230 | Martin Buber’s Theopolitics
drop out of politics when it disappoints, or trade their ideals for some alternative
set of putatively “realistic” principles, determined by the “laws” of politics. Rather,
when reality resists, they should strive harder to mold it according to their ideals.^116
An idealistically informed politics is not simply a matter of applying principles:
“There is no firmly established law, formulated once and for all, but only the Word
of God and our current situation which we have to learn by listening. We do not
have codified principles that we can consult. But we must understand the situation
and the moment.”^117 Buber would have preferred that Kohn remain in the move-
ment and attempt to drive it rather than abandon it to the unscrupulous, the chau-
vinists, and the believers in realpolitik. To refuse to fight for the ideal is to betray
it. Buber may have perceived that each new outbreak of violence empowered the
Revisionists and strained efforts to establish Jewish-Arab joint groups.
Theopolitics in Action: Election, Covenant, and Reality
Buber integrated these struggles and setbacks into his general view of applied
theopolitics. In his 1932 lecture “And If Not Now, When?” Buber states: “No
matter how brilliant it may be, the human intellect which wishes to keep to a
plane above the events of the day is not really alive. It can become fruitful, beget
life, and live only when it enters into the events of the day without denying, but
rather proving, its superior origin. Be true to the spirit, my friends, but be true
to it on the plane of reality.”^118 In this context, Buber repeated his analysis of an-
cient Israelite secularization, but as a contemporary warning, a prophecy, by his
own definition: “We shall accomplish nothing at all if we divide our world and
our life into two domains: one in which God’s command is paramount, and the
other governed exclusively by the laws of economics, politics, and the ‘simple
self- assertion’ of the group.” A person who accepts such a division “is not merely
moving away from God.... [H]e is standing up directly against him. The athe-
ist does not know God, but the adherent of a form of ethics which ends where
politics begin has the temerity to describe to God, whom he professes to know,
how far his power may extend.” Such behavior is not merely wrong in a moral or
ideological sense. It will also result, inevitably, in failure:
Judaism is the teaching that there is really only One Power which, while at
times it may permit the sham powers of the world to accomplish something in
opposition to it, never permits such accomplishment to stand.... I am speak-
ing of the reality of history. In historical reality we do not set ourselves a righ-
teous goal, choose whatever way to it an auspicious hour offers, and, following
that way, reach the set goal. If the goal to be reached is like the goal that was
set, then the nature of the way must be like the goal. A wrong way, i.e., a way
in contradiction to the goal, must lead to a wrong goal.^119In other words, it is not “more realistic” to abandon the commandment in
the service of “success,” because said success will not in fact be forthcoming.