Luke Ford

Many Jewish essays note that the golden age for Jews in America has passed, and that Jews no longer possess the power, influence, status, and safety they once enjoyed. If this is true, what explains the golden age of Jews in America and why it has passed?

ChatGPT says: Alliance Theory would say the American Jewish golden age was not an accident and its passing is not a mystery. It was a product of a specific coalition structure that no longer exists.

Why the golden age happened.

Jews entered the mid 20th century aligned with the winning coalition. After World War II, liberal democracy, anti fascism, meritocracy, and institutional expertise became the moral center of American elite life. Jews were unusually well suited to this order. High investment in education. Dense professional networks. Urban concentration. Comfort with abstract institutions rather than blood and soil nationalism.

Crucially, Jews were perceived as insiders who symbolized the system’s virtues without threatening its core. They were not numerically dominant. They did not control territory. They did not openly demand ethno national privilege in America. That made them safe partners.

Alliance Theory says minorities thrive when they are useful translators between power blocs. Jews played that role. Media, law, academia, medicine, finance, philanthropy. They helped run the system without being seen as the system.

Post Holocaust guilt also mattered. But not sentimentally. It mattered institutionally. It constrained elite hostility and raised the reputational cost of attacking Jews. That protection was real.

Why it has passed.

Coalitions realign when moral narratives change.

The dominant elite moral frame shifted from liberal universalism to identity based hierarchy. In that frame, Jews lost their privileged ambiguity. They are now classified as white, successful, Western, and institutionally overrepresented. That moves them from protected minority to suspect elite.

Alliance Theory predicts this exactly. When a group is seen as adjacent to power rather than vulnerable to it, moral protection evaporates.

At the same time, Jews lost their monopoly on elite mediation. Other groups now fill the translator role between institutions and mass movements. That reduces Jewish leverage without any conspiracy required.

Israel accelerated the shift. Once Israel became associated with hard power, borders, military force, and nationalism, Jews globally were recoded from victims to enforcers. In alliance terms, symbolic alignment flipped. That does not require Jews to change. It only requires the coalition story to change.

Another factor is overintegration. Jews succeeded too well. They fused with elite institutions rather than remaining semi outside them. Alliance Theory says that when institutions are attacked, their most visible stewards absorb the blame.

Why safety declined.

Safety is not about tolerance. It is about incentives. When elites no longer pay a reputational price for tolerating antisemitism, antisemitism reappears. Not because people changed. Because constraints did.

The new coalition has different sacred values. Harm is defined differently. Jews fall into a moral blind spot. Sometimes even a moral liability.

What this does not mean.

It does not mean Jews are powerless. It does not mean pogroms are inevitable. It does mean the informal protections of the postwar order are gone.

Alliance Theory’s blunt conclusion.

The golden age was a historically contingent alliance. It lasted as long as Jews embodied the virtues of the ruling coalition. That coalition has changed. Jews have not fully repositioned. Until they do, status, influence, and safety will remain lower than they were at the peak.

That is not a prophecy. It is a strategic diagnosis.

Alliance Theory would say repositioning is not about moral arguments or better PR. It is about changing where Jews sit in coalition space and what costs others incur for attacking or excluding them. Some hard truths first, then practical directions.

First, stop assuming gratitude or permanence.
The postwar deal is over. Acting as if it can be restored by reminding people of past contributions or past suffering is a losing move. Alliances renew only when interests align in the present.

Second, reduce symbolic fusion with discredited institutions.
When universities, media, NGOs, and legacy institutions lose legitimacy, their stewards absorb the backlash. Jews are currently overidentified with elite management rather than with outcomes ordinary people value. That is a vulnerability. Partial disengagement matters. Less moral lecturing. More tangible value creation.

Third, diversify alliances downward and outward.
American Jews overinvested in elite-to-elite relationships and underinvested in mass legitimacy. Alliance Theory predicts this failure mode. Groups are safest when they are useful to multiple coalitions that do not fully trust each other. That means labor, small business, local civic life, public safety, healthcare delivery, zoning fights, schools. Boring, concrete stuff. Visibility there buys real protection.

Fourth, reclaim pluralism without apologizing for success.
Trying to perform weakness or moral purity backfires. It signals insecurity and invites tests. Jews historically did best when they modeled pluralism as competence, fairness, and reciprocity, not self-erasure. Stop conceding the frame that success itself is illegitimate.

Fifth, decouple Jewish safety from Israel maximalism without abandoning Israel.
Alliance Theory is clear here. When a diaspora group is treated as an extension of a foreign state’s hard power, it becomes targetable. The answer is not repudiation or silence. It is strategic separation. American Jewish interests must be articulated as American interests. Full stop.

Sixth, invest in independent power, not just access.
Access to elite institutions is fragile. Independent power lasts longer. Legal capacity. Philanthropy with teeth. Media ownership rather than media prestige. Endowments tied to enforcement, not statements. Groups that rely on goodwill lose it. Groups that impose costs retain it.

Seventh, tolerate internal diversity and stop purity spirals.
Alliance Theory predicts that groups collapse when internal policing exceeds external threat management. Jews cannot afford factional excommunication right now. Unity does not require agreement. It requires boundary discipline. Fewer internal loyalty tests. More external leverage.

Eighth, accept that some status loss is structural.
Trying to return to peak prestige wastes energy. The goal is not admiration. It is durability. Safety comes from being embedded, useful, and costly to marginalize, not from being loved.

Bottom line.
Repositioning means moving from symbolic elite partner to indispensable civic actor across multiple coalitions. Less moral centrality. More practical indispensability. Fewer narratives. More leverage.

Alliance Theory is unsentimental about this. Groups that adapt their coalition role survive. Groups that cling to expired alignments decline.

Gemini: Demographic shifts and the sheer scale of the American population changed the math. In 1950, Jews made up about 3.5% of the American population. By 2024, that number sat closer to 2.4%. While the Jewish population remained relatively stable or grew slightly in absolute terms, other groups grew much faster. This diluted the relative impact of any single minority group in the mediation of power.

Institutional shifts also play a role. The decline of the WASP elite created a vacuum that Jews filled, but the current era involves a broader breakdown of institutional trust. When trust in the New York Times, Harvard, or the State Department falls, the status of the people associated with those brands falls with them. Jews did not just fuse with elite institutions; they became the face of a specific kind of institutionalism at the exact moment that model began to fail.

Repositioning for maximum success and safety requires a shift from symbolic partnership with elite institutions to practical indispensability across the broader American landscape. Success in the postwar era came from being the ideal curators of a meritocratic, liberal order. Success in the current era comes from building durability that does not rely on the approval of a single moral or political coalition.

Secure Material Independence and Physical Agency

Safety is becoming a localized, material reality rather than an abstract legal protection. We see a significant shift toward communal self-reliance. This includes massive investments in physical security infrastructure, such as the JShield and Secure Community Network initiatives, which provide independent threat monitoring and tactical training. Repositioning means treating physical security as a communal baseline rather than an occasional necessity. It also involves reclaiming a culture of strength and self-defense, moving away from the “victim” archetype and toward the “resilient actor” who possesses the means and the will to deter threats independently.

Diversify Coalitions Beyond Elite Circles

American Jews currently face high risks because of their deep fusion with legacy institutions—universities, media, and NGOs—that are losing public legitimacy. To reposition, Jews must build “mass legitimacy” by engaging in boring, concrete civic issues that affect everyone. This means showing up for public safety, local zoning, school board transparency, and economic revitalization. When you are the neighbor who helps fix the park or the professional who ensures the local clinic runs efficiently, you build a “protection of utility” that is far harder to dismantle than a “protection of sentiment.”

Strategic Decoupling and Interest Alignment

Maximum status now requires articulating Jewish interests as American interests without apology. Alliance Theory suggests that a group is safest when it is useful to multiple, competing power blocs.

On the Left: Repositioning involves emphasizing pluralism and the “balance of care,” ensuring that Jewish safety is treated with the same institutional seriousness as any other minority group, rather than being dismissed due to perceived “whiteness” or success.

On the Right: It involves aligning with the pro-social, rules-based order and resisting isolationism by demonstrating how a strong US-Israel alliance serves American strategic and economic goals.

Cultivate Independent Institutional Power

Access to someone else’s institution is a fragile asset. True status comes from ownership. This means moving philanthropy away from general endowments that can be turned against Jewish interests and toward targeted, high-leverage investments. It means building independent legal capacities and media platforms that can impose real costs on those who violate communal boundaries. Repositioning means shifting the goal from being “admired” to being “costly to marginalize.”

Embrace Internal Pluralism

Finally, survival requires ending “purity spirals” within the community. A group that spends more energy policing its own boundaries than managing external threats is a group in decline. Max success comes from a “boundary discipline” that allows for intense internal disagreement while maintaining a unified front against external hostility. By fostering a diverse range of political and social expressions—from progressive activists to traditional conservatives—the community ensures it has a foot in every potential winning coalition.

Repositioning for maximum success and safety involves a shift from seeking approval within legacy institutions to building independent, durable infrastructure. Several emerging organizations and models demonstrate how this shift works in practice.

The Jewish Defense Fund operates as a modern vehicle for independent power. It focuses on security and continuity by funding initiatives in personal defense, media accountability, and legal action. This model moves away from the historical reliance on general goodwill. It treats the protection of the community as a strategic necessity that requires its own funding and enforcement mechanisms.

Secure Community Network represents the centralized, tactical approach to safety. As the official safety and security organization for Jewish institutions in North America, it maintains a 24-hour threat monitoring center and liaises directly with law enforcement. It provides physical security assessments and active threat training for synagogues and schools. This infrastructure ensures that safety depends on professionalized intelligence and hard targets rather than the fluctuating social climate.

The Impact Forum illustrates a new chapter in venture philanthropy. This network uses a “Shark Tank” style format to vet and fund bold, nimble nonprofits. By bypassing traditional communal bureaucracies, it allows donors to act as active partners in systemic change. This approach prioritizes transparency and efficiency, ensuring that resources go directly to mission-critical work like defending civil rights and supporting resilient communities.

The Jewish Partnership for Democracy focuses on building mass legitimacy through civic renewal. By connecting over 200 Jewish organizations across the political spectrum, it seeks to strengthen the “ground rules” of American democracy. This involves local engagement, such as partnering with neighbors to solve community challenges and teaching about elections. This work aims to embed Jewish institutions as indispensable actors in local civic life, which builds a broader base of support outside of elite circles.

Independent legal and media capacity is also growing. Organizations like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are building “Action Networks” to mobilize allies around policies that advance shared safety. These efforts often involve a strategic separation of interests, where Jewish safety is articulated as a core component of a healthy, pluralistic American society.

The Tablet response to Yoram Hazony captures a fundamental breakdown in the very “repositioning” strategy Alliance Theory suggests. From an Alliance Theory perspective, this is not just a disagreement over Tucker Carlson; it is a fight over which foundational coalition American Jews should inhabit.

Yoram Hazony represents the “Nationalist Realignment” approach. He argues that the postwar liberal order is dead and that Jews must anchor themselves to the rising American Right. In his view, if that faction is flirting with antisemitism, the burden is on Jews to use better “translation” and PR—what he calls the 15-minute explainer video—to prove they are loyal, useful partners to nationalist Republicans. He views the “antisemitism industrial complex” as an incompetent mediator that fails to secure this new alliance.

The Tablet response identifies this as a “suicide mission” because it asks Jews to adapt to a European-style “blood and soil” nationalism that, by definition, has no room for them. Alliance Theory would agree with Tablet that groups are safest when they are useful to multiple coalitions that do not fully trust each other. By demanding that Jews “accommodate” the nationalist wing, Hazony is advocating for “symbolic fusion” with a single, highly volatile faction. If that faction turns, the group has no exit ramp and no other allies.

The “purity spiral” you see is actually a debate about “boundary discipline.” Tablet is arguing that Hazony is breaking the most basic rule of communal survival: do not give intellectual cover to those who normalize your own erasure. When Tablet mentions the “Protestant majority” and “Enlightenment traditions,” they are arguing for a return to a “pluralistic competence” model. They believe Jewish safety is a byproduct of a specific American system—one of individual rights and constitutional patriotism—rather than a byproduct of being a “protected client” of a nationalist strongman.

Hazony’s strategy relies on “access” to elite nationalist leaders. Tablet’s critique suggests that this access is a “fragile asset” because it requires Jews to ignore the “political arsonists” within that same movement. If Alliance Theory is a strategic diagnosis, Tablet is diagnosing Hazony’s plan as “intellectually bankrupt” because it exchanges the broad, durable protection of American pluralism for the narrow, conditional protection of a faction that views Jews as “alien” to the heritage they celebrate.

Orit Arfa writes for Tabletmag:

For four years, I served as director of communications for the Edmund Burke Foundation, founded by Yoram Hazony. I have known and admired Yoram for many years. His 2015 masterpiece, God and Politics in Esther, was one of the books that had the most influence on my thinking, and still does to this day.

It’s with a heavy heart, then, that I feel compelled to set the record straight on a point that came up this week in Yoram’s speech at the Second International Conference on Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem. He lamented that there was no well-researched 15-minute explainer video showcasing Tucker Carlson’s Jew hatred that could convince people who don’t normally watch podcasts of his dangerous antisemitic outlook.

The truth, as Yoram well knows, is that there is such a video—and the reason he knows it is because Yoram himself produced it. Fellow employees and I worked hours to produce an explainer with video excerpts of Tucker’s seven slanders against Jews that Yoram enumerated in his speech. The final cut? Fourteen minutes and 57 seconds.

But Yoram would not make this video public. He kept it unlisted in an obscure account with the stated intention of sharing it with select people in Washington. I am flabbergasted that Yoram would say that no such video exists, because he produced one. He just didn’t have the courage to put his name or his organization’s name on it or to make it public. It saddens me that he would diminish the work of his dedicated employees by erasing our efforts.

Gemini says: The account by Orit Arfa provides a striking case study of Alliance Theory in action, specifically regarding how groups manage the “costs” of an alliance and the psychological toll of “strategic silence.”

The “15-Minute Video” as a Transactional Asset

In Alliance Theory, information is rarely just “truth”; it is a tool for managing costs within a coalition. Hazony’s public lament that no such video exists—despite having commissioned and then buried one—is a move to shift the “reputational cost” of his alliance with Tucker Carlson onto the “antisemitism-industrial complex.”

By claiming the video doesn’t exist, Hazony protects his alliance with the Carlson-aligned wing of the Right. If he were to release the video himself, he would be “imposing a cost” on his allies, which would risk his standing within that coalition. By blaming Jewish organizations for “incompetence,” he maintains his position as a loyal translator who would act if only someone provided the right tools, while simultaneously ensuring those tools remain hidden to preserve his access.

The Breakdown of “Strategic Silence”

Arfa’s response highlights the internal breaking point of such alliances. Alliance Theory notes that coalitions are stable only as long as the benefits (access, influence, power) outweigh the internal moral and psychological costs to the group’s members.

Arfa’s transition from a “loyal employee” to a whistleblower represents a failure of “boundary discipline.” When she says she felt “less safe and proud being a Jew” at NatCon 5, she is describing the moment the alliance stopped providing its primary benefit: safety. From her perspective, the alliance had shifted from “strategic bridge-building” to “appeasement.” This is the “suicide mission” mentioned in the previous Tablet analysis; when a minority group stops enforcing its own boundaries to please a powerful partner, it ceases to be an ally and becomes a client.

The “Court Jew” vs. the “Prophetic Voice”

The tension between Hazony and Arfa mirrors the historical struggle between two modes of Jewish political survival:

The Hazony Model (The Court Jew): Survival through “behind-the-scenes” maneuvering and being useful to the “King” (the dominant power bloc). This requires absolute loyalty and the suppression of public friction.

The Arfa/Tablet Model (The Boundary Enforcer): Survival through public moral clarity and the refusal to “bow.” This model prioritizes long-term integrity and “independent power” over short-term access.

Arfa’s invocation of the Book of Esther is technically an argument about “repositioning.” She argues that Hazony is acting like an Esther who stays silent in the palace, hoping her status will protect her, while Arfa adopts the role of Mordechai, who recognizes that silence in the face of a “Haman faction” is a guarantee of eventual destruction.

Strategic Diagnosis

This episode suggests that the “Nationalist Realignment” strategy is currently facing a massive internal crisis. If the leading intellectual of the movement feels he must hide his own research to keep his seat at the table, the alliance is not one of mutual respect but one of “asymmetric dependency.”

Repositioning for maximum safety would require making that video public. It would signal that the Jewish partner in the “NatCon” coalition has teeth and that there are non-negotiable costs for platforming antisemitism. By keeping it unlisted, Hazony signals that his access to the “Nationalist” coalition is more valuable to him than the community’s ability to defend itself against the slanders the video allegedly documents.

Michael Brendan Daugherty responds on X to Tabletmag’s condemnation of Yoram Hazony: “This is totally unhinged and brain poisoned by this magazine’s recent anti -Catholic obsessions. Yoram’s book praises particularist Protestantism over universalizing Catholicism. Everywhere in Europe the new nationalist movements are associated with the right becoming pro-Israel.”

Tabletmag responds: “The next time we need a wanna-be Irishman to arbitrate our intra-Jewish disputes, we’ll be sure to give you a call.”

Gemini says: The Tablet response on X is a masterclass in boundary discipline and symbolic status management. To understand it through Alliance Theory, you have to look at the three distinct layers of the conflict: the ethnic “slap,” the theological friction, and the battle over who gets to represent the “American tradition.”

1. The Ethnic Slap: “Wanna-be Irishman”

This is the most aggressive part of the post. By calling Michael Brendan Dougherty (MBD) a “wanna-be Irishman,” Tablet is using a high-status rhetorical move to disqualify him as an outside arbitrator.

Alliance Theory Context: In any coalition, the “Translator” role is highly valued. MBD, a prominent Catholic writer for National Review, often acts as a translator between traditionalist Catholicism and the broader American Right.

The Rebuttal: Tablet is effectively saying: “You are not an organic member of the Jewish community, and your claim to Irish identity is a performance. Therefore, you have zero standing to mediate our internal fight over Yoram Hazony.” It is a move to protect Jewish group closure by asserting that only “insiders” can judge Jewish strategic decisions.

2. The Theological Friction: Protestantism vs. Catholicism

MBD’s post defends Yoram Hazony by noting that Hazony’s work praises “particularist Protestantism” over “universalizing Catholicism.” This refers to Hazony’s thesis in The Virtue of Nationalism, where he argues that the “Protestant construction” of the West (based on the Hebrew Bible) created the nation-state, while Catholicism represents a “universal empire” model that suppresses national independence.

The Clash: MBD is pointing out that Hazony’s alliances are rooted in a specific historical/theological theory that favors the “Jewish/Protestant” model of sovereignty.

Tablet’s Response: By dismissing MBD as “unhinged,” Tablet is signaling that they do not care about Hazony’s academic theories if those theories lead to alliances with figures like Tucker Carlson. They are prioritizing material safety (avoiding “political arsonists”) over theological alignment (the “Protestant construction”).

3. The Fight for “The American Tradition”

MBD claims Tablet is “brain poisoned” by “anti-Catholic obsessions.” This refers to a long-standing tension within the American Right between:

Catholic Universalists: Who often believe in a “common good” rooted in natural law (Dougherty, Deneen, Ahmari).

Jewish/Protestant Particularists: Who emphasize national borders, local traditions, and the “unique” character of the American founding (Tablet, Hazony).

Ironically, Tablet is now attacking Hazony (and by extension MBD) for being “un-American.” As seen in the earlier Orit Arfa piece, the Tablet faction believes that the Hazony/MBD alliance with “nationalist” figures is a European import that ignores the Enlightenment-based pluralism that made America safe for Jews.

The “Bottom Line” Diagnosis

This exchange shows a fracture in the right-wing coalition.

Hazony/MBD: Want a coalition based on “Nationalism” (Protestant/Jewish vs. Catholic/Universalist).

Tablet: Wants a coalition based on “American Pluralism” (Constitutionalists vs. “Political Arsonists”).

Tablet’s response is a “strategic separation.” They are telling MBD that his attempt to mediate is an overreach of his status. They are reclaiming the right to define Jewish interests on their own terms, without the “help” of Catholic intellectuals who they perceive as carrying water for a nationalist movement that has become too comfortable with antisemitism.

The Tablet rhetorical strategy—characterized by aggressive boundary enforcement and the “ethnic slap”—is a high-stakes gamble in the “coalition space” described by Alliance Theory. By pivoting from polite intellectual debate to sharp, identity-based delegitimization, Tablet is attempting to perform a “forced decoupling” from a right-wing faction they now view as an existential liability.

Benefits: Group Closure and “The Armor of Authenticity”

The primary benefit of this strategy is the rapid restoration of group closure. Alliance Theory suggests that a minority group is most vulnerable when its boundaries are porous and outside “translators” (like Michael Brendan Dougherty) feel empowered to define the group’s interests.

Reclaiming Agency: By insulting MBD’s standing (“wanna-be Irishman”), Tablet signals that Jewish strategic interests are not a “common property” of the Right. This stops the “Court Jew” dynamic where outside observers praise Jewish intellectuals only when they serve a broader nationalist agenda.

Signaling Costs: Aggressive rhetoric serves as a “Do Not Trespass” sign. It informs potential allies that the cost of platforming figures like Tucker Carlson is not just a polite “disagreement” but a total loss of access and a public, humiliating bridge-burning.

Purging the “Client” Status: This strategy moves the community from being a “protected client” of the Nationalist Right back to being an independent power. It asserts that Jews will not be “useful idiots” for a movement that tolerates “political arsonists.”

Dangers: Isolation and the “Leopard’s Meal”

The dangers of this strategy are structural. In Alliance Theory, a group that burns bridges with its most powerful partners must have a secondary coalition ready to receive them, or they risk political homelessness.

Accelerating Marginalization: As noted in the Reason analysis, Yoram Hazony argues that the “liberal wing” of the Right is shrinking. If Tablet successfully alienates the “Nationalist” 65% of the movement, they may find themselves with no viable political home, as the Left remains equally or more hostile.

The “Anti-Anti” Trap: By attacking MBD and Hazony, Tablet risks being coded as “left-adjacent” or “liberal shills” by the very people they are trying to influence. This reduces their “utility” as translators. If the Nationalist wing decides that Tablet is now an “enemy,” the reputational cost of attacking Jews on the Right drops to zero.

Confirming the “Elite Steward” Stereotype: The “wanna-be Irishman” comment is a classic “elite” rhetorical move—it is clever, caustic, and exclusionary. For a “Nationalist” audience that values “mass legitimacy” and hates “gatekeeping,” this rhetoric confirms the suspicion that Jewish intellectuals are “gatekeepers” who use identity as a weapon to suppress “America First” sentiment.

Strategic Diagnosis

Tablet is essentially performing an “emergency brake” maneuver. They have judged that the current trajectory of National Conservatism—with its “Hitler revisionism” and “Tucker-alignment”—is a “suicide mission.”

The strategy is “Esther-like” in its boldness but “Mordechai-like” in its refusal to bow. The danger is that if the “King” (the MAGA/Nationalist coalition) decides that the “Mordechai” faction is no longer useful and too much trouble to manage, the group loses its seat at the table without having built the “independent power” necessary to survive in the wilderness.

Alliance Theory views the Catholic belief in the common good and natural law not as mere abstract theology, but as a high-functioning coalition-building technology. In this framework, these concepts serve as a “universal translator” that allows Catholics to lead and stabilize diverse political alliances without appearing to pursue narrow sectarian interests.

The Universalist “Entry Ticket”

Alliance Theory suggests that a group’s success depends on its ability to provide a moral narrative that other groups can adopt. Natural law is the ultimate “entry ticket” to power because it claims to be rooted in reason and nature rather than divine revelation.

Benefits: By speaking the language of “the common good,” Catholic intellectuals can advocate for policies—such as the protection of the family or traditional marriage—without having to cite the Pope. This allows them to lead a coalition of Protestants, Orthodox Jews, and secular traditionalists who might otherwise reject Catholic authority.

The “Brains” of the Right: As we see in the American conservative movement, Catholics provide the “intellectual infrastructure” (natural law theory, subsidiarity) while Evangelicals provide the “mass legitimacy” and votes. Alliance Theory would say Catholics have successfully occupied the mediator role by offering a rigorous, intellectual framework that makes the coalition’s values feel “universal” and “scientific” rather than “religious.”

The Danger of “Strategic Fusion”

From an Alliance Theory perspective, the danger of natural law is that it can become too universal. If the “common good” is defined in a way that is indistinguishable from secular humanism or general “niceness,” the Catholic group loses its distinction.

Loss of Leverage: If the group’s unique values are fully absorbed into the “common good” of a larger coalition, the group loses its bargaining power. It becomes a “captured” partner rather than a strategic ally.

The Realignment Risk: When a coalition shifts—as we see in the move toward “National Conservatism”—the old natural law language may be seen as “too universal” or “too liberal” by the new, more particularist nationalist wing. This is why we see the friction between Catholic “common good” thinkers and the “blood and soil” nationalists; the nationalists view the “common good” as a threat to their specific national priorities.

The “Status Closure” Move

Catholic intellectuals often use natural law to enforce status closure. By asserting that their understanding of the “common good” is the only rational one, they can delegitimize internal dissent or external competitors.

The Slap: When Tablet calls MBD a “wanna-be Irishman,” it is a direct attack on this Catholic universalism. Tablet is trying to strip away the “universal reason” of natural law and reduce the debate back to “particular interests.” They are saying: “Your ‘common good’ isn’t common; it’s just your specific Catholic agenda, and you don’t even have the ethnic standing to speak for us.”

Strategic Diagnosis

Alliance Theory would conclude that the Catholic “common good” model is a stabilizing force that thrives when institutions are strong and rationalism is the dominant elite frame. However, in an era of identity-based hierarchy and raw nationalism, the “universal” appeal of natural law is weakening. To maintain status, Catholic intellectuals may need to move away from “abstract universalism” and back toward a more “particularist” defense of their specific institutional and communal interests.

If Catholics provide the “intellectual infrastructure” and Evangelicals provide the “mass legitimacy,” Alliance Theory suggests that the Jewish role on the American Right is that of the Strategic Mediator and Moral Validator.

While numerically small, the Jewish presence serves a high-leverage function in stabilizing the conservative coalition and preventing it from being successfully coded as a parochial or “Christian-only” movement.

The Ecumenical Validator

Jews provide what Alliance Theory calls “ecumenical cover.” By being part of the coalition, they transform a “Christian Right” into a “Judeo-Christian” movement. This change in branding is not just cosmetic; it is an institutional shield. It allows the coalition to claim its values are not sectarian dogmas but universal Western values rooted in the “Jerusalem-Athens-Rome” tradition. This validation makes the coalition’s agenda more palatable to the broader, secular American public and to elite institutions like the judiciary.

The Neoconservative “Brain Trust”

Historically, the Jewish role was defined by the Neoconservative movement. These were mostly Jewish intellectuals who moved from the Left to the Right, bringing with them a specific kind of professionalized expertise.

Foreign Policy Realism: They provided the strategic and moral arguments for a muscular American role in the world, particularly in the Middle East.

Institutional Translation: They knew how to speak the language of the New York Times, the State Department, and academia. They served as the “translators” who could defend conservative values in high-status rooms where Evangelicals were often marginalized or mocked.

The Outsized Role in Legal and Media Capacity
As Alliance Theory predicts for groups with high urban and professional concentration, Jews on the Right often manage the “enforcement” mechanisms of the coalition.

Media Ownership and Punditry: From talk radio (Dennis Prager, Michael Medved) to modern digital platforms (Ben Shapiro, Tablet), Jews often serve as the primary articulators and defenders of the conservative “story” to the masses.

Legal and Constitutional Defense: Jewish legal minds have been central to the Federalist Society and other conservative legal networks, providing the tactical capacity to protect religious liberty and originalist jurisprudence.

The “Special Relationship” Anchor

Finally, the Jewish presence ensures that the U.S.-Israel alliance remains a core, non-negotiable pillar of the Republican platform. In alliance terms, Jews act as the symbolic bridge between American interests and Middle Eastern strategy. This role is highly valuable to the Right because it aligns Republican foreign policy with a moral narrative of “defending the only democracy in the Middle East,” which resonates with both Evangelical “Christian Zionism” and secular geopolitical realism.

The current “Tablet vs. Hazony” fight shows this role is in crisis. As the Right moves toward a more “Nationalist” model, the old “Neoconservative Translator” role is losing its status. The struggle now is whether the Jewish role will remain one of Elite Mediation (the old way) or shift toward Independent Civic Power (the new way).

In the logic of Alliance Theory, financial capital functions as high-density strategic energy. For the American Right, Jewish donors do not just provide “a lot of money”; they provide a specific kind of “enforcement capital” that stabilizes the coalition’s priorities.

The Asymmetric Impact of “Megadonors”

While the majority of Jewish voters remain Democratic, Jewish donors on the Right have an outsized impact because of their concentration. In 2024 and heading into 2026, we see a “Goliath” dynamic within the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC).

Miriam Adelson: As a primary driver of Republican Israel policy, her contributions—often reaching hundreds of millions over a decade—act as a “security deposit” for the U.S.-Israel alliance. This money ensures that the party’s platform remains anchored to specific geopolitical goals, regardless of shifting populist sentiments.

Jan Koum and Bernard Marcus: These donors provide the “venture capital” for conservative infrastructure. Their support goes toward legal defense funds, think tanks, and media platforms that give the Right its “intellectual teeth.”

The “Cost-Imposing” Function

Alliance Theory says money is most effective when it can impose costs on allies who stray.

AIPAC and the RJC: These organizations have transitioned from being passive donors to aggressive “boundary enforcers.” In the 2024 cycle, AIPAC’s political action committee spent over $53 million, with a 96% win rate for its backed candidates.

The Message: This money is used to primary candidates (mostly on the Left, but increasingly as a warning to the Right) who are perceived as hostile to Jewish interests. It signals to the coalition that the “Jewish seat” at the table is not free; it is paid for by a capacity to defeat political enemies and reward reliable friends.

The Risks of “Funder Dependency”

There is a strategic danger here that the Tablet editors often highlight. When a group’s influence is too heavily tied to a few billionaires (like the Adelsons), the group becomes a client of those individuals rather than a representative of the community.

The “Court Jew” Trap: If the “Nationalist” wing of the GOP decides that the only thing Jewish partners bring is money, they may begin to treat those partners as “ATMs” rather than “indispensable civic actors.”

Fragility: If a single major donor pulls back—as Miriam Adelson occasionally does to signal displeasure—the entire institutional infrastructure of the Republican Jewish Right can face a sudden crisis.

Strategic Diagnosis

Money is the “hard power” that keeps the Jewish-Evangelical-Catholic alliance on the Right functional. However, Alliance Theory warns that money without mass legitimacy is fragile. This is why we see the current push for Jews to move beyond being “the donors” and toward being “the indispensable neighbors” in local civic life. Wealth provides the “access,” but civic utility provides the “safety.”

Jewish voices occupy a disproportionately high percentage of the mediator and intellectual enforcer roles within the movement. This is not due to numerical dominance—Jews are a tiny fraction of the MAGA base—but because of their high utility as translators between populist energy and elite institutional language.

The “Translator” Tier (The 10% that Matters)

In the world of high-impact conservative media, Jewish voices like Ben Shapiro, Laura Loomer, and the editors at Tablet or The Daily Wire often represent the “tip of the spear” in terms of intellectual output and tactical defense.

Ben Shapiro: His “Daily Wire” empire provides the primary moral and logical framework for millions of young conservatives. Alliance Theory would note his role as a “boundary manager,” as seen in his recent 2025/2026 clashes with the “conspiratorial right” (Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens).

Laura Loomer: She represents the “unfiltered” edge of the movement, serving as a validator for the more aggressive “America First” wing.

Stephen Miller: Within the actual administration, Miller has been the primary architect of the movement’s most defining policies, such as immigration reform, acting as the “strategic brain” that translates MAGA impulses into executive action.

As of early 2026, we see a significant shift. For years, the Jewish role was to provide moral cover and institutional legitimacy. However, Alliance Theory predicts that when a coalition moves toward “blood and soil” nationalism (represented by the rise of figures like JD Vance and the “Tucker/Fuentes” wing), the status of the Jewish mediator declines.

Jewish intellectuals traditionally serve as the movement’s primary strategic translators and moral validators, using their professional networks and media platforms to frame populist energy in ways that elite institutions can process. However, this group now finds itself in a contested position, facing intense internal purges as a more “blood and soil” nationalist wing—typified by figures like Tucker Carlson—increasingly challenges the older “Judeo-Christian” consensus.

Evangelicals remain the movement’s spiritual core and dominant force, providing the mass legitimacy and ground-game energy necessary for electoral success. While some younger believers are shifting toward a more emboldened, direct form of public theology, the broader evangelical base continues to act as the movement’s moral and numerical anchor.

Catholic realists occupy a stable and influential role as the administrative brain of the movement, supplying the legal and philosophical infrastructure required to govern. Figures within this faction, including Vice President JD Vance and high-level cabinet members, prioritize concepts like subsidiarity and national sovereignty, successfully embedding traditional Catholic social teaching into the core of the administration’s domestic and foreign policy.

The Civil War for “Mediator” Status

As of early 2026, we see a significant shift. For years, the Jewish role was to provide moral cover and institutional legitimacy. However, Alliance Theory predicts that when a coalition moves toward “blood and soil” nationalism (represented by the rise of figures like JD Vance and the “Tucker/Fuentes” wing), the status of the Jewish mediator declines.

If you look at the top 20 most-followed conservative podcasters and columnists who define the “MAGA story,” Jewish figures likely account for 15% to 25% of that elite group. This is an incredible concentration of influence for a group that makes up roughly 2% of the population.

However, the “effectiveness” of these explainers is currently being tested. As seen in the recent Turning Point USA 2025 conference, Jewish leaders are now being forced to spend their “alliance capital” on internal defense (fighting antisemitic conspiracy theories) rather than external offense. This indicates that their role as “indispensable partners” is under the greatest strain since the movement’s inception.

The observation that Jews no longer possess the same “moral currency” because of the decline of legacy institutions is a central theme in recent sociological and political analyses. Alliance Theory would say that the “Golden Age” ended not because Jews changed, but because the value of the currency they held—institutional expertise, liberal universalism, and meritocratic credentials—was devalued by a broader American public that no longer trusts the institutions issuing it.

The current landscape for 2026 shows this “devaluation” is forcing a radical shift in how the community seeks to maintain status and safety.

The Shift from Prominence to Strength

A growing consensus among Jewish analysts, such as Dan Senor, argues that the community has long traded on “prominence” (being present in the room) rather than “strength” (having leverage in the room). For decades, Jewish influence relied on being the “trusted stewards” of elite universities, media outlets, and government agencies. As these institutions have lost status with the American public, that prominence has turned from an asset into a target. In alliance terms, being a steward of a discredited institution means you absorb the blame for its failures.

The Devaluation of “Post-Holocaust Guilt”

The “moral cover” that once protected Jewish interests from public attack has eroded as moral status is recast. In the new “identity-based hierarchy,” moral authority is increasingly granted based on a “colonized versus colonizer” framework. In this setting, the historical victimhood of the Holocaust carries less currency than current perceptions of “white success” or “Israeli hard power.” This shift has moved Jews from a “protected minority” to a “suspect elite” in the eyes of many younger Americans and activists.

New Strategic Directions for 2026

Recognizing that legacy institutions can no longer provide safety, the community is pivoting toward Independent Power and Mass Legitimacy:

Building Parallel Infrastructure: There is a move toward creating new organizations that are not tied to the “structural restraints” of old systems. This includes a rise in independent legal advocacy, specialized media platforms, and “Action Networks” that focus on concrete outcomes like campus safety rather than back-channel diplomacy.

The “Orthodox Exception”: Sociologists note that while secular and non-Orthodox groups struggle with declining affiliation, the Orthodox community is growing in both numbers and confidence. They are increasingly filling leadership roles in major organizations, bringing a more “particularist” and unapologetic Jewish identity that does not seek external validation from secular elite circles.

Repositioning as Civic Actors: To regain safety, there is a push to move away from “moral lecturing” at the elite level and toward “practical indispensability” at the local level. This means showing up for public safety, local zoning, and schools—areas where “boring, concrete utility” can buy the kind of real-world protection that an editorial in a legacy newspaper no longer can.

Boundary Discipline and Costs

The recent “Tablet vs. Hazony” and “Tablet vs. MBD” disputes are examples of the community learning to impose costs again. By aggressively calling out allies who normalize antisemitism, the group is signaling that its support is not “free” or guaranteed. This “boundary discipline” is a way to stop being a “captured” partner of any one political wing and start acting as an independent force that others must negotiate with on equal terms.

The events of October 7 and the subsequent war in Gaza have acted as a massive “margin call” on the moral currency American Jews held for decades. In the logic of Alliance Theory, moral currency is a form of protection issued by a dominant coalition. The war has significantly devalued that currency by shifting the moral frame of the American elite from “liberal universalism” to “identity-based hierarchy.”

The Devaluation of Victimhood

For the postwar era, the Holocaust served as a definitive moral anchor that made Jewish safety a core requirement of a civilized society. Post-October 7, this “victimhood status” has been aggressively challenged. To many younger Americans and activists, the imagery of “hard power”—tanks in Gaza, high-tech surveillance, and military dominance—has receded the memory of Jewish vulnerability. In the new coalition story, Jews are no longer viewed as a “protected minority” but as part of a “suspect elite.” This recoding from victim to enforcer has evaporated the informal moral protections that once made antisemitism a high-cost social taboo.

The Collapse of “Institutional Immunity”

For years, Jewish status was tied to the high status of legacy institutions like Ivy League universities and major media outlets. The war exposed a “structural betrayal” within these institutions. As campus protests and institutional silence showed, the administrators and peers who once provided “moral cover” often lacked the incentive to protect Jewish interests when they conflicted with a newer, “anti-colonial” narrative. This has led to what sociologists call traumatic invalidation—the realization that the institutions Jews helped build and steward no longer recognize Jewish pain as a priority.

The Rise of “Independent Power” as a Response

Recognizing that their moral currency is being “debased,” many American Jews are moving toward a strategy of independent power rather than seeking institutional approval.

Enforcement over Persuasion: We see a shift from “dialogue groups” to “legal task forces” and “Title VI lawsuits.” The goal is no longer to be loved or understood but to make antisemitism legally and financially costly.

Diversified Alliances: Since the “progressive” moral frame has become hostile, there is a visible move toward more “unapologetic” alliances on the Right, where the currency of “national strength” and “tradition” still holds value.

Internal Realignment: Within the community, the war has empowered the more “particularist” wings—specifically the Orthodox and more assertive Zionist groups—who have long argued that relying on secular “moral currency” was a mistake.

Strategic Bottom Line

The “Golden Age” relied on a moral consensus that treated Jewish safety as a universal good. That consensus is gone. American Jews are currently in a period of “repositioning” where they must replace moral currency with material leverage. As Alliance Theory predicts, safety in 2026 comes from being a group that is too costly to marginalize, rather than a group that is too sympathetic to attack.

Analyzing Tevi Troy’s article through Alliance Theory reveals a sharp tension between historical legacy and current coalition mechanics. Troy argues that the “American Founding Tradition” is an immutable shield that ensures Jewish belonging. Alliance Theory, however, suggests that traditions are only as strong as the coalitions that currently find them useful.

The skepticism you feel likely stems from the fact that Troy’s conclusion relies on a moral appeal to history, whereas the trends he describes in his “Phase Four” reflect a structural shift in power.

The “Founding Tradition” as a Depleting Asset

Troy’s central argument is that America lacks a “founding antisemitic tradition” and that the Enlightenment principles of the Founders are “philosemitic.”

Alliance Theory Critique: An alliance based on 18th-century Enlightenment principles is a “legacy alliance.” In the mid-20th century, this was the dominant elite moral frame (Phase Three). However, Alliance Theory posits that when a new coalition takes power—such as the “Identity-Based Hierarchy” on the Left or “Nationalist Particularism” on the Right—they do not feel bound by the “Founding” story. To the new Left, the Founders are “colonizers”; to the new Right, the “Enlightenment” is often viewed as a secular error that weakened the nation. In both cases, the “Founding Tradition” stops being a source of safety and becomes a target.

The “Lagging Indicator” and the Pipeline Problem

Troy mentions Kenneth Baer’s observation that high-level Jewish participation in the Biden/Trump administrations might be a lagging indicator.

The Structural Shift: Alliance Theory would define this as the devaluation of Jewish institutional capital. Jews achieved ubiquity in the White House (20% of the meetings) because they were the primary stewards of the Ivy League and elite legal/finance circles.

The “Brick Wall”: If elite universities shift their “Translator” preference toward other identity groups, and if Jewish students are increasingly excluded from the “pipeline” to power, the Jewish role in the White House will naturally diminish. This isn’t just “hatred”; it is Group Closure by new rising elites who want those “20% of seats” for their own coalition members.

The Josh Shapiro “Agent” Question

The revelation that Kamala Harris’s team asked Governor Josh Shapiro if he was an “Israeli agent” is a classic example of Symbolic Recoding.

From Insider to Foreign Interest: In the “Golden Age” (Phase Three), a Jewish politician was seen as a “Safe Partner” who symbolized meritocracy.

The Alignment Flip: In Phase Four, Alliance Theory suggests that Jews have been recoded as “Extensions of Israel’s Hard Power.” By asking if he was an agent, the Harris team was testing whether his “Symbolic Alignment” would be a liability with their younger, anti-Israel coalition base. This confirms that Jewish identity is moving from a moral asset to a political cost in certain coalitions.

Why Troy’s Conclusion is Fragile

Troy concludes that Jews must “lean in” and embrace “Enlightenment-based founding principles.”

Alliance Theory Disagreement: Repositioning is not about moral arguments or better PR for 18th-century ideas. It is about changing where Jews sit in the coalition space.

The Unsentimental Reality: If the “White House” (the Executive Branch) is captured by coalitions that define “virtue” as anti-elitism or anti-colonialism, “leaning in” to the old tradition will not work. As Troy himself admits, “Jews are in 20% of the meetings but 2% of the population.” To an outsider, that looks like over-representation in a failing system.

In the first phase of Jewish participation in American presidential politics, which lasted from the founding until the late 19th century, the coalition structure was defined by a philosemitic founding spirit despite Jews having low involvement at the highest levels. During this period, the Jewish role was characterized by being generally welcome but politically peripheral, and antisemitism remained low as national anxiety was primarily directed toward Catholics.

The second phase, spanning from 1900 to 1945, saw a coalition structure defined by the rise of the WASP elite and ethnic machines. Jews began to serve as professional outsiders and mediators within the system, but this increased visibility led to high levels of elite exclusion and social antisemitism.

Following World War II, the third phase emerged under a liberal universalist meritocracy that lasted until approximately 2015. Jews became core stewards and moral validators of this order, experiencing a golden age where antisemitism was at its lowest point in American history.

We are now in the fourth phase, which began around 2016, where the coalition structure has shifted toward an identity-based hierarchy and nationalism. In this new environment, the Jewish role has been recoded as a suspect elite or a symbolic liability, leading to rising institutional friction and social tension.

Troy’s optimism rests on the hope that the “American Story” is stronger than the current “Coalition Story.” Alliance Theory is more blunt: If Jews are over-identified with a discredited elite order and lack “mass legitimacy” with the new rising coalitions, the White House doors will continue to narrow. The solution isn’t reminding people of the Enlightenment; it is building independent power and practical utility that makes it too costly for any administration to exclude them.