Score Card: The Jewish Institutional Wars and What They Represent

A new power configuration has reshaped the American Jewish communal order. Money, power, and ego have contributed to this new Jewish institutional paradigm.

During an earlier period (1967-1985), communal consensus around Israel, American politics, and the fight against antisemitism helped to create what Jonathan Woocher would refer to as the civil religion of America’s Jews. A form of bipartisanship defined the Jewish enterprise. The Jewish political apparatus was collectively managed by legacy structures, including the federated system, national “defense” agencies, and denominational religious movements. The primary leadership players from these organizations formed a system of interlocking directorships, producing an integrated network of decision-making and collective action. While certainly not perfect, this coordinated framework provided the community with a defined sense of direction and a common set of outcomes.

Beginning in the 1980’s the operational glue that sustained this earlier model would slowly give way, triggered by several factors: the emergence of the Jewish foundation system with its emphasis on measurable impact, the heightened focus on brand and institutional distinctiveness, the rise of the corporate leader culture both on the professional and lay sides of the equation, and the return of partisanship politics.

Today, we are experiencing a fundamentally different power configuration. With the decline of the centrality of the federation system and some of the other key legacy organizations, we are encountering the evolution of a diffuse and disconnected Jewish marketplace. A major structural power shift has taken place both on the institutional level and in connection with the behavior and conduct of leadership in deconstructing the previous consensus framework and replacing it with a more competitive and ultimately a more divided playing field. The communal slogan of the 1970’s and 80’s, “One People, One Destiny,” has given way to a counter-cultural framework “From One, Many!”

Increasingly across the Jewish communal landscape we have been introduced to a growing partisan divide centered on Israel, US politics, and American Judaism. These divisions involve multiple voices representing different organizations and competing constituencies.

The deepening ideological splits and the presence of a new cohort of entrepreneurial leaders and funders have contributed to this new communal paradigm, reminding us that much of what has unfolded inside the Jewish community can be understood in connection with the broader economic behavior and social mores of this society.

The rise of the boutique Jewish institutional revolution (1985-2005) has added to this reshaping of the communal playing field as legacy or traditional organizations are now competing with the presence of hundreds of entrepreneurial start-up structures. Much of what is happening is linked to the rise of a new donor class employing their influence and power to advance the organizations and causes with whom they are identified.

As part of this 21^st Century institutional expansion has been the emergence of independent minyanim, learning hubs, arts collectives, social-justice groups, and Israel advocacy organizations, many of whom are flourishing. An array of alternative communal models are coming on-line, including digital communities and micro congregations. Not only has the construct of the community changed but also, we are experiencing an explosion in the numbers of organizations that today operate and compete in the Jewish echo system.

At an earlier point we were introduced to the AIPAC-J Street conflict, framed around which organization represented American Jewry on Israel. More recently, we are experiencing a broadening of these ideological and institutional battles, often pitting legacy organizations in competition with boutique structures. These new Jewish wars are taking place across a broad spectrum of issues among them, Zionism, Israel, antisemitism and even Jewish religious life. Beyond matters of policy, the corollary fund-raising contests have been equally dramatic and transformative.

What is driving these new wars? We are encountering competing leadership constituencies bringing forward their own distinctive agendas and priorities. With the rise of a dominant wealth class, we can extrapolate a Jewish subtext to this broader American economic storyline. The potential for a sustained and broader set of conflicts is linked to the growing presence of this Jewish oligarchy that has entered the institutional fray, employing their foundations and networks of resources to advance their respective interests and organizational preferences.

As part of this new power construct, in recent years, this class of donors has captured control/ownership over an array of organizations. Often, these institutional “take-overs” have resulted in a major reconfiguration of mission and program, all designed to serve the policy interests of the respective funders. In recent times, one can also identify a series of mergers and in some situations, a major legacy structure “acquiring” one or more start-ups to enhance their offerings and the scope of their activities and services.

We are beginning, however, to observe a counter response to these current organizing patterns. There are signs of a “democratization movement” seeking to regain control over Jewish resources, policy, and leadership. The donor class is being challenged by the emergence of the Jewish progressive sector comprised of “red diaper babies,” post-modernist supporters, and anti-Zionist constituencies. More broadly, disaffected donors and community activists are seeking today to press for transparency, accountability, and access to what they perceive as a closed Jewish organizational system, driven by financial elites, ego-driven leaders, and entrenched bureaucracies. Today, there is no longer a communal agenda or planning function associated with the management of Jewish affairs, as such strategic organizing has given way to a frenzy of institutional competition.

Take as an example, the “antisemitism industry” with currently some 160 Jewish groups all claiming to take down Jewish hatred. One finds minimal collaboration amongst these institutional players, limited examples of measurable outcomes, and often little to no self-assessment of effectiveness or impact.

In some measure the emerging scenarios of Jewish organizational conflict, competition, and division emulate the broader economic and political behaviors now present in this country. A type of “Jewish wild west scenario” has come into play, where everyone is staking out their brand, often disregarding parallel players or potential partner opportunities.

Deep polarization, shifting social values, the decline of organized religion, the rise of individualism and the impact of digital technology, all factors central to what is unfolding in this country are present as well within the Jewish marketplace.

Whether the American Jewish community can ultimately revisit these destructive organizational patterns and outcomes to recalibrate a sense of communal order and direction may no longer be possible. But an effort to hold leaders and institutions accountable to certain standards of performance would seem essential.