to be advocated by progressive or other left-wing groups. At a minimum this is true because there is no fundamental incongruence between political liberalism and Jewishness. Whether gay marriage, abortion or an expansive welfare state are compatible with Judaism is a question for the rabbis and their congregations. But even if a particular individual supports a policy incompatible with Jewish teaching, it does not obviate his Jewishness. Many Jews have long had an a la carte approach to Judaism, while remaining Jews.
Indeed, it is not the policies per se that drive the contradiction but rather the inherent threat that Jewish particularism poses to the progressive total vision. As a totalitarian ideology, progressivism’s survival requires it to both lay waste to parochial Jewish cultural and religious institutions and undermine the Jewish state, if it is to allow “Jews” into the club. It thus strives to and has intentionally chipped away at Jewishness, while (in a parasitic sort of way) permitting the donning of Jewish identity as a costume.
The dual tragedy of Hamas’s massacre and the subsequent jubilant ululations of supposed progressive allies have highlighted the innate antagonism between Jewishness and progressivism. As the eternal minority, Jews cannot exist within a totalitarian system because their particular existence generates an incompatibility that must be excised. Tragedy, however, is often an eye-opener for Jews – a call to return home. It has been said that Jews cannot be destroyed during times of oppression and tragedy, but only during times of peace and stability, when comfort and prosperity lead to assimilation and self-rejection. And so maybe something good will come from this catastrophe. Progressive totalitarianism, like its predecessors, is the enemy of Jewishness. Ultimately progressive Jews will have to choose – abandon progressivism or forsake their Jewishness.
Joshua Grundleger is a policy and economic analyst based in New Jersey. His work has been featured in National Review, City Journal, The Dispatch and The Bulwark, among others. The views expressed are his own and do not reflect those of any affiliated organizations.
[1] I use this sometimes-clunky term throughout this essay to avoid an incorrect framing of the argument around “Judaism.” The argument aims not to draw out tensions between Jewish and progressive ideas, but rather to highlight the incompatibility of Jews, as a particular people – a nation, ethnicity, religion or however it may be defined – with a totalitarian ideology.
