A child in a Trump mask waves a flag in a Trump victory parade in Florida. Photo by Getty Images

Contributing Columnist Jay Michaelson November 18, 2024

The Jerusalem Talmud, in Sanhedrin 4:2, relates a brief but radical story. It imagines Moses asking God a simple question: “Teach me the halacha!” Teach me the law. But God replies, “Follow the majority … The Torah can be interpreted 49 ways for tameh, 49 ways for tahor.” In other words, there are 49 ways to rule something pure, 49 ways to rule the same thing impure. There are multiple interpretations on both sides of every issue.

Rabbinic Judaism is well aware of interpretive abundance. Even after the majority rules, minority opinions are preserved. Sometimes even God is overruled by rabbinic reasoning. And the legendary literature known as the midrash expands scriptural interpretation to be practically infinite, creating and embellishing legends in ways that sometimes undermine the literal text.

It is part of our evolutionary heritage to interpret our experience — a trait that has served animals well for millions of years. But the act of interpretation has no bounds.

I bring this up because, post-election, we are in a period of fertile interpretation. Politicians, pundits and probably some of your relatives are busy reading the tea leaves of the election in ways that confirm their priors — i.e. showing that they were right all along.

The American people rejected wokeness, opines Bari Weiss, who has made rejecting wokeness the centerpiece of her career. The American people rejected transgender equality, opines Pamela Paul, who has made rejecting transgender equality the centerpiece of her career. The Democrats moved too far to the left, opines David Brooks, who has made criticizing the leftward tilt of Democrats the centerpiece of his career. Democrats moved too far to the right on Israel, Democrats moved too far to the left on Israel. The election is about the gender line, the class line, the rural-urban line. There’s a mandate for everyone’s pet issue and a validation of everyone’s pet perspective.

Poppycock.

The data doesn’t support any of this I-told-you-so-ism. Every exit poll and dataset has shown that — much to the consternation of progressives — economic insecurity and dread drove swing voters to the right. Not only that, but this has been the case in every developed country this year. Post-pandemic inflation has hit people hard, and they are throwing the bastards out of office, whoever the bastards are. And in fact, Trump’s victory was narrower than most.

Sure, Republicans voted for an immigration crackdown, restrictions on abortion, and the rest. But those votes were already baked into pre-election polling. The swing voters — the ones that surprised pollsters and delivered the victory — voted on the economy.

Now, it’s still true that these voters were willing to put up with things progressives find abhorrent: to trade the birthright of democracy for the porridge of lower food prices. Yet even here, we should be wary before interpreting too much. Many of these swing voters were “low-information voters.” They didn’t follow the news. They had no idea about Project 2025 or the Jan. 6 cases or any of the things that keep progressives up at night. This ignorance is, itself, a big problem, but that’s still different from the election being a referendum on all of Trump’s past misdeeds and future actions.

It simply was not. Despite the human drive to interpret phenomena in ways that yield some insight or novelty, this election was simple and boring. It was the economy, stupid — in particular, global economic upheaval. Again, no incumbent party has won this year. In the world.

Why is this relevant? A few reasons.

First, as I wrote here shortly after the election, it’s quite understandable for liberal Jews to feel like strangers in our own country. I’ve spoken to many friends who are deeply disheartened, and, to be honest, I am too. But this reaction gives too much weight to interpretation. In fact, the people who voted for the MAGA agenda are, more or less, the same people who always do. The margin of victory was slim and due to economics. This is not a referendum on anything other than discontent.

To be sure, vulnerable people — migrants, public servants, journalists, activists, trans people, and many others — are still going to be in danger. So will the natural world, from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to, well, just about everywhere, as we face increased droughts and floods due to global climatic disruption. The consequences of the election are serious and are not a matter of interpretation. But remember, this is not why swing voters voted the way they did. Remember and take heart.

Second, I’ve noticed in myself a tendency to “obey in advance,” as scholar of fascism Timothy Snyder warned us not to do. We sense the zeitgeist has shifted, and we self-censor (or self-express), we accept defeat and withdraw. The manosphere is in charge now, we say to ourselves. Time to get with the program.

I strongly disagree! Don’t give reactionary forces power over your life. They may take it if they can, but you don’t have to give it away. I am not one iota less passionate about climate change, spirituality, liberation, or justice than I was a month ago. The arena has changed — that is true. I know full well that my “side” is about to lose, and lose badly, in almost every arena. I will be somewhat impacted, friends of mine more so, strangers even more. But I’d rather lose than quit, and I have enough Jewish messianic hope to believe that losing on the right side of history may, one day, be vindicated.

Finally, it’s good to be wary of overinterpretation in general.

One of the brilliant insights of Marshall Rosenberg’s Non-Violent Communication process is that we jump to conclusions based on very limited evidence. Someone says something, and we interpret it, often incorrectly, according to a host of internal and external factors. Did they intend to be aggressive, or were they awkwardly making a joke? Did they intend to insult me, or were they just focused on themselves? Separating out what we see and hear from what we interpret — and, conversely, learning to speak in a way that doesn’t make assumptions about others — is a crucial step in defusing conflict before it starts.

The same is true in our public lives. There is no single Trump voter. There are voting blocs — MAGA believers and Christian conservatives, sure, but also Israel hawks, anti-“system” voters who correctly see Trump as a disruptive figure, and many ordinary people who are having trouble making ends meet and (wrongly) believe that Trump will somehow fix it. And it’s that last group that put him over the top.

We owe it to ourselves, our mental health, and the well-being of our families to not overinterpret the election result. Ignore the pundits confirming their priors and the politicians claiming broad mandates they did not in fact receive. Focus your attention inward, and then, when you’re ready, turn it toward the people who need our help.

A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

The coming year promises to be filled with more complex and historic developments. We are entering an era where independent, fact-based Jewish journalism will be more important than ever. We need to be ready for whatever 2025 will bring, and with your help, we can be.

We’ve set a goal to raise $260,000 by December 31. That’s an ambitious goal, but one that will give us the resources we need to invest in the high quality news, opinion, analysis and cultural coverage that isn’t available anywhere else.

If you feel inspired to make an impact, now is the time to give something back. Join us as a member at your most generous level.

—  Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

With your support, we’ll be ready for whatever 2025 brings.

$36 $500

$120 $180 Other amount