By Donald H. Harrison

SAN DIEGO— Readers sent in 12 thoughtful letters in response to the column I wrote about why Nancy and I have switched our registrations from the Democratic party to being "independents" which California calls "decline to state."  I want to thank all of the letter writers for sharing their views and propose here to deal with some of the main themes raised by those who thought our actions were misguided—and those were 9 out of the 12.

I think it fair to say that these nine letters fell into several categories. One line of thought was that U.S. Sen.  Joseph Lieberman's steadfast support for the war in Iraq earned him his defeat in Connecticut's primary election.  Another was that it's too bad about old Joe, but it wasn't the Democratic party, per se, which sought to end his career, it was the voters. A third line of reasoning went that whereas our complaints about both Lieberman and the actions of Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein concerning the Mount Soledad Cross were on the money, our interests nevertheless still lie squarely within the Democratic party.

With deep respect for all these viewpoints, let me proceed to address them one-by-one.  First, that Lieberman deserved to be dumped because he has supported the Iraqi War. I agree that the Iraqi War has become a morass.  Thus far, however, I have not heard a consensus position from the Democratic party about what to do about it. Withdraw now?  What would be the consequences? Set a time limit for withdrawal?  Again, what would be the likely results?  

Should we try to figure out some way to turn the fighting over to the Iraqis themselves?  I remember the "Vietnamization" of the War in Vietnam in 1975.  The U.S-supported South Vietnamese regime promptly collapsed.  In that case, the people whom Americans had miscast as global enemies were relatively benign.  Are we prepared to say the same thing about the Iranian-backed Islamic Fundamentalists who are likely to come to power in Iraq? 

I don't agree that it is enough for the Democrats to criticize President Bush's administration on the conduct of the war and to hope to ride the wave of discontent into the elections without suggesting any solutions.  I believe whatever America does in Iraq has very serious ramifications. I trust that Senator Lieberman—if presented with alternatives that offer outcomes more beneficial in the long run than our present course—would cast his vote accordingly. I also believe that because he was "steadfast" on the war, that should Lieberman be persuaded to vote for a new approach, his "conversion" will have tremendous impact on American political opinion.  Unlike other critics of the war, he would be seen as one who had national, rather than partisan, interests uppermost in his mind.  If people really want to end the war, they ought to keep a fair-minded man with such gravitas around.

So, with due respect, I continue to disagree with those who felt that Lieberman deserved his defeat.  The second argument was that we should blame the voters but not the party for Lieberman's defeat.  The argument was made that plenty of important Democratic party figures campaigned for Lieberman in the primary, but now the voters have spoken.

There were times in American history when political parties were run by party "bosses" like Tweed, Pendergast and Daley, but that long colorful era thankfully is in the past.  Today, the voters are the party.  The voters make the decisions.  Functionaries like Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean are merely competing with such other voices as those of  media commentators, celebrities, academic personages, and politicians for the ears of the voters. 

Someone might have argued that the voters of Connecticut are a breed apart, and that we ought not to have judged California Democrats by the actions of those in Connecticut.  But, of course, the Lieberman defeat was only one component leading to our decision to quit the Democratic party.  The other was the active support our two Democratic U.S. Senators from California gave to the forces that want to make the Christian Cross not only a symbol of religion but also the symbol of American Patriotism.  

We can blame Senators Boxer and Feinstein  for placing upon the U.S. Senate's "consent calendar"  the bill to "nationalize" Mt. Soledad.  I am heartened that none of the letter writers thought that these two U.S. senators were correct in this course of action. This may have been because the letter writers recognized the danger for non-Christians when patriotism as a matter of public policy is equated with Christianity.  That's what a "war memorial" does when its major feature, the one that can be seen for miles, is the Cross.

The other day, I saw a fundraising invitation for U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego) showing him, fellow Reps. Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa, along with some of the local Mount Soledad Cross supporters, smiling with satisfaction as President Bush signed the bill nationalizing the Cross in order to move the "Separation of Church and State" controversy into the sole jurisdiction of the federal courts. 

Senators Boxer and Feinstein may try to become Republican look-alikes to placate assumed Christian majorities on this issue, but it's pretty clear as far as the GOP is concerned, they're not even in the picture.  It gives me very small satisfaction that for their ill-considered action our two Jewish senators will receive none of the "credit," and all of the blame.

Now, to move onto those letters which argued that we made a tactical error, even if we are right on the separate issues of the Cross and Lieberman's defeat. One letter writer feared that if we, as Jews, base our votes on what we perceive as being in the best interest of the Jews, we open ourselves up to the old canard of dual loyalty. 

We know that there are many voters who look at the world through the lenses of their particular interests—for example, how candidates stand on such issues as the environment, or abortion, or gay rights, or immigration, or civil rights—and no one suggests that there is anything un-American in their having such a preoccupation.  But if Nancy and I look at the world through Jewish lenses, the writer fears that somehow we may be perceived as disloyal.  

To the contrary, because I am an American, because the idea of American democracy is to advocate one's viewpoint  peacefully in the marketplace of ideas, I not only have the right, it seems to me I even have the duty, to speak up in behalf of Jews as well as other religious minorities in America.

Some writers misinterpreted our decision to become independents (with a small "i") with becoming members of some third party.  In their view, anytime someone joins a third party, it simply subtracts potential votes from the two "real" parties.  That's a debatable point, but not relevant to the course of action Nancy and I have taken.  As small-i "independents," we're not committing ourselves to any party.  Instead, we'll decide in November among the various candidates offered on the ballot, and choose those whose views come closest to ours. In other words, we'll do exactly what voters who are registered in either of the two major parties do:  vote not for the party, but for the person.

Another writer suggested that if we failed to make known our viewpoint about the Cross, we have only ourselves to blame. Although, in fact, I had written columns about the Cross issue on numerous occasions, I let it go at that.  I didn't write letters, make phone calls, buttonhole the politicians, go to their offices and lobby them, nor take any of those other actions a political activist is supposed to take.  So mea culpa.  

(I, in turn, have blamed the official San Diego Jewish community for consciously remaining unengaged on this issue in the belief that atheist Philip Paulson and his lawyer not only could win on this issue but would take the unwelcome heat.)

Finally, let me address the argument that by opting out of the Democratic primaries, we are potentially turning the party over to those whose interests are adverse to ours.  This line of reasoning concludes that it is better to stay in there and advocate.  

I believe, to the contrary, that it is better for some Jews, not all, to say, "we're tired of being taken for granted.  We won't be co-opted anymore.  If you really want our votes, you will have to take positions that recognize that America is a pluralistic country, to which all religions, not just Christianity, have contributed. Although Christians are in the majority in this country, please don't court them at our expense. Find ways to court us all.  Unite us, don't divide us!"

There are interesting mathematics to elections that go something like this.  The assumption is that neither party has enough loyal voters to win elections without also appealing to people who are either unaffiliated (those small-i independents) or are willing to cross over from the ranks of the other party.  Accordingly, in general elections, Republican candidates tend to move to the left, while Democratic candidates tend to move to the right in the hopes of capturing those voters presumed to be in the middle.

What Nancy and I are suggesting is that a substantial number of Jews should consider repositioning themselves so as to be perceived as voters in that general election middle ground.  We need to be the people for whose votes the general election candidates battle.  If the bulk of us remain "good, loyal Democrats," we end up being taken for granted. Once the primaries are over, our interests, our concerns, get sacrificed as candidates woo the middle ground voters.  

Therefore it behooves us, as a politically aware people, for some Jews to advocate in the Democratic party.  It is wise if others advocate within the Republican party.  And, more and more, there must be still others who will tell both parties: "We don't want you to love us Jews only during the honeymoon of the primaries.  We want to be able to count on you as full marriage  partners through the general elections and into the old age of your public service."