笔记：众所周知，西方特别是美国新闻媒体和好莱坞都是由犹太人和犹太人的财团所控制。美国目前新闻界是一边倒向奥巴马政府，都是支持社会主义政策的自由派。伟大的无产阶级精神领袖共产主义思想的创建人卡尔马克思就是犹太人。为什么犹太人对社会主义如此推崇？为什么犹太人绝大多数都是自由派？（极少数犹太人是保守派，他们每天在电台里骂自由派，批判奥巴马的社会主义政策）。为什么好莱坞的影星们很多都是自由派？这个问题有答案了。

这篇关于为什么犹太人是自由派的文章是很多中国人的一面镜子。我也一直在想这个问题，为什么一些思想保守的中国人会支持自由派的社会主义政策。原因也找到了：1。反对基督教　2。把自己当成被剥削被压迫的社会底层，希望政府来拯救自己。3。中国知识分子以天下为已任，一拯救劳苦大众为理想的宏图大志。4。长年累月马克思主义共产主义思想教育的结果5。想浑水摸鱼占便宜。

在美國，多數猶太人是Liberal（自由派），而和Conservative（保守派）相分野。在西方，所謂自由派，就是比較左傾。美國猶太人知識份子辦的保守派雜誌《評論》（Commentary）在今年九月號召集了六位知名的猶太裔思想家，每人寫了篇文章，就此進行了探討。之所以在這個時候出現這場討論，因為做過《評論》35年主編的保守派大將波德霍雷茨（Norman Podhoretz）最近寫了本書《為什麼猶太人是自由派？》（Why Are Jews Liberals?）。這本書一出版，就遭到左派旗艦《紐約時報》書評的痛批、嘲罵。

沒有政府，就會人吃人？

波德霍雷茨和六名參加討論的思想家都是猶太人，由他們來探討猶太人本身的問題，不會被人指控為「反猶」；而且由於他們身在其中，可能會更瞭解其原因。

波德霍雷茨在書中首先結論說，左傾，已經成為猶太人的宗教（religion），成為他們的信仰（faith）。他旁徵博引猶太人的歷史指出，由於猶太人長期沒有自己的國家，流散世界，那種寄「他國」籬下的生活艱辛和處境，使他們一代代積累了一種文化心理，那就是依賴國家和政府，希望獲得政府保護。他引用一位猶太作家的名言︰「如果沒有政府，人與人之間，就會活活吃掉對方（eat each other alive）。」

猶太人這種流散世界、倍嘗艱難、是被壓迫者（underdog）的歷史，使他們對平等、權威（政府）的保護等，特別敏感和推崇，由此形成歷史性的價值取向︰更傾心左派政黨包攬一切的大政府、高福利理念。

參加討論的多位猶太裔思想家，都同意波德霍雷茨的這種歷史性原因的分析。但也有人指出，猶太人的左傾，還和這個族裔的特殊宗教背景有關。因為猶太人多不信仰《新約》，不信奉耶穌基督，只是信奉《舊約》，被稱為猶太教。這種反對基督教的立場，也使他們多傾向左翼政黨。在美國，雖然左右兩大政黨都有基督徒支持者，但從選民分類來看，多數基督徒投了保守派共和黨的票。所以福音派被稱為共和黨的票倉；而左派佔絕對多數的好萊塢，則是民主黨的票源和錢倉。

美國猶太人上教堂比例最低

今天，美國的猶太人是各種族裔中，宗教信仰最弱的族群。根據《評論》上引述的統計數字，每週上一次教堂的猶太人，只有16%，但整體美國人，卻佔39%。說「宗教對他們的人生是非常重要的」的美國人占56%，而在猶太人中，只有31%。

由於對基督教的反感，他們連帶反感、甚至反對獲得多數基督徒支持的右翼共和黨，由此也自然傾向更有左翼色彩的自由派民主黨。

在英國、加拿大、澳大利亞等國，猶太人原來也是多數支持該國的左派政黨，但近年情況有些變化。因為這些國家的左翼政黨不那麼支持猶太人的母國以色列，甚至有時跟反猶的阿拉伯國家聯手，導致這些國家的猶太人開始轉向，改投保守派政黨的票；畢竟以色列被阿拉伯國家包圍和敵視，絕大多數猶太人對此相當看重，所以該國政黨是否支持以色列很影響他們的政見。

據《評論》上文章的引述，在英、澳、加的猶太人，現在基本上已左、右各佔一半。但在美國，卻是絕大多數猶太人仍支持左翼民主黨。例如奧巴馬就獲得80%以上的猶太人選票。而且自1928年以來，美國歷次總統大選，共和黨從未拿到超過40%的猶太人選票。《評論》的文章說，這是因為美國的民主黨，不像英、澳、加等國的左翼政黨那樣明顯不支持以色列，而是表面上跟共和黨差不多，也高喊支持以色列，所以美國的猶太人沒有那麼強烈的對左派政黨的厭惡。

多數猶太人支持共產黨

但把猶太人左傾的根源歸於依賴政府和宗教背景，也並不全面。因為在蘇聯的列寧斯大林時代，沒有這兩個因素，多數猶太人也支持共產黨。根據加州伯克萊大學教授斯萊茲肯（Yuri Slezkine）的專著《猶太人的世紀》，蘇維埃紅色政權的建立，主要得利於猶太人。雖然猶太人在當時蘇聯人口中不到兩個百分點，但在布爾什維克中央委員會，猶太人佔了45%。蘇維埃第一次全國代表大會的代表，30%以上是猶太人。蘇聯紅軍軍官和蘇共幹部，各自有40%猶太人。斯大林的秘密警察「契卡 」（克格勃前身），38.5%是猶太人。更不要說托洛茨基、捷爾仁斯基、季諾維也夫、加米涅夫等早期蘇共領袖都是猶太人。

為什麼猶太人要支持共產黨？這和猶太人多是知識份子有直接關係，實際上是知識份子多有共產主義、社會主義那種要普救天下、建立共產天堂的烏托邦幻想；並有最想站道德高地為所謂窮人打抱不平的左傾激情。

在列寧時代的蘇聯，據統計，雖然猶太人只佔人口1.8%，但在莫斯科的大學生中，猶太人佔了17%。在烏克蘭首府基輔，甚至高達36%。在整個蘇聯，猶太人在大學教授中占14%。在列寧格勒，猶太人占所有報紙記者、編輯、作家中的30%以上。今天在美國，猶太人在知識界仍占相當多數，遠遠超過他們在美國人口中所佔的比例。據統計，在美國大學教授中，高達90%註冊為左翼民主黨，在報社和電視台等媒體中，也占70%左右。

傾向烏托邦，喜歡當救世主

我在兩年前的一篇題為「為什麼多數猶太人左傾」的分析文章就指出過，猶太人的知識份子比例高，自然左傾者就多。這實際上是整體知識份子的問題，因為知識份子天生就有個傾向，熱衷烏托邦的意識形態，熱衷扮演為民請命的救世主角色，所以就自然偏向均貧富、平等至上的價值方向；站在所謂代表窮人、代表被壓迫者講話的道德高地，就很容易脫離大眾，偏離中產階級的常識（common sense）。

另一個原因是，由於猶太人是人類族群中，歷史最長，最精明的一個族裔；而且他們流散世界各地的艱難環境，刺激和形成他們奮鬥自強的精神。結果各地的猶太人，多是那個社會的佼佼者︰富有、有成就。成就顯著，就遭人妒。再加上有些猶太人太精明，又比較吝嗇苛刻（很多跟猶太人打過交道的人有這種感覺），他們知道自己被人討厭，就要去尋求心理「平衡」；於是注重粉飾形象，特意要唱照顧窮人、均貧富等「高調」。

由於希特勒殺害了六百萬猶太人，再加上全球至今都仍有嚴重的反猶主義存在，所以對猶太人身上毛病的討論，就很困難，因為動輒就可能被指控「反猶」。猶太人思想家自己來探討這個問題，既少了這份擔憂，同時又等於證明，這不是哪個種族的問題，而更多是知識份子的整體問題。

Why Are Jews Liberals?
I'm hoping buyer's remorse on Obama will finally cause a Jewish shift to the right.

By NORMAN PODHORETZ
One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama's victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary about the number itself. Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

Yet there were reasons to think that it would be different in 2008. The main one was Israel. Despite some slippage in concern for Israel among American Jews, most of them were still telling pollsters that their votes would be strongly influenced by the positions of the two candidates on the Jewish state. This being the case, Mr. McCain's long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him a distinct advantage over Mr. Obama, whose own history consisted of associating with outright enemies of the Jewish state like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the historian Rashid Khalidi.

Hebrew campaign buttons for Barack Obama.
Nevertheless, Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points. Except for African Americans, who gave him 95% of their vote, Mr. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. Thus the Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

These numbers remind us of the extent to which the continued Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: "Jews earn like Episcopalians"—then the most prosperous minority group in America—"and vote like Puerto Ricans," who were then the poorest.

Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has put it, "whatever the promptings of their economic interests," Jews have consistently supported "increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor."

As with these old political and economic questions, so with the newer issues being fought out in the culture wars today. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of "Jewish values." But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law. To cite just a few examples: Jewish law permits abortion only to protect the life of the mother; it forbids sex between men; and it prohibits suicide (except when the only alternatives are forced conversion or incest).

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity.

All this applies most fully to Jews who are Jewish only in an ethnic sense. Indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

But avowed secularists are not the only Jews who confuse Judaism with liberalism; so do many non-Orthodox Jews who practice this or that traditional observance. It is not for nothing that a cruel wag has described the Reform movement—the largest of the religious denominations within the American Jewish community—as "the Democratic Party with holidays thrown in," and the services in a Reform temple as "the Democratic Party at prayer."

As a Jew who moved from left to right more than four decades ago, I have been hoping for many years that my fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was the case in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

In this realm, too, American Jewry surely belongs with the conservatives rather than the liberals. For the social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth.

The Jewish immigrants who began coming here from Eastern Europe in the 1880s were right to call America "the golden land." They soon learned that there was no gold in the streets, as some of them may have imagined, which meant that they had to struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.

What I am saying is that if anything bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional American system, it is the Jewish experience in this country. Surely, then, we Jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values, and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional American system depends.

In 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran to an unprecedented degree on the premise that the American system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, I hoped that my fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they have remained in thrall long past the point where it has served either their interests or their ideals.

That possibility having been resoundingly dashed, I now grasp for some encouragement from the signs that buyer's remorse is beginning to set in among Jews, as it also seems to be doing among independents. Which is why I am hoping against hope that the exposure of Mr. Obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow Jews to the correlative falsity of the political creed he so perfectly personifies and to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His latest book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?" is just out from Doubleday.