There's Nothing Jewish About Your Politics
Time to stop.
There's a famous story about the Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe's opinion on politics that goes like this:
On a train ride towards Petersburg, a car was filled with Jews, both religious and non-religious, as well as educated Russian noblemen and clergy members. Soon after departure, a controversy erupted among the passengers, all arguing that their preferred ideologies would be the best way to govern a country.
There was no lack of -ism for sure. Some embraced Communism, some Capitalism; some preferred Fascism, others Anarchy. They all tried to prove that their opinion was the most aligned with the Torah but could not come to an agreement. Some Chassidim, recalling that the Frierdiker Rebbe was on that very train, decided to go and ask him the question.
Approaching him, they asked the Rebbe, who answered, "You are all correct. The Torah is the source of everything good in Creation. The positive elements in each of these systems are derived from Torah, and their failings come from manmade additions."
No political party in the world, not even in Israel, can claim the mantle of being 'the one most aligned with Torah.' Some definitely are more aligned than others, but ultimately you only need to look at how many parties from various religious groups exist in Israel to realize that there's no such thing. The same applies to political ideologies.
This is why such tweets are not only wrong but incredibly harmful because of their divisiveness:
No political party has a claim on G-d. Party A might have positions that are against Torah, while Party B has positions that support Torah, but you can be sure that the inverse is also true. People can find arguments to vote for the Right supported by Torah, or for the Left, or for the Center, or not to vote at all.
These kinds of tribal politics are very toxic. To quote Lord Rabbi Sacks zt”l:
“Politics and religion do not mix. They are inherently different activities. Religion seeks salvation, politics seeks power. Religion aims at unity, politics lives with diversity. Religion refuses to compromise, politics depends on compromise. Religion aspires to the ideal, politics lives in the real, the less-than-ideal. Religion is about the truths that do not change, politics is about the challenges that constantly change. Harold Wilson said, ‘A week is a long time in politics.’ The book of Psalms says, ‘A thousand years are in your sight as yesterday when it is gone’ (Psalm 90:4). When religion becomes political or politics becomes religious, the result is disastrous to religion and politics alike.”
The Great Partnership, Chapter 13, p. 228
The fact is that even our political inclinations are not entirely dependent on our intellect or education alone. A lot of our predispositions comes from the way G-d fashioned our very souls.
As explained in Kabbalah and Chassidut, some souls are rooted in what is referred to as the Supernal Right, which represents Chesed (oft translated as Kindness or Benevolence). In contrast, others are from the Supernal Left, which represents Din/Gevurah (oft respectively translated as Judgement and Might or Restraint).
Chesed really represents a way of connecting with the world through giving, while Gevurah represents a way of connecting with the world through holding back or establishing boundaries. Both modes are necessary, and are included within each other.
The most famous example of this phenomenon is seen through the differentiation of the schools of Shammai and Hillel. Hillel and his students, who derived from the Right, were known to be lenient, while those of Shammai and his students, who derived from the Left, were known to be stringent.
A lot more could be written about this, and in fact, has been written, but suffice it to say in our case that some people will naturally be drawn towards a particular type of discourse or opinions, while others attracted to it’s polar opposite. It's a reflection of their mode of connection to this world, and their own mission to make it better.
It doesn't mean that people are "doomed" voting for either side; it's entirely possible that someone who comes from a side defined by giving would be a Republican. It could be because he believes that the best way to ensure most people are helped by charity is making sure the government is as small as possible so private charities can swoop in more efficiently. It could be that someone who comes from the side defined by restraint would believe in a giant government program because it would be the only way/cheapest way to achieve a specific goal. Or, quite simply, they could be going against their nature. Since both sides are included inside of each other, which is demonstrated by Hillel sometimes being stringent, whereas Shammai is lenient regarding the exact same issue, this also applies to us and our own views and behavior.
It's also necessary to realize that simply because we tend to one side doesn't mean we should embrace it in every situation. In the same way, a man who has a natural tendency to desire a drink shouldn't give in to his disposition and restrict himself both in quantity and frequency, someone who has, say, a tendency for giving to others needs to express the proper restraint so that his giving will not go overboard.
It's all well and good to give to the poor; it shouldn't come at the expense of stealing from someone else. It's all well and good to give to the needy; if you know he needs this money to buy more drugs and alcohol to feed their habit, then it's time not to provide them with the means to. On this occasion, the lack is the best thing you can give that person.
This is why the idea that "Jews who vote for the other side are not as Jewish as me" is entirely wrong. You can still believe that they are voting for horrible policies (and they might be!) and that more of your overall positions are closer to Torah than theirs (and they might be!). Still, it doesn't affect the essence of their soul, and it considers them wicked or lesser as a result is madness.
Fight For What's Right, Not Party
People are pretty complex, and so are political or moral issues; to boil them down to 'My side good, other side bad' is horrible, especially at the cost of Jewish unity.
One of the most significant problems nowadays is that people stake a political position (or, quite often, their political party or favorite pundit takes it for them) and feel forced to justify it using Torah. That's why politics are one of the worst possible things that can happen to one's moral clarity. It doesn't restrain itself to parties but ideologies and issues as well.
For example, when it comes to abortion, things could easily be worded in one of two ways:
"Judaism considers that abortion is murder (except for when it doesn't) & forbids it entirely (except for when it doesn't)."
"Judaism doesn't consider that abortion is murder (except for when it does) & definitely permits it (except for when it doesn't)."
Both sides are correct, but they are ultimately wrong if they take an absolutist position. Yes, Judaism absolutely permits abortion in certain situations. It also forbids it absolutely in others. At the end of the day, the Torah's position on abortion doesn't fit squarely neither on the pro-life or pro-choice side of things, even if individuals want to make a case that "really their side is closer to the Torah's position on it."
Similarly, everyone will agree that Torah wants people to support the needy, to help the poor, and that people shouldn't be left to die on the streets from easily preventable diseases.
One side will argue that this is why you need universal healthcare and a robust healthcare system to help people. Others will say that a universal healthcare system will universalize services but lower their quality, and the best way to ensure the general health of people is to use a privatized system and that there is too much waste with government programs, so it's better to help the poor through private charities.
Depending on where your neshama is rooted, one argument will probably be more appealing to you from the get-go. The critical thing to remember is that: you both want to help people and make things better, but you disagree on how.
No one wants a crazed maniac to enter a public space and proceed to murder a bunch of innocents. Some people will say that the solution is to eliminate guns; therefore, the problem is solved. Others will say to make sure everyone has a gun; therefore, the problem is solved.
Neither side is evil, and while you might hate their solution, they genuinely believe it is best to help the population avoid being murdered helplessly by a madman. This applies to from the biggest and most controversial issues to what kind of herring and cracker should be bought for Shabbat morning kiddush. And smaller and less controversial issues, too, obviously.
Am Yisrael, Am Echad
This is not to say, of course, that Torah shouldn't be the force behind your moral or political positions. Quite the contrary, it should be what drives them. I'm saying that if another Jew arrives at a different conclusion that you consider erroneous (rightly or not), it shouldn't come between the two of you. You shouldn't hate a considerable swath of Jews because they are "Magats" or voted for "Sleepy Joe" or whatever it is that the media throws at you to keep you engaged and angry so they can sell their ads and stay profitable.
There is a lot of money in division and very little in moderation. What I wrote in the article about Race Peddlers also applies to politics.
It's time to stop dividing Jews along artificial lines. It's time to realize that something as irrelevant as someone's mainstream political views is often simply rooted in the essence of who they are, but their politics is not who they are. Their politics are not Jewish. The good parts of it, sure, but the rest is just manmade.
Love your neighbor as yourself, even if you don’t like how he votes every for years. Or his opinions on the big issues.
Even Giants fans should be given a pass. (Not that their team can catch one.)