Voting Like an Investor: The Lapid Question
A vote is not a verdict on a politician’s character. It is a purchase of political power. For right-wing voters hesitating over Lapid, the real question isn’t whether you like him, but what the whole package gets you and what the alternatives would actually deliver.
* * *
In recent weeks, I keep hearing the same sentiment from fellow right-wing voters: “Bennett’s messaging resonates with me, but I can’t vote for a party with Yair Lapid and a Yesh Atid contingent.”
These are not Netanyahu loyalists. Most agree with the major criticisms of the current Prime Minister. But they identify with classic right-wing politics, and they’ve long seen Lapid as representing a different camp.
I understand the instinct. But it raises a question that goes beyond this merger and even this election: what should a voter weigh to get the most out of a vote?
Two Ways to Spend a Vote
Voters generally choose between two lenses. The first asks who: who leads the party, who is on its list, and how I feel about them. The second asks what: what will this party do with the power it receives, and how will that affect my life?
Voting on personality works in both directions. I might back a party because I admire its leader, or because I loved her book, or because I remember him fondly from years ago. Or I might rule one out because some of its MKs are irritating or said something I can’t forgive.
Those feelings are legitimate. The problem is what they buy. An individual MK’s presence in the Knesset has very little bearing on your daily life. You get the satisfaction of having supported someone you like or withheld support from someone you don’t. That’s it.
Voting on policy treats your vote as an investment. You are lending a party political power, and you want the best return. If a party’s platform matches what you think the government should do, then rejecting it over a candidate you dislike starts to look like letting spite override your own best interests.
Where Personality Fits
I’m not saying personality is irrelevant. I recently wrote an entire post making the case for Bennett based largely on his temperament and the political culture he promotes.
But personality matters to the extent that it predicts execution. A politician with a history of squandering power on petty fights tells you something about what your vote will produce. So does one who focuses on results and works well with people he disagrees with. Character is a predictor of outcomes. It isn’t an outcome in itself.
The Strongest Objection
Let’s give the objection its best form. A thoughtful right-wing voter might say: “This isn’t about Lapid’s personality. I know what he supports. A list that includes him and a Yesh Atid contingent will carry those priorities into coalition negotiations, and I don’t want to empower that.”
That is a policy argument, and it deserves a policy answer. If that’s your concern, then we’re speaking the same language. If the real reaction is “I just can’t stand the guy,” I’d encourage you to set the feeling aside and look at the platform, because the platform is what will affect your life.
What’s in the Package?
Start with what hasn’t changed. B’Yachad calls for an active security doctrine and a larger, more proactive military, with a move away from containment toward decisive victory. Bennett still opposes a Palestinian state. The party supports tying state benefits to service, lowering the cost of living by increasing competition, inter-ministry cooperation against crime, and a package of education and government reforms that includes term limits and a basic constitution that clearly delineates the separation of powers between the branches of government.
Lapid’s influence shows up on social and religion-and-state issues, such as a more liberal stance on rights for LGBTQ couples and allowing majority-secular cities to arrange some form of public transportation on Shabbat. Other shared priorities, like the Haredi draft, improving professionalism in the ministries, and how Israel communicates with the world, are common ground between the two. For some religious and right-wing voters, the religion-and-state positions will be a real cost. If they’re a deal-breaker for you, put them on the ledger.
But it’s a ledger, and the other side has a lot on it.
Two more points. First, merging before the election has an underrated advantage: voters know the terms up front, rather than wondering what a post-election coalition agreement will contain. Bennett and Lapid were always likely to end up in the same government. My own support for Bennett assumed that. A signed agreement moves the negotiation from after the vote to before it, and changes very little in policy terms.
Second, we have a precedent for how Bennett handles partners he disagrees with. In 2021 he sat with parties across the spectrum, and I’ve argued before that his core security and national policies survived intact. His pattern is to shift the weight he gives certain issues without abandoning the positions he came in with.
The Alternatives
If Lapid is a deal-breaker, the obvious answer seems to be a more explicitly right-wing party. But the question to ask is what happens after you cast that vote.
Take Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael. Much of its platform will appeal to right-wing voters: opposition to Palestinian statehood, a more aggressive security policy, and support for Haredi enlistment. Winter has said he won’t join a government unless a law ending draft exemptions passes first.
But he has also said that Netanyahu is the only candidate his party will recommend for prime minister. That matters. A vote for Winter is not just a vote for his positions. It is a vote for the political framework in which he intends to operate.
Consider the draft. Netanyahu has depended on the Haredi parties to hold his coalition together, and those parties have made the draft a central point of contention. If Netanyahu needs UTJ and Shas to reach 61, they may have far more leverage over him than a four- or five-seat party that has already committed to recommending him. And there is the more basic risk of a party falling under the threshold and having no influence at all.
I’d add the question of political style. If part of what I want from my vote is a different kind of leadership, I can’t just compare Winter’s stated policies with Bennett’s and stop there. I also have to weigh the political environment each one offers.
What Am I Actually Buying?
Voting for B’Yachad means accepting Lapid’s presence and some positions I may disagree with. Voting for Winter means accepting a different set of tradeoffs, including a commitment to a Netanyahu-led government. Other parties include tradeoffs of their own. No option comes without a price.
For me, the answer isn’t decided by which politician I like better or which name I’d rather not see on the ballot. It comes down to the combination of policies, people, alliances and leverage that each choice is likely to produce after the election. Weighed that way, B’Yachad, imperfect as it is, offers the best chance of getting the country to a better place.
If Bennett’s message resonates with you, the question is not whether Lapid is on the list. It’s whether any other ballot gets you more of what you actually want.
