Who represents the Jews?

The Twitter argument earlier this week between UJC’s vice president of public policy William Daroff and J Street’s Isaac Luria — which ended which Daroff charging that J Street was "standing with the mullahs" on Iran and to the left of "Obama and everyone" — mushroomed into another Twitter debate for Daroff, this time with former JTAer Daniel Sieradski. Sieradski posted the full exchange on his blog under the headline "UJC: We speak for you whether you like it or not"; here are a couple excerpts:

Mobius1ski: @Daroff The organized Jewish community and the actual Jewish community are two completely different animals.

Mobius1ski: As a former Republican Jewish Coalition operative, you’re to the hard right of at least 60% of American Jewry.

Daroff: @mobius1ski I represent most consensus-driven org of North American Jewish community; the consenus is w/sanctions; J Street is outside.

Mobius1ski: @Daroff Sanctions worked great in Iraq! Only 500,000 innocent children died according to UNICEF!

Mobius1ski: @Daroff UJC doesn’t rep me, nor my peers, in any way, shape or form. Until we have a vote @theJCPA, you’re just a good ol’ boys club to us.

Daroff: @mobius1ski Who is “we”? 140 orgs have a vote at @TheJCPA – including @TheRAC & the Reconstructionists

And after some back and forth about UJC’s role in the Jewish community:

Mobius1ski: @Daroff I appreciate that. I’m not anti-UJC, I just don’t think raising & disbursing funds entitles you to speak on behalf of all Jews.

Mobius1ski: @Daroff As Abe Foxman told a Jewschool blogger once, “I don’t represent the Jewish people. I represent my donors.” Same goes for UJC.

Mobius1ski: @Daroff “We,” by the way, are young American Jews who do not affiliate in traditional ways, such as through denominations & institutions.

Daroff: @mobius1ski Jewish agencies supported by UJC/Jewish federations help millions of people – regardless of affiliation or donation

Mobius1ski: @Daroff Yes, they help, undeniably. But that doesn’t mean they speak for those they help. If I give to UJAFedNY, do I speak for you?

Mobius1ski: @Daroff I’m not debating whether the UJC does good work, but whether its positions on Iran are actually in-step w/ most American Jews’.

Daroff: @mobius1ski Does Obama represent you? Did Bush? You might not agree w/everything we say or do – but we do represent you.

Mobius1ski: @Daroff Comparing UJC to elected officials is beyond hubris.

Mobius1ski: @Daroff My U.S. citizenship is a social contract w/ the gov’t. My Jewishness is not a social contract w/ UJC.

Daroff: @mobius1ski Didn’t mean to be hubrisy; simply stated: organized Jewish community endeavors to represent Jewish communal interests.

Sieradski explains his argument more fully here:

My bone of contention is that the UJC and local federations — as non-democratic entities beholden only to the whims of their donors — cannot justifiably claim to represent the totality of American Jews politically. This is chiefly because wealthier Jews who take interest in Jewish issues tend to skew to the right, and when their money buys them influence, that skews Jewish policy to the right. Therefore, when UJC speaks on behalf of American Jews, it does so without a mandate from the people, narrowly representing the interests of its benefactors alone.

The JCPA is somewhat a different story, but even its member organizations operate non-democratically and represent only their constituencies — a model increasingly irrelevant to my generation of post-institutional Jews. Which isn’t to say that they’re bad organizations — some of them are great organizations. It’s just that my peers aren’t members or aren’t otherwise represented.

Until the UJC considers, in its policy discussions, the feelings of every Jew — especially those who can’t afford to donate to their local federations, let alone donate tens of thousands of dollars or more — it cannot and should not claim to speak on behalf of American Jewry.

But the fact is that there is consensus in the Jewish community for increased economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran, including additional sanctions. The vast majority of Jewish groups — including all four religious streams and umbrella groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, are behind that policy. And while Sieradski is correct that the policies of some of those groups are more responsive to their donors than the Jewish community at large, a number of Jewish groups are a representative democracy — or at least the best attempt possible.

Organizations representing the religious streams, like the Orthodox Union and the Union of Reform Judaism, meet regularly at conventions to vote on policy resolutions, and every synagogue that is a member of those institutions is eligible to vote on them. Then there’s the JCPA, which is composed of both national organizations and more than 100 local community relations councils. In Washington, D.C., for instance, each of the more than 200 Jewish institutions in the metropolitan area are permitted to vote for an approximately 40-member board of the JCRC here, which then votes on policy resolutions. Then representatives from that board come to the annual JCPA Plenum to vote on policies for the national organization. It may not be perfect, but you can’t call it "undemocratic." (And there’s nothing stopping Sieradski and his peers from getting involved in those organizations and attempting to change their policies from the inside — or pushing to get the new organizations he and his peers create to be part of the umbrella.)

Now just because there is a broad consensus among Jewish communal organizations on Iran, does that mean that every single Jew agrees, or that anyone should think so? Of course not. I wouldn’t think that every African-American agrees with every policy statement from the NAACP or every gay and lesbian agreed with the legislation that the Human Rights Campaign supports. But it’s not like there aren’t Jewish organizations who have come forward to dissent — both Americans for Peace Now and J Street have been vocal in their disagreement. But unless we have some kind of mass polling of every single Jew on Iran (and not only is that not going to happen, but Sieradski doesn’t offer any actual proof that such a vote would provide a different result than the consensus that has been reached), the democratic processes that these organizations seem like the best way to determine opinion in the community — or at least, as the saying goes about democracy, the worst  way except for all the others.

Finally, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism associate director Mark Pelavin defends umbrella groups like his:

It is true, as Daniel and others argue, that the Jewish community is a vibrant place, and that we are in the midst of what I hope is an era of innovation. There is, indeed, an impressive array of new organizations on the scene; they are doing important work, and, often, reaching Jews who are not being reached by the more established institutions. But the troubling notion that an umbrella organization should not claim to represent anyone unless it can represent everyone is a prescription for paralysis and on the part of these organizations.

When representing any constituency, all any organization can do is come up with the best and most democratic processes possible, and stick to those processes unwaveringly. Unanimity, ideal though it might be, is simply not a realistic option, but neither is foregoing the pressing and critical opportunity to be a strong voice for the consensus views of the people who our organizations do, indeed, represent. (I would note, for example, that the specific issue which drew Daniel’s attention, economic sanctions against Iran, is one that enjoys a very broad consensus within the American Jewish community.) UJC (and JCPA, and the URJ, etc.) have extensive decision-making processes in place to make sure that our policy positions do, in fact, reflect (as best they can) the consensus views of our constituents.