密歇根州乃至全美国的犹太人，最好重新审视他们权衡阿卜杜勒·埃尔-赛义德竞选美国参议员所带来选择时的考量框架。无论个人是否认同该候选人对以色列政府巴勒斯坦政策的敌意，这种重新审视都是必要的。有工作要做。没有什么使命比将特朗普主义从我们国家的公民肌理中拆解出来更为重要，而埃尔-赛义德有望在这一任务中发挥重要作用。
Jews in Michigan, and across America, would do well to reframe the terms on which they are weighing the choice posed by Abdul El-Sayed’s candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Such a reframe is in order, however individuals align with the candidate’s antagonism to the Israeli government’s policies toward Palestinians. There is work to be done. There is no mission more vital than unstitching Trumpism from our nation’s civic fabric, and El-Sayed stands to be a major player in that task.
埃尔-赛义德与其拥抱MAGA的对手迈克·罗杰斯之间的抉择，不应像密歇根州犹太裔民主党总检察长达娜·内塞尔所描述的那样——被理解为一种痛苦的平衡之举，预设着“世界的需要”（即自由派政策偏好）与“我们自身的利益——牺牲我们自己人民的舒适、安全、保障乃至未来，以换取拯救其余人类的机会”之间存在“张力”。
这也不像数百位知名自由派犹太人于9月17日在支持埃尔-赛义德的背书中所写的那样，仅仅是一步“战略棋招”，以确保“在谈判桌旁有一席之地”。恰恰相反：支持像埃尔-赛义德这样的自由派民主党人，本身就会极大地增强美国犹太人的安全——尤其是如果埃尔-赛义德获胜并帮助民主党掌控参议院的话。
The decision between El-Sayed and his MAGA-embracing opponent, Mike Rogers, should not be understood, as Michigan’s Jewish Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel, cast it—as a painful balancing act that presumes a “tension”
在当前这场充满争议的辩论中，有两个被忽视的重要因素：选择埃尔-赛义德（El-Sayed）担任密歇根州参议院的空缺职位，实际上是在促进而非违背犹太社区的长期安全利益。首先，美国犹太人在过去250年来所享有的“舒适、安全与保障”生活，正是建立在我们的宪政民主制度之上的。这一制度起源于1776年的《独立宣言》和1789年的宪法；随后通过1790年代的《权利法案》修正案、重建时期的第十三条、第十四条和第十五条修正案，以及进步主义时期的第十六条、第十七条和第十九条修正案（分别规定了征收国家所得税以资助现代福利制度、参议员由民众选举产生以及妇女享有平等的投票权）得到了进一步完善。全国各地的州宪法也延续了这一民主精神。
between“the needs of the world” (that is to say, liberal policy preferences) and “our own self-interest sacrificing the comfort, safety, and security and even the very future of our own people in exchange for the opportunity to save the rest of humanity.”Nor is it, as several hundred prominent liberal Jews wrote on September 17 in an endorsement of El-Sayed, merely a “strategic chess move” ensure“a seat at the table.”To the contrary: Supporting a liberal Democrat like El-Sayed in and of itself strongly enhances the security of American Jews especially if El-Sayed wins and helps Democrats take control of the Senate.
当然，反犹太主义和歧视行为在建国之初并未被彻底消除。事实上，争取平等的政治、经济、教育和社会机会一直是美国历史上持续不断的斗争，至今仍在继续。但美国犹太人能够在这种制度的支持下开展斗争，并逐步取得前所未有的成果——因为他们可以依靠美国的宪法体系来维护自己的公民权利。
There are two related reasons, overlooked in the current fraught debate, why electing El-Sayed to Michigan’s open Senate seat advances, rather than conflicts with, the Jewish community’s long-term, fundamental security interests. First, the unique “comfort, safety, and security” that American Jews have enjoyed for the past 250 years are anchored by our system of constitutional democracy. This system is built on the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the original 1789 Constitution, as strengthened by the Bill of Rights amendments of the 1790s, the Reconstruction-era Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and the democratizing Progressive-era Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments (prescribing, respectively, a national income tax to finance the modern welfare state, popular election of senators, and equal ballot access for women), and by kindred state constitutions nationwide.
这一模式始于1790年。当时，如今位于罗德岛州纽波特的图罗犹太教堂的世俗领袖摩西·塞克斯拉斯致信乔治·华盛顿总统。信中写道：“我们此前一直被剥夺作为自由公民所享有的宝贵权利。”他及教众希望得到确认：“如今我们看到一个由人民主权所建立的政府……它既不纵容偏执行为，又能保障所有人的信仰自由与公民权利。”
Naturally, antisemitism and anti-Jewish discrimination were not eliminated at the nation’s founding. Quite the contrary: Gaining equal political, economic, educational, and social opportunity and acceptance has been an ongoing struggle throughout the nation’s history, continuing today.
华盛顿的回复广为人知：“愿居住在这片土地上的亚伯拉罕后裔们继续赢得其他居民的善意；愿人人都能安然自在地生活，无人能威胁到他们的安全。”当时，确立上述原则的《宪法第一修正案》已获国会两院通过，正等待13个州的批准；一年多后的1791年12月，该修正案顺利获得四分之三的州批准从而正式生效。
But American Jews have been able to wage that struggle on firm ground, and over time gain unprecedented results, because they could vindicate their civil rights thanks to our nation’s constitutional architecture.
当时，《宪法》所保障的权利仅适用于联邦政府。直到19世纪60年代末《重建修正案》通过之前，没有任何一个州允许非基督徒享有投票权或担任公职。不过，犹太人及其他少数族裔为争取平等与安全所采取的策略始终以摩西·塞克斯拉斯1790年所援引的宪法条款为核心。最终取得的成效也远远超出了塞克斯拉斯当时的预期。
The template was set in 1790, when Moses Seixas, the lay leader of what is now the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, President George Washington, “Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free citizens,” he and his congregants sought affirmation that “we now … behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People … which to bigotry gives no sanction … but afford[s] to all Liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship.”Washington famously replied, “May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
如今，美国100名参议员中有10人为犹太人，这一比例几乎是全国犹太人口占比的五倍，他们分别来自全国各地。宾夕法尼亚州州长乔什·夏皮罗在这个摇摆州获得了高达60%的支持率，还被列入2028年总统候选人的热门人选名单。这些政治领袖的犹太身份几乎从未成为引人关注的问题。
When Washington wrote that assurance, the First Amendment codifying its precepts had passed both houses of Congress and was under review by the 13 states—the requisite three-quarters of which ratified it a little over a year later, in December 1791.
当然，这些事实早已为人所知，而它们所反映的社会共识也常常被人们视为理所当然。但实际上，这种共识正面临着严重的威胁——这种威胁的严重性超出了大多数犹太人乃至大多数自由派的认知。这种危险并不仅仅来自那个行为古怪、妄自尊大的总统；真正的危险在于支持特朗普的强大势力：他们虽然属于少数群体，但拥有庞大的选民基础；更重要的是，他们有一批致力于推翻美国宪法秩序的领导层。而这正是犹太人需要重新评估自己在密歇根州参议院选举中应采取策略的第二个原因。
At that time, the Constitution’s guarantees applied only to the federal government, and no state permitted non-Christians to vote or hold state office until the Reconstruction amendments were adopted in the late 1860s. But again, the strategies of Jews and other minorities seeking equality and security have always centered the constitutional strictures invoked by Moses Seixas in 1790. The payoffs have been well beyond the expectations Seixas may have harbored at the time. Currently, 10 of the nation’s 100 senators are Jews, nearly five times Jews’ percentage of the national population, representing states from every section of the country. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro posts unheard-of 60 percent approval ratings in swing-state Pennsylvania, and is on short lists of potential 2028 presidential nominees. The Jewishness of these political leaders is rarely if ever a discernible issue.
今年早些时候，新右翼或许只代表选民中一个明显的少数派，但其反民主的热情源于根深蒂固的经济、文化和技术趋势，而其宣传话语则由深谙政治且人脉广泛的智囊精心撰写。到2022年，新右翼的代表人物已公开拥抱神权主义和威权主义的宏大计划，意图取代自由主义在政治和文化上的主导地位。正如新右翼宣传家、美籍以色列人奥拉姆·哈佐尼（Oram Hazony）当年所写：“唯一足以阻止‘觉醒’新马克思主义这一宗教的，唯有《圣经》基督教的宗教。从历史上看，从法律上说，这个国家曾是一个基督教国家，未来也必将再次成为基督教国家。”
Of course, these facts are well known, and the societal acceptance they reflect is often taken for granted. It should not be. That nationwide consensus now faces an existential threat—different from and more dire than most Jews, indeed, most liberals appreciate. That danger is not just the erratic megalomaniac occupying the White House. It is the robust movement behind Trump, with a substantial if minority popular base and, much less noticed, a leadership cadre committed to overthrowing the Enlightenment-based constitutional order on which security for Jews and other at-risk sectors of American society depends. This is the second reason for Jews to reset their calculus for assessing their Michigan Senate conundrum.
这一“运动的大祭司”是哈佛大学法学院教授阿德里安·弗米尔（Adrian Vermeule），历史学家劳拉·菲尔德（Laura Field）如此称他。根据弗米尔自己的说法，他推崇“一种基督教策略……它将政治承诺（也就是所谓的‘法律’）……视为可灵活运用的战术工具，以尽可能最好地服务于基督的事业……自由主义的真正本质与撒旦是一致的。”
earlier this year, the New Right may represent a distinct minority of the electorate, but its antidemocratic fervor is driven by deeply rooted economic, cultural, and technological trends, and its messaging is scripted by well-versed and politically connected savants. By 2022, New Right protagonists had embraced overtly theocratic, authoritarian grand designs to displace liberal political and cultural domination. As one New Right publicist, American Israeli Oram Hazony, wrote that year, “The only thing that is strong enough to stop the religion of woke neo-Marxism is the religion of biblical Christianity. This was a Christian nation, historically and according to its laws, and it’s going to be a Christian nation again.”
尽管这些观点令人侧目，但它们绝非无足轻重。弗米尔、哈佐尼以及他们这类意图抨击宪法的意识形态分子，拥有颇具影响力的政治追随者，其中最狂热者便是副总统、共和党领导人的潜在继承人JD·范斯（JD Vance）。范斯利用公然捏造的谎言来取代“恐怖主义同情者”——即自由派和民主党人。或许最具揭示性的是，他打破了外交惯例，介入一个盟友国家的内政，为德国亲新纳粹的“德国选择党”摇旗呐喊。
The “movement’s high priest” is Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule, so labeled by historian Laura Field By his own testimony, Vermeule touts “a Christian Strategy … which view[s] political commitments [otherwise known as ‘laws’] … as tactical tools to be handled in whatever way best serves the cause of Christ.… [The] true identity of liberalism is aligned with Satan.”
为万斯以及众多极右翼分子及其主张提供资金支持的，是硅谷亿万富翁彼得·蒂尔。他曾公开表示自己“并不认为自由与民主能够相容”。在2026年的中期选举中，美国犹太人的核心诉求便是坚决抵制这一企图破坏宪法的颠覆性运动，并选出能在参众两院形成合力、遏制基督教民族主义极端势力独裁图谋的政治力量。种种迹象表明，在偏蓝偏紫的密歇根州选出一位民主党籍参议员对于实现这一目标至关重要。
However eyebrow-furrowing, these views are hardly inconsequential. Vermeule, Hazony, and their kindred would-be Constitution-bashing ideologues have weighty political disciples, the most fervent of whom is vice president and Republican-leader heir apparent JD Vance. Vance deploys patent falsehoods to displace “terrorist sympathizers”—that is, liberals and Democrats. Perhaps most revealing, he has shredded protocol by intervening in domestic politics of an allied nation, to champion Germany’s neo-Nazi-friendly Alternative for Germany. Funding Vance and numerous other far-right agents and causes is Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel, who has written that he does not “believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”The core interest of American Jews in the 2026 midterm elections is to facilitate a decisive repudiation of this subversive movement bent on shredding the Constitution, and the election of a two-house congressional platform to crush its Christian nationalist authoritarian agenda.
可以理解的是，部分美国犹太人对埃尔-赛义德过往与反犹煽动分子的交往经历及其在以色列对巴勒斯坦政策上的立场心存疑虑；不过在后者问题上，许多犹太自由派人士其实与埃尔-赛义德的观点更为接近。然而，维护作为犹太人安全保障的宪法秩序，既是美国犹太人的根本利益所在，也是全球犹太人的共同诉求。
By all accounts, election of a Democratic senator in bluish-purple Michigan is critical to secure that prospect. Understandably, some American Jews distrust El-Sayed’s record of ties with antisemitic demagoguery and his views on Israeli policy toward Palestinians though many Jewish liberals align closer to El-Sayed on that latter front. But the larger interest of American Jews indeed, of Jews globally requires preservation of the constitutional order on which their security rests.
10月5日，埃尔-赛义德与同为犹太人的密歇根州参议员埃莉萨·斯洛特金共同接受了MS NOW的采访。埃尔-赛义德说道：“无论是我还是斯洛特金参议员，都绝不会让步的一点就是：无论你是犹太人、穆斯林、基督徒、印度教徒还是锡克教徒，都理应在自己的宗教场所中享有安全——我们定会竭尽全力保护这一点。”斯洛特金也指出：“民众希望看到一位犹太女性与一位穆斯林男性能够和睦相处、坦诚辩论、互相切磋，共同推动本州发展。坦率地说，我认为这对密歇根州乃至整个国家而言都是一件好事。”美国犹太人理应信赖斯洛特金的建议。
On October 5, at a joint MS NOW interview with Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin, herself a Jew, El-Sayed said, “The thing that neither Senator Slotkin nor I will ever budge on is that you ought to be safe in your place of worship—whether you’re Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or Sikh … and we want to fight to protect that.”Slotkin observed, “People want to see a Jewish woman and a Muslim man being able to get along, debate, push and pull on each other, and move the state forward. Frankly, I think it’s good for Michigan, I think it’s good for the country to see that.”American Jews should trust Slotkin’s counsel.