What is the most liberal ethnic group in the U.S.?

[Alcon]

The Satmars are not a pleasant people.  That is all.

Why is that?

Even better example of the Satmar split - the town of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York.  Bush's election district performances ranged from 10.6% (district 6) to 99.1% (district 57).  A little something for everyone (although if you're a gentile Republican, you're probably screwed).

[DownWithTheLeft]

Thankfully not Italians, I'd have to say people from Cameroon

[dazzleman]

I do find, though, that despite their professed sympathy for blacks, Jews are in practice less likely to live in proximity to blacks than less well-off whites.

Jews tend to live in urban and inner-suburban major metropolitan areas, the same places blacks live. Less well off whites are much more likely to live in rural areas, very far from blacks. Here in Memphis, Jews are some of the only whites who send their kids to the public schools.

So close yet so far.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The Satmars are not a pleasant people.  That is all.

Why is that?

Even better example of the Satmar split - the town of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York.  Bush's election district performances ranged from 10.6% (district 6) to 99.1% (district 57).  A little something for everyone (although if you're a gentile Republican, you're probably screwed).

Alcon, it may be hard for you to know a lot about Ramapo, but being the town my dad grew up in and my grandparent's currently live I can provide some insight into why this happens.  Ramapo is a large town broken into smaller villages.  Some of these villages like the one my grandparent's live is Airmont, a fairly conservative area made of mostly caucausian christians.  It also includes Hillburn, where my aunt lives, another conservative area.  But, it also includes Monsey which is the Mecca of Jews in the northeast.  People in Airmont despise the people in Monsey, and therefore there are great differences among the areas of this one town and I have no trouble believing the numbers you put forth.

[memphis]

I do find, though, that despite their professed sympathy for blacks, Jews are in practice less likely to live in proximity to blacks than less well-off whites.

Jews tend to live in urban and inner-suburban major metropolitan areas, the same places blacks live. Less well off whites are much more likely to live in rural areas, very far from blacks. Here in Memphis, Jews are some of the only whites who send their kids to the public schools.

So close yet so far.

We're still a hell of a lot more acquainted with blacks than the poor whites who mostly live in rural areas and have probably never seen a black person in their entire lives. This was the case for a co-worker of mine who just moved to Memphis from rural Missouri. Despite what you want to think, people with options can live near black people (lady across the street from me is black) and still be liberal. In fact, this is the norm in major cities across the country. It is the Republican base, exurbs and rurals, who have next to no experience with blacks.

[dazzleman]

I do find, though, that despite their professed sympathy for blacks, Jews are in practice less likely to live in proximity to blacks than less well-off whites.

Jews tend to live in urban and inner-suburban major metropolitan areas, the same places blacks live. Less well off whites are much more likely to live in rural areas, very far from blacks. Here in Memphis, Jews are some of the only whites who send their kids to the public schools.

So close yet so far.

We're still a hell of a lot more acquainted with blacks than the poor whites who mostly live in rural areas and have probably never seen a black person in their entire lives. This was the case for a co-worker of mine who just moved to Memphis from rural Missouri. Despite what you want to think, people with options can live near black people (lady across the street from me is black) and still be liberal. In fact, this is the norm in major cities across the country. It is the Republican base, exurbs and rurals, who have next to no experience with blacks.

Not really true in the north.  The south may be different.

[afleitch]

Just for comparison; the most liberal (socially liberal too) 'ethnic group' in Scotland are Catholics of Irish descent

[Ban my account ffs!]

Being part Scandanavian, I wouldn't say Scandanavians are socially liberal at all. Some maybe, but many are also very traditional and socially conservative. They are much more likely to be economically liberal than socially liberal in my experience.

Yep. This is true. Michigan northern peninsula has huge Finnish-American population (38 % in one county which name I have forgotten) and most counties votes Republicans.

Most Finns who went to America were from Pohjanmaa region which is most religious and conservative area in my country.

Minnesota has a large scandinavian population.  Between Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and Norwegian (Scandinavian), it is the largest ethnic group in the state.  They are traditionally liberal.

Scandinavians had a pattern of settlement that mostly means very far southern Minnesota and the western part of the state for farming, though large populations also went to the twin cities.  These areas were traditionally the most radical and became involved in politics very early.

They orginally used the Republican party to voice their radicalism (They  strongly opposed the Democrats) and supported progressive candidates and policies.  In the early 20th century, our socialist governor worked with a Republican legislature to approve the first income tax, dedicated completely to education.  As time went on, they became more radical and formed radical farmer coalitions.  Knowing they couldn't win alone, they joined together with the Iron Range and urban labor coalitions, forming the Farmer-Labor party in the late 1910s.  Throughout the 20s, the party expanded its influence under Floyd Björnstjerne Olson.  They elected 4 senators, held majorities in MN legislature, elected 3 governors, and sent several FL congressmen to the House.

The party began to split in the '30s as the communist wing, under Elmer Benson, was shunned by the more moderate Farmer-Laborites.  This provided an opportunity for liberal Republicans to dominate state politics again in the late '30s under Harold Stassen.  In the early '40s, after a couple decades in 3rd place, the Democrats merged with the Farmer-Labor party and started winning elections.  Minnesota has largely been DFL territory since with a few exceptions:  The 1978 Minnesota Massacre and in 1998/2002.

So:  In Minnesota, most liberal ethnic groups:  African Americans, Scandinavians, eastern European groups (Iron Range), Jewish

Most conservative:  German, some Asian groups, Amish

[phk]

Liberal Buddhist Jews.

[memphis]

I do find, though, that despite their professed sympathy for blacks, Jews are in practice less likely to live in proximity to blacks than less well-off whites.

Jews tend to live in urban and inner-suburban major metropolitan areas, the same places blacks live. Less well off whites are much more likely to live in rural areas, very far from blacks. Here in Memphis, Jews are some of the only whites who send their kids to the public schools.

So close yet so far.

We're still a hell of a lot more acquainted with blacks than the poor whites who mostly live in rural areas and have probably never seen a black person in their entire lives. This was the case for a co-worker of mine who just moved to Memphis from rural Missouri. Despite what you want to think, people with options can live near black people (lady across the street from me is black) and still be liberal. In fact, this is the norm in major cities across the country. It is the Republican base, exurbs and rurals, who have next to no experience with blacks.

Not really true in the north.  The south may be different.

No, in the North, Jews and blacks live fairly close together, with most poorer whites living far away in rural areas. Granted, urban neighborhoods are not really integrated, but different races do see each other and get along pretty well. You claimed that Jews are less likely than lower class whites to live nearly blacks.  This is not an opinion. It is demonstrably incorrect. I think the trouble is that you haven't met many poorer whites. They are rare in major metro areas. Jews are also much less common in exurbs, which have few blacks, than they are in closer in communities. 

[Alcon]

Alcon, it may be hard for you to know a lot about Ramapo, but being the town my dad grew up in and my grandparent's currently live I can provide some insight into why this happens.  Ramapo is a large town broken into smaller villages.  Some of these villages like the one my grandparent's live is Airmont, a fairly conservative area made of mostly caucausian christians.  It also includes Hillburn, where my aunt lives, another conservative area.  But, it also includes Monsey which is the Mecca of Jews in the northeast.  People in Airmont despise the people in Monsey, and therefore there are great differences among the areas of this one town and I have no trouble believing the numbers you put forth.

I was being facetious, but that is interesting nonetheless.

I do have to point out, though, that Hillburn is not Republican from the data I have.  It is in the fifth district (Hillburn plus the tiny village of Sterlington), and gave Kerry 59%.

It looks like the most Republican areas are in Orangetown, and are virtually ajacent to the most Democratic.  It's pretty crazy.  Any idea how that area is planned out, and why the Jewish community is distributed so weirdly amongst Democratic strongholds?

I'm almost having trouble believing this map is right.

[AuH2O]

The idea that Jews are liberal because they have learned 'tolerance' is really laughable. First of all, Jews aren't really as liberal as their voting behavior indicates.

The Jewish side of my family votes almost exclusively Democrat-- I have a fairly distant cousin that's a Republican. So is my dad. But in many cases the Democrats' views are not very liberal. One of my dad's cousins thinks the income tax should be abolished. Another is conservative on social issues. A couple of my cousins are libertarian. But in national races they all vote straight D.

The reason is actually intolerance. Because they dislike observant Christians, which are a key pillar, if not the core, of the GOP, they vote Democratic. Not of course in all local races. They all oppose Street in Philly, for instance. Hate is probably a more accurate word. Jews are not Casey people, for instance, but most Jews will vote for him out of hate for Santorum.

And of course, Jews treat other Jews differently from society at large. The reasons for this are not the issue, though some of it may come down from religious tradition. Many, many Jews oppose intermarriage with non-Jews. Hardly a liberal view... and indicative of a certain level of hypocrisy. So while Jews are certainly liberal on the whole, there is a huge amount of variation within the Jewish population on the actual issues, and their support for Democrats is more about distrust of the other side than anything else.

[memphis]

The idea that Jews are liberal because they have learned 'tolerance' is really laughable. First of all, Jews aren't really as liberal as their voting behavior indicates.

The Jewish side of my family votes almost exclusively Democrat-- I have a fairly distant cousin that's a Republican. So is my dad. But in many cases the Democrats' views are not very liberal. One of my dad's cousins thinks the income tax should be abolished. Another is conservative on social issues. A couple of my cousins are libertarian. But in national races they all vote straight D.

The reason is actually intolerance. Because they dislike observant Christians, which are a key pillar, if not the core, of the GOP, they vote Democratic. Not of course in all local races. They all oppose Street in Philly, for instance. Hate is probably a more accurate word. Jews are not Casey people, for instance, but most Jews will vote for him out of hate for Santorum.

And of course, Jews treat other Jews differently from society at large. The reasons for this are not the issue, though some of it may come down from religious tradition. Many, many Jews oppose intermarriage with non-Jews. Hardly a liberal view... and indicative of a certain level of hypocrisy. So while Jews are certainly liberal on the whole, there is a huge amount of variation within the Jewish population on the actual issues, and their support for Democrats is more about distrust of the other side than anything else.

Your family notwithstanding, Jews are exceedingly liberal. They overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage Roe v. Wade, progressive taxation and social programs. For these reasons, we were very Democratic far before the Christian takeover of the Republican party, although the fundies are a scary bunch that do cement our party loyalties further. True, we are not Casey people because, again, we are liberal and he is a moderate. Think Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold for a good stereotype of the Jewish liberal. It's very different than the ghetto liberal. Even the lone Jewish Republican in the Senate, Spector, is exceedingly liberal for his party. The Jewish inter-marriage is about 50%, suggesting that it's not that big of a deal to most Jews, although it is to the more conservative minority, of the elderly and Orthodox. Even here, the issue is about preserving a distinct culture, among a population that is uniquely obsessed with the Holocaust.

[AuH2O]

Actually Republican Sen. Norm Coleman is Jewish as well.

I do not dispute that Jews are very liberal, but the fact is that Jews just do not agree with each other on an issue-by-issue basis. Look at how fragmented politics always are in Israel. In the US, some are more fiscally liberal or socially, some are indeed moderates. This is especially true of younger Jews. Older Jews of course are, to a one, hardcore, unapologetic Democrats. A big part of party ID is socialization. Most Jews were socialized to be Democrats (by the way, at a time when observant Christians were as well), and so many Jews who are not that involved or interested in politics still vote Democratic.

And it is not just conservative and orthodox Jews that oppose intermarriage, not by a longshot. I mean, Jews tend to get married somewhat older because of high education rates (which correspond to later marriages) but acceptance is not the same as approval. To this day I doubt my dad's relatives are totally OK with the fact he married a Catholic, though they probably wouldn't say it aloud.

Ultimately, my point was simply to dispute the origins of Jewish leftism. It resides in the Great Depression and fear/hatred of Christians, not with "tolerance" or anything like that.

[patrick1]

The Satmars are not a pleasant people.  That is all.

Why is that?

Even better example of the Satmar split - the town of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York.  Bush's election district performances ranged from 10.6% (district 6) to 99.1% (district 57).  A little something for everyone (although if you're a gentile Republican, you're probably screwed).

Well they tend to stick exclusively to themselves and from my, albeit limited experience, treat others outside their sect like either non-entities or garbage.

[memphis]

Actually Republican Sen. Norm Coleman is Jewish as well.

I do not dispute that Jews are very liberal, but the fact is that Jews just do not agree with each other on an issue-by-issue basis. Look at how fragmented politics always are in Israel. In the US, some are more fiscally liberal or socially, some are indeed moderates. This is especially true of younger Jews. Older Jews of course are, to a one, hardcore, unapologetic Democrats. A big part of party ID is socialization. Most Jews were socialized to be Democrats (by the way, at a time when observant Christians were as well), and so many Jews who are not that involved or interested in politics still vote Democratic.

And it is not just conservative and orthodox Jews that oppose intermarriage, not by a longshot. I mean, Jews tend to get married somewhat older because of high education rates (which correspond to later marriages) but acceptance is not the same as approval. To this day I doubt my dad's relatives are totally OK with the fact he married a Catholic, though they probably wouldn't say it aloud.

Ultimately, my point was simply to dispute the origins of Jewish leftism. It resides in the Great Depression and fear/hatred of Christians, not with "tolerance" or anything like that.

Jews have no problem with Christians. We would not be living in America, of all countries, if we did. What we don't like is when politicians try to use government to advocate Chrisitianity, which is something that Republicans have been cynically doing for decades now.

[dazzleman]

I do find, though, that despite their professed sympathy for blacks, Jews are in practice less likely to live in proximity to blacks than less well-off whites.

Jews tend to live in urban and inner-suburban major metropolitan areas, the same places blacks live. Less well off whites are much more likely to live in rural areas, very far from blacks. Here in Memphis, Jews are some of the only whites who send their kids to the public schools.

So close yet so far.

We're still a hell of a lot more acquainted with blacks than the poor whites who mostly live in rural areas and have probably never seen a black person in their entire lives. This was the case for a co-worker of mine who just moved to Memphis from rural Missouri. Despite what you want to think, people with options can live near black people (lady across the street from me is black) and still be liberal. In fact, this is the norm in major cities across the country. It is the Republican base, exurbs and rurals, who have next to no experience with blacks.

Not really true in the north.  The south may be different.

No, in the North, Jews and blacks live fairly close together, with most poorer whites living far away in rural areas. Granted, urban neighborhoods are not really integrated, but different races do see each other and get along pretty well. You claimed that Jews are less likely than lower class whites to live nearly blacks.  This is not an opinion. It is demonstrably incorrect. I think the trouble is that you haven't met many poorer whites. They are rare in major metro areas. Jews are also much less common in exurbs, which have few blacks, than they are in closer in communities. 

I think the trouble is that you know little about the north, and then lecture somebody who has lived there all his live about conditions there.

There are plenty of lower middle class/poor urban whites in the north.  There are even lower middle class Jews in northern cities, though their numbers are dwindling.  Yes, there are poor rural whites, but they're not the only poor whites.

Poorer whites in urban areas are forced by economic circumstances to live closer to poor blacks than well-off whites.  These days, there aren't a lot of Jewish people among them, though there used to be a lot of lower middle class Jewish neighborhoods in New York City and some in Boston.

Jews have abandoned those neighborhoods for the suburbs, and they have become mostly black or other minority.  Jews have even abandoned more upscale neighborhoods to escape black migration.  My mom grew up in an upper middle class Jewish neighborhood on the white side of a half-black city in Westchester County, NY.  Once the city integrated the high schools, the Jews fled for other towns right along with the other whites.

For you to claim that the Jewish person in New York who lives at Park & 72nd is more in touch with blacks than a lower middle class white person who lives in an outer borough neighborhood surrounded by black neighborhoods is absurd.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Urban upper middle class nonwhites.

[memphis]

I do find, though, that despite their professed sympathy for blacks, Jews are in practice less likely to live in proximity to blacks than less well-off whites.

Jews tend to live in urban and inner-suburban major metropolitan areas, the same places blacks live. Less well off whites are much more likely to live in rural areas, very far from blacks. Here in Memphis, Jews are some of the only whites who send their kids to the public schools.

So close yet so far.

We're still a hell of a lot more acquainted with blacks than the poor whites who mostly live in rural areas and have probably never seen a black person in their entire lives. This was the case for a co-worker of mine who just moved to Memphis from rural Missouri. Despite what you want to think, people with options can live near black people (lady across the street from me is black) and still be liberal. In fact, this is the norm in major cities across the country. It is the Republican base, exurbs and rurals, who have next to no experience with blacks.

Not really true in the north.  The south may be different.

No, in the North, Jews and blacks live fairly close together, with most poorer whites living far away in rural areas. Granted, urban neighborhoods are not really integrated, but different races do see each other and get along pretty well. You claimed that Jews are less likely than lower class whites to live nearly blacks.  This is not an opinion. It is demonstrably incorrect. I think the trouble is that you haven't met many poorer whites. They are rare in major metro areas. Jews are also much less common in exurbs, which have few blacks, than they are in closer in communities. 

I think the trouble is that you know little about the north, and then lecture somebody who has lived there all his live about conditions there.

There are plenty of lower middle class/poor urban whites in the north.  There are even lower middle class Jews in northern cities, though their numbers are dwindling.  Yes, there are poor rural whites, but they're not the only poor whites.

Poorer whites in urban areas are forced by economic circumstances to live closer to poor blacks than well-off whites.  These days, there aren't a lot of Jewish people among them, though there used to be a lot of lower middle class Jewish neighborhoods in New York City and some in Boston.

Jews have abandoned those neighborhoods for the suburbs, and they have become mostly black or other minority.  Jews have even abandoned more upscale neighborhoods to escape black migration.  My mom grew up in an upper middle class Jewish neighborhood on the white side of a half-black city in Westchester County, NY.  Once the city integrated the high schools, the Jews fled for other towns right along with the other whites.

For you to claim that the Jewish person in New York who lives at Park & 72nd is more in touch with blacks than a lower middle class white person who lives in an outer borough neighborhood surrounded by black neighborhoods is absurd.

You keep changing what we we're talking about to suit your argument. You were the one who brought up proximity.  You wanted to compare poorer whites versus Jews, but you refused/neglected even to consider the rurals. Most poorer whites throughout the country (granted, not all) live in rural areas. Check out Census figures or just take a week off and go for a road trip along the old US Highways if you don't believe me. People have completely forgotten about rural areas now that we can bypass them at 70 mph. I still think that you may be confusing middle-class with poor, which is a common enough mistake.
Regarding location within in metro areas, some Jews have fled to the burbs, but huge numbers have not. I'm sure you've been to Brooklyn. It's hugely black and Jewish, although I have conceded many times that neighborhoods are not integrated. Lately, it's frequently the richer white people, who are nearer (not among; it is exceedingly rare for a white to live in a black neighborhood) urban blacks because they can afford the private schools and extra security they feel they need. Your example of Park and 72nd serves a good enough example for this. Once a neighborhood turns black, nearly all the whites flee, regardless of economic status.  True, I don't see any whites, Jews or otherwise, rushing into black neighborhoods to claim some utopian goal. Nonetheless, Jews have long been at the forefront of Civil Rights battles that have helped blacks make modest gains. This was more to the point of what I was saying. You have long claimed that liberals don't feel the effects of their policies, but then you said your mom's town was heavily Jewish before integration.
Now you want to talk about being "in touch." Clever move, as this is extremely vague and impossible to prove/disprove with actual evidence. Poorer whites probably have more in common with blacks though they'd never admit it. You'd think having economic hardships in common would create more mutual trust. Go figure.  Nonetheless, Jews are still the most liberal group, including most willing to sacrifice to help poor people and minorities, which was the point of this thread.