Zionism, Nationalism, and Populism Reflections from a Previously Unpublished Letter by Solomon Schechter

David J. Fine

In late 1915, shortly before he died, Solomon Schechter composed a letter to the journal The American Hebrew in which he addressed issues of Zionism, nationalism and populism. The version of the letter printed below is the text of Schechter’s handwritten draft. While there also exists a tighter and more restrained typed version in the archival collection of the Schechter Papers preserved at the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), I opted to share the earlier “first draft” because it represents an uncensored Schechter.1 Following an introduction on the context of the letter, I present the text with some brief annotations in the notes, followed by an epilogue on reading Schechter’s letter over a century later.

Introduction: The Context of Schechter’s Letter

Much has been written on Schechter’s “Zionism: A Statement” first published in 1906.2 In that essay, explaining why he was joining the ranks of the Zionist movement, Schechter aligns himself with the cultural Zionism of Aḥad Haʿam, adding to it his sense of the spirituality of Jewish religious culture. As he writes: “To me personally, after long hesitation and careful watching, Zionism recommended itself to me as the great bulwark against assimilation,” later on defining assimilation as “loss of identity.”3 Schechter opposed the “Uganda Plan,” the British offer of a tract of British East Africa as an autonomous Jewish territory that Theodor Herzl had presented to the Zionist Congress in 1903. “It is not only desirable but absolutely necessary,” wrote Schechter, “that Palestine, the land of our fathers, should be recovered with the purpose of forming a home for at least a portion of the Jews, who would lead there an independent national life.”4 But Zionism offered as much a cultural solution for the Jewish people as a territorial one, as Schechter understands “Galuth” (exile) as applying to “Judaism” as well as to “Jews.”5 Schechter summarizes his position as follows: “I belong to that class of Zionists that lay more stress on the religious-national aspects of Zionism than on any other feature peculiar to it. The rebirth of Israel’s national consciousness, and the revival of Israel’s religion, or to use a shorter term, the revival of Judaism, are inseparable.”6 In Arthur Hertzberg’s analysis, Schechter’s 1906 statement,

a reinterpretation of Ahad Ha-Am in the context of Schechter’s own unfanatical but traditionalist religiosity, naturalized cultural Zionism in America. Above all, Schechter imparted a Zionist temper to the Conservative movement in American Judaism, of which he was the master builder, both intellectually and institutionally, so that it remained henceforth the most overwhelmingly Zionist of the three major Jewish religious groupings in America.7

Schechter’s Zionism as a Jewish cultural nationalism was rooted in his religious conservatism. His clearest statement on this matter appears in an essay that he never published, most likely because of its harsh treatment of Reform Judaism, but it appeared in the posthumous collection of essays that made up the third series of his Studies in Judaism:

Jewish nationalism is not a creation of the nineteenth century. Its compact with religion was eternal…. It was just those things that distinguished us from our surroundings (not for the things which we had in common with them) and separated us from the nations, such as the devotion to the Pentateuch, the keeping of the Sabbath, the observance of the Covenant of Abraham, and the loyalty to the dietary law, to which we clung for thousands of years with all our life and for which we brought numberless sacrifices. Is this now the time, when the thought of nationalism is universally accepted, to destroy it as far as Israel is concerned? Should we rather cherish it as the best antidote against the poison of utter assimilation which threatens us as never before?8

For Schechter, the development of the various nationalist movements in the nineteenth century opened a door to a conviction of Jewish religious conservatism. Where the various nationalist movements sought to uncover the traditions of the peoples they represented, Jewish nationalism should do and has done the same. In this posthumously published essay penned against the universalism and antitraditionalism of Reform Judaism that, in Schechter’s view, threatened the continuity of Jewish identity, Schechter argues for a more Romantic and nationalist Judaism that celebrates the basic observances that were being abandoned by the Reform Judaism of his day. His embrace of Zionism as Jewish nationalism must be understood in this context, just as the Conservative Judaism that Schechter taught and established must be understood as a Romantic and Jewish nationalist response to the universalism and rationalism of Reform Judaism.

Schechter’s letter to The American Hebrew, reprinted here, was written in 1915, nine years after his “Zionism: A Statement.” The letter must be read as a reaffirmation of both Schechter’s embrace of Zionism and his growing apprehension about and disapproval of the secularist nature of the Zionist movement. The developments that are reflected in this tense and raw exposure of his thoughts are the outbreak of World War I in Europe, the rise of Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941) as the leader of American Zionism, and Brandeis’s project to establish an American Jewish congress.

One of the many dramatic effects of the war was to reveal the catastrophic potential of nationalist movements. Schechter understood, presciently, that Zionism needed to be shielded from the type of nationalism that brought about the outbreak of war in 1914. From his perspective, the European national rivalries were secular, unlike his understanding of the Zionist movement that was rooted in Jewish religion, history, and culture. He was, therefore, doubly wary of the ascension of Brandeis, a secular American Jew, to the leadership of the American Zionist movement.9 Brandeis was later to become a hero of American Jewry, nominated the following year by President Woodrow Wilson as the first Jew to serve as a Supreme Court justice. He would also play a key role in securing Wilson’s support for the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Both developments predate the contentiousness that comes across in Schechter’s letter. While the American Zionist movement’s “ranks and treasury swelled as never before,” a development that Jonathan Sarna credits to Brandeis’s “persona, mystique, charm, prestige, fluency, sincerity and passion,” Brandeis also found himself walking into a minefield of intra-Jewish politics.10 Zionism and its assertion of Jewish nationality was so controversial among American Jewry that Brandeis, after finding himself accosted by hecklers at an American Jewish Committee conference in 1916 and criticized by the New York Times for bringing embarrassment to the Supreme Court, felt compelled to resign his chairmanship of the American Zionist movement.11

In 1915, Schechter was agitated by Brandeis’s efforts to establish an American Jewish congress. Brandeis was engaged in a political battle with the older, established (and less Zionist) leadership of the American Jewish Committee. His vision was to create a democratically representative congress to represent American Zionism and American Jewry in general before the expected deliberation of the victorious powers at the conclusion of the war.12 Brandeis’s appeal to a broader democratic base for Jewish politics should be understood in the context of the broader progressive movement of the time, represented by both Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. The progressivist success in promoting democratic power over the old establishment is best exemplified by the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1913, establishing direct election of United States Senators rather than their selection by state legislatures. Brandeis, a member of the Wilsonian progressivist movement that saw the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment as one of its successes, applied the same approach to Jewish politics, to Schechter’s dismay.

Ironically, Brandeis and Schechter were aligned in their support for the Allied nations against the Central powers in the war. Earlier in 1915, Schechter wrote how he yearned for “the glorious prospect of England one day annexing Palestine with God’s help. I argue with all my friends that this is the only solution for which we should hope.”13 Schechter could manage the opposition to his support for Zionism on the part of his colleague Cyrus Adler and his trustee Jacob Schiff, for he did so as an individual, not on behalf of his institution, JTS.14 But speaking out on behalf of England when the United States was still neutral in the war was not something he could do. The United States would not join the war until two years after Schechter’s death. In 1915, the German Jewish elite of American Jewry would have supported Germany in the war, as did most Jews who championed Germany’s “liberation” of the Jews in Eastern Europe from the yoke of Russian tsarist oppression.15 Schechter would certainly have celebrated the Balfour Declaration and, later, Britain’s victory over the Ottomans and conquest of Palestine. But he could never have supported Germany, having experienced antisemitism in Berlin as a student, followed by great professional success in Britain. Schechter is remembered as saying when the war broke out that “my next book will be by Professor Butcher [as opposed to “Schechter” which, while Yiddish, sounds German and in the latter language means “slaughterer”]. I won’t have anyone thinking from the sound of it that I belong to that race of barbarians.”16 These ironies aside, Schechter penned his letter in late 1915 attacking Brandeis for his congress plan for American Zionism.

Schechter’s opposition to an American Jewish congress was consistent with his conservative tendencies. Ten years earlier, he opposed the Reform proposal of a Jewish synod, concerned that such a body would legislate popular reforms and, as such, lose sight of the wisdom of Jewish tradition and law.17 When his opposition to Brandeis and the congress caused Schechter to be, in the words of Norman Bentwich, “denounced as an enemy of democracy and Jewish nationalism,” Schechter sought to clarify his views in the letter presented here.18

Text of Schechter’s Letter

Sir: It is now some ten years since you granted me the privilege of publishing my “Statement” on Zionism which led, as your readers will remember, to a great deal of discussion and criticism.19 May I now beg again for the privilege to state my present relation to the Movement and its peculiar side-issues which have come to light during the last months? I may as well state at once that I am still adhering in my loyalty to the Movement as I was years ago. Otherwise, I would not have incorporated the “Statement” just mentioned in the volume which was the subject of review in these columns some time ago,20 though I did not hesitate for a moment to express my fears and anxieties about certain aspects of the Movement chiefly owing to the interpretation of the principles of the Movement by certain leaders with whom religion is a negligible quantity in the scheme of Zionism.21 It was for the same reasons that in my last graduation speech I expressed my disapproval of converting the pulpit into a nationalistic platform in which the religious aspect of the Movement is almost entirely suppressed, thus secularizing our Synagogues and suppressing all those aspirations and hopes of the Jews attaching themselves to the ideal of God’s people and a holy nation.22 I acted in accordance with my conviction expressed years and years ago that we can as little have Jews without Judaism as Judaism without Jews.23 That this expression was sure to bring on me a shower of abuse and all sorts of insults in print and in letters, mostly anonymous, was foreseen. And I did foresee it. But I never hesitated to declare freely my principles on account of possible consequences—and least of all would I keep back my convictions because of the fear of unpopularity. Popularity does not form a part of my happiness. I never courted the people, nor will I begin to do so now.

So as to my present attitude towards the Movement. As I have said, I still adhere to the cause of Zionism, as far as it does not collide either with one’s religious principles or scientific convictions. But there were also lately brought up what I call side issues which have practically nothing to do with the Movement, and were only forced on us by Mr. Brandeis. For good or for evil, I belong to those whom Mr. Brandeis stigmatized lately as the Bonzes.24 To what class Mr. Brandeis belongs I do not know. But he impresses me as something of a homo novus, or rather as a Judaeus novus, having had till lately no affiliation at all with Jewish affairs, either religious or even philanthropic and educational. His accession to Zionism is decidedly a great gain for the Movement, considering his social position and his organizing abilities. But his methods are extremely objectionable. He has brought into Zionism a factor which has certainly no bearing on the Movement; and whilst preaching always unity, I can only see that he has brought about a split in American Israel as never known before. We are living now in dreadful times,25 and if there ever were a time when silence was golden, it is this time, when we are being closely watched by the Jewish and Christian world at large, especially by the latter, and whenever any incautious word, any denunciation is sure to be reported by the agents of the Great Powers to their superiors, and have an immediate effect on the fortunes in the power of these superiors. A world of mischief has already been done by our papers, whose partisanship as unrestrained comment on behalf of the Central Powers has certainly not made the task of our brethren in England and France easier.26 We are not considered there as neutrals, but as outspoken Pro-Germans, at war with the whole world except with the Teutonic Powers.27 And now Mr. Brandeis comes and is determined to force upon us a Congress, in which the Jewish problem should be discussed, followed by action. This means to commit the whole of American Israel to the views which will be aired there by the men versed in the art of shouting and agitating. The reason Mr. Brandeis gives is that such agencies as they existed till now, as for instance, the American [Jewish] Committee, are not an expression of popular opinion, the men at the head of affairs there not having been elected on democratic principles, not knowing the will of the people, which alone are justified to act. I may premise that I am in no way connected with the American Jewish Committee, or with the Kehillah, or with any other organization dealing with such problems.28 On the other hand, I do object to the cry of “undemocratic.” Suppose it is not democratic? Suppose I distinctly object to democracy? Suppose I think that it is only the very few chosen distinguished for their tact, discretion, experience, influence and connection with the influences that be, is there any reason to declare me as disloyal to Jewish principles in general, or Zionist principles in particular? As far as my experience goes, it was not the multitudes who wrought the great miracles in American Israel. It was the chosen few who built up our institutions, who called into life our Orphan Asylums, our Hospitals, our Reformatories, our Homes of the Aged and Incurables, who maintained our institutions of learning, who erected our libraries, who created our Synagogues, and made an American Israel possible. Without them we would have been a mere wilderness, without any intellectual, educational and philanthropic factors in the country. It was those few who threw themselves into the breach, whenever misfortunes threatened Israel either here or abroad. It was they who watched for every opportunity to ameliorate our conditions, spiritual as well as material, whether at home or abroad. And it is my conviction that [it] is only these few who have both the will and the power to make our claims felt in the councils of the nations when the time comes. Their past, which testifies so greatly to their sense of responsibility, is the best guarantee which we have for the future. All these are matters which apparently Mr. Brandeis is unaware of or has failed to realize. What Mr. Brandeis has further failed to realize is the demagogic element in all this Movement. If he would know something more of the history of this community, he could not fail to see that some of his associates who speak so glibly of the will of the people, the conscience of Israel, etc., are only seeking to pay off old scores. It is the very people, who by their desecrating everything considered sacred and eternal, have outraged the conscience of Israel. And it was the silent opposition which they found in the rank and file of our great public spirited men, that rendered them so bitter and so pugnacious.

I am deeply sorry that I have to point out all these things. Mr. Brandeis always maintains that he is open to conviction. But what I have read of his various manifestos and pronounciamentos, it seems to me that he should be open to instruction. No man can preface for us the future of Israel who is so devoid of all the knowledge of our past, even of the past of our New York community, with its various currents and jealousies and partisanships.

Epilogue: Reading Schechter’s Letter Over a Century Later

Reading Schechter’s 1915 letter against Brandeis over a century later, one is struck, after digesting the rawness of what was an uncensored unpublished draft, by how much has changed. Nationalism, discredited by so many after World War I, was further blamed for the unimaginable tragedies of World War II. And yet, the Jewish nationalist movement found its greatest success in the wake of that war and of the Shoah, with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The nature of Jewish nationalism is more controversial today than ever before, as an ultranationalist governing coalition came to power in Israel after democratic elections in November 2022. As of this writing, Israel is seeing massive weekly demonstrations against the governing coalition’s proposals to limit the role of the courts as a balancing power against the majority of the democratically elected Knesset. The democratic nature of the state is being argued by both sides in what has become the most polarizing debate in Israeli history. The antigovernment protestors claim that only with the courts’ power of judicial review can minority rights and democracy in general be protected from the tyranny of the majority, while the prime minister responds that the majority will of the parliament is not antidemocratic but is the essence of democracy. Looking at Schechter’s letter in 1915 offers a fascinating perspective on today’s conflicts.

In 1915, Schechter opposed democratic progressivism, provocatively writing (although not publishing) the question: “Suppose I distinctly object to democracy?” We would not phrase such a challenge today with those words, as “democracy” is the signpost being brandished by both sides in the current debate in Israel. But we can understand that what Schechter is really opposing is what we call “populism,” understood as an ultranationalist majority that has found success across democratic nations since 2016 in electoral patterns that have not been seen since before World War II. The concept of judicial review, the question that has exploded on the streets of Israel in 2023, exists as a check against majority will, the unchecked populism that Schechter so feared in both religious contexts (the synod proposed by the Reform Movement) and political contexts (the congress politics of Brandeis’s Zionism). Constitutional law, Schechter would argue, exists as a protection against tyranny, whether from a monarch or a democratically elected body. This is no less the case in Israel, which lacks a constitution, than in the United States, whose constitution itself gives not a hint of the court’s power of judicial review. “Constitutional law,” wrote John Hart Ely, dean of Stanford Law School, in 1980, “appropriately exists for those situations where representative government cannot be trusted.”29 And so, in 2023, 108 years after the death of Solomon Schechter, the Rabbinical Assembly, his supposed heirs in the rabbinate, declared its opposition to the proposals to subject judicial review to repeal by a majority of the Knesset. “The RA proudly stands,” its statement of January 4, 2023, concludes, “for the rights of all and champions the integrity and independence of the High Court, which has historically safeguarded minority rights against the threat of tyranny by the majority.”30 Schechter’s concerns about majority-rule remain complex and contested.

Another area of supposed difference from Schechter’s perspective is on the role of secular and religious Zionism. Schechter’s cultural Zionism leaned toward religious Zionism, whereas most of his supposed heirs in today’s Conservative/Masorti movement see themselves, in general, as more aligned with the secular Zionist parties than with the religious parties. Israeli political history has seen the religious parties gain a beachhead of power that has made it difficult for non-Orthodox Judaism to exist in Israel. Because of the discrimination faced by non-Orthodox Judaism, Masorti Judaism generally allies itself with the secular Zionist parties, even as it stands for a Jewish religious traditionalism (masoret) that is championed by the religious parties. But the tensions faced by Masorti Judaism today are not so different in nature from what Schechter expresses. What worried him about Brandeis and the secularists was the demagoguery of unchecked populist nationalism that he saw exploding around the world with the outbreak of World War I. In his day, that was a secular nationalism. Today, the ultranationalists of the Zionist spectrum are found within the religious camp (understanding the Yisrael Beiteinu party as an exception which proves the rule). While the issues of the debate change, a closer look reveals that what really scared Schechter was a populist extremism unchecked by traditional Jewish sensibilities and wisdom. In that sense, we share Schechter’s concerns.

Historians throughout history have served in the consoling role of reminding the disoriented that the issues we face are rarely new and unprecedented. Our century is worlds away from what was before the Shoah and the establishment of the State of Israel. And yet, we can still call ourselves students of Solomon Schechter.

David J. Fine is rabbi of Temple Israel and Jewish Community Center in Ridgewood, New Jersey, and Adjunct Professor of Jewish Law at the Zacharias Frankel and Abraham Geiger Colleges in Potsdam, Germany. He was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary and earned his Ph.D. in modern European history at the City University of New York.