Jewish vote in a Dean-Bush race

[M]

Now, I am an unabashed Jewish conservative, but many of my Jewish friends, acquaintances, and family members are liberals, and have been dems for generations. And lots of 'em DO NOT like Dean. A fair amount were pro-Iraq war, because it benefited Israel strategically, and a lot of them really were alarmed by Dean's ideas about even-handedness between the sole democracy in the MidEast, survivor of 2000 years of persecution without a country, and the PLO terrorist organization. ("Hamas suicide bombers are soldiers in a war.")

Well, if there is one truth about the Chosen People it is the one Moses pointed out over 3500 years ago- we are a stubborn and a stiff-necked people. So, Dean will proably still get a majority of the vote. But 79% a la Gore-Lieberman? Highly unlikely. And it is no secret a lot of Jews have money and or power, and their influence is worth more than their numbers indicate. We're also strategically stationed in very heavily dem states.

Any thoughts about how the Light Unto the Nations would break up in a Dean-Bush race? What is Dean does something seen as very anti-Israel, like endorsing E. Jerusalem as Arafatistan's capital? In such a scenario, could Bush possibly win 50%+ of the Jewish vote?

[NorthernDog]

Most Jewish people I know are rather secular, so I think Dean's lack of strong Christian faith will actually appeal to them.   However, Dean's less than whole-hearted defense of Israel will erode the enthusiams of moderate and politically conservative Jews.  My guess?  The Jewish vote will split 65-35 in favor of Dean (If it's Dean-O on the ticket).

[M]

That may be approximately correct, though I wish Bush could do better. In the scenario I mentioned where Dean does smething really anti-Israel, then Bush might get as high as about 50%, I think. Don't hold me to that, though.

[TomAtPitt]

Dean has said something along the lines that the US should be neutral between Israel and Palestine IIRC. I am sure the GOP would make a great effort to publicize that to Jewish voters...

[agcatter]

The 65 - 35 split seems right on this time.  That is a significant improvement over 2000.  It will certainly make a big difference in places like Florida.

[StevenNick]

Did anybody hear about Ed Koch, former Jewish democratic mayor of New York City (and a fairly liberal one at that) has endorsed Bush because of his stance on Israel?

This may not mean much, but it shows that the potential is there for a significant shift in the Jewish vote.  Bush might even get as high as 40% of the Jewish vote.

We'll see I guess.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Playing the "Israel card" to get Jewish votes is almost as sick as the "Southern Strategy"...

[dazzleman]

Jewish people have responded to their past persecution by embracing it, making it part of their identity, and supporting liberal causes that, ostensibly, have the goal of furthering tolerance and justice.

This is why Jews were so strongly supportive of the civil rights movement and why their political views are generally very different from Christians of the same economic class.

This contrasts with ethnic groups like the Irish, who have largely buried the past discrimination against them and barely acknowledge that it existed.  My family is largely of Irish descent, and I learned about anti-Irish discrimination in a textbook, and never heard a word about it at home.  This different reaction to past discrimination produces very different political thinking.

With respect to Jews, several things are happening that could change their long-term political alignment.  The biggest is that Jews are seeing the left revoke their "victim" status.  The left looks at most issues through the prism of gender/race/sexual preference/religious identification, and favors the position of the person/group with the greatest claim on victimhood, regardless of the actual facts of a situation.  In the past, Jews at least broke even with this way of thinking, but the left  has increasingly embraced the Palestianians as the international equivalent of domestic minority groups -- people who can do no wrong, who can blame all their problems on their "victimization," and who should not be defended against no matter what.

Over the long run, I see Jews being pushed out of the Democratic Party, since a person without victim status can't really be comfortable in that party.  Once Jews lose their victim status, any type of self-defense against a "victim" group like the Palestinians will raise howls of protest among those on the left, as we are already seeing.

In addition, Jews are now finding their greatest allies among conservatives, particularly Christian conservatives.  Most Jews will never be entirely comfortable culturally with Christian conservatives, but we may find that they have no other place to go, as they are increasingly attacked on the left wing of the Democratic Party.  There could be an increasing alliance between Jews and Christians against secularists on the left.

I think that in 2004, President Bush will receive about 40% of the Jewish vote if Dean is the Democratic nominee.  This would represent a doubling of the percentage that he got in 2000 under very different circumstances.  This will make a big difference in Florida, and possibly Illinois, California, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.  It may not tip all those states to him, but it could force the Democrats to spend resources in those states which should be sure winners for them.

[agcatter]

I think dazzleman's analysis is dead on.

[migrendel]

Jews would be crazy to vote for the President. They could never gain true sway within the inner-circle, because this President is buried up to his eyeballs in dogmatic evangelical theology. He's clearly the choice of the Christian nation types, the ones that say everyone from atheists to Jews to Muslims to Catholics are enemies of the national spirit. As for this Israel business. I don't think the President is concerned with the fate of the Jewish community, he merely is trying to maintain Jewish hegemony in Israel because Christians of his stripe think that they will be "saved" if the Holy Land will go back to the Jews, thus bringing on the second coming. I also don't see how the Jewish community, one which has often been clearly given to satiety and very supportive of needed reforms, would be so prejudiced in favor of their own people that they could overlook the vengeful and murderous crimes being committed against the Palestinians. Some Jews, like Noam Chomsky, are seeing this atrocity for what it is, but I'm sad to report that the decadent Zionism of the likes of William Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Dorothy Rabinowitz, Paul Wolfowitz, and William Safire hold greater sway. Perhaps what is concealed shall be brought to light.

[dazzleman]

Your analysis is really extreme.  Maybe 2% of Bush's supporters have the ideas that you described in your post.

And very few Christians believe what you ascribe to them.  There are some, but they do not predominate among Bush's supporters.

A Jewish rabbi wrote an interesting article that I read recently comparing the treatment of Jews in a predominantly Christian America to their treatment in the more secular post-Christian Europe.

As we know, post-Christian Europe is bursting with anti-Semitism, and this rabbi made the argument that it is BECAUSE of the larger Christian influence in America than Europe that Jews enjoy a real haven here.  It was an interesting analysis, and turns some of the old truisms (such as that Jews are more threatened by Evangelical Christians than by anti-Semitic secularists) on their heads.

[StevenNick]

There seems to be a new, very historically unique  teaming of Jews in Christians in the world today.  As more and more Evangelical Christians identify with the Republican party and advocate a pro-Israeli stance, more Jews have and will continue to see the Republican party as its true home.

The reason Christians are overwhelmingly pro-Israel has nothing to do with hasting the second coming or anything like that.  We feel that we share a common culture and history with the Jewish people.  We realize that much of our personality as Westerners and as Christians comes from Judaism.

Democrats, who are becoming increasingly the secular party of American politics simply do not understand the shared values of Christians and Jews.  Increasingly, Democrats do not understand values of any kind.  As Democrats grow further away from Judeo-Christian values, they will begin to lose more and more of the Jewish vote.

I would not be surprised if in two or three decades, Republicans will be able to depend on the Jewish vote in every election.

[migrendel]

To respond to StevenNick99: I was struck by your quotation, which came from Barry Goldwater. I agree. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. We must be vigilant to defend that one quality that makes a society a great one. But the kind of extremism you advocate, extremism in defense of oppressive social constraint, is no virtue. Our Constitution contains the prohibition that the government make an establishment of religion. Yet time and time again, lawmakers harp upon Judeo-Christian values as a legitimate source of law in a Republic. This mustn't be. When you exult Judeo-Christian ethics, you indicate a preference for a system of ethics over the others. Many people find Judeo-Christian ethics to be unreasonable and offensive, because they are often rigid and inapplicable in a more complex modern society. To avoid such controversies over arcane doctrine, secularism would be an acceptable alternative grounded in right reason. When a government says that abortion should be a criminal act, children in schools shall pray, and people will be treated unequally because they are attracted to people of the same gender, they are using an argument rooted in belief. Justify it? It can't be done, because precepts of this nature are rooted in a bias towards a particular system. Thought simply isn't involved. But under a secular spirit of the law, one can examine the complex interests of all parties, weigh them against all the others, and announce an appropriate balance. To say we Democrats don't understand values is offensive. We understand different moral standards and we are not hidebound by the old. We believe and have the great good graces to say that you Republicans have values. We might also believe that your intentions aren't firmly planted in malice. But your actions, which seem to be children of manifest inequality and vengeance, just won't meet the needs of a pluralistic society. Continue to fight for Israel and unacceptance if you wish, but it is beyond a doubt that history shall prove you wrong.

[JNB]

  About Catholics, the Catholics who are in the pews every Sunday now do more than lean to the GOP, 57% of them voted for Bush in 2000, while it is still a bit lower than Evangelical Christians, it represents a change. If anything, many Catholics have become digusted for the GOP because of their moderation on many social-cultural issues, and on these issues, many Catholics are to the right of the GOP on cultual issues.

[© tweed]

I am half-jewish, so I can make a pretty accurate prediction, I hope...

I would say around 65-35% for Dean.  The war was pretty popular amond the Amerrican Jewish communtiy because of the Israel factor, and that would make Gephardt and Lieberman stronger candidates to take the Jewish vote.  Most won't abondon the Dem party, but some will.  50% for bush would be a conservative dream.

[dazzleman]

Bush doesn't really need 50% of the Jewish vote.  Getting 35-40% would make a big difference in certain key states.

Reagan did pretty well among Jewish voters, getting about 40% of their vote in 1980, which helped him to carry states like New York.  I think it's possible that Bush could do about as well, but I agree, I don't see Bush getting 50% of the Jewish vote.

[StevenNick]

To respond to StevenNick99: I was struck by your quotation, which came from Barry Goldwater. I agree. Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. We must be vigilant to defend that one quality that makes a society a great one. But the kind of extremism you advocate, extremism in defense of oppressive social constraint, is no virtue. Our Constitution contains the prohibition that the government make an establishment of religion. Yet time and time again, lawmakers harp upon Judeo-Christian values as a legitimate source of law in a Republic. This mustn't be. When you exult Judeo-Christian ethics, you indicate a preference for a system of ethics over the others. Many people find Judeo-Christian ethics to be unreasonable and offensive, because they are often rigid and inapplicable in a more complex modern society. To avoid such controversies over arcane doctrine, secularism would be an acceptable alternative grounded in right reason. When a government says that abortion should be a criminal act, children in schools shall pray, and people will be treated unequally because they are attracted to people of the same gender, they are using an argument rooted in belief. Justify it? It can't be done, because precepts of this nature are rooted in a bias towards a particular system. Thought simply isn't involved. But under a secular spirit of the law, one can examine the complex interests of all parties, weigh them against all the others, and announce an appropriate balance. To say we Democrats don't understand values is offensive. We understand different moral standards and we are not hidebound by the old. We believe and have the great good graces to say that you Republicans have values. We might also believe that your intentions aren't firmly planted in malice. But your actions, which seem to be children of manifest inequality and vengeance, just won't meet the needs of a pluralistic society. Continue to fight for Israel and unacceptance if you wish, but it is beyond a doubt that history shall prove you wrong.

First, you operate from a misunderstanding of the first amendment if you think that this country's current secularism is anything close to what the founders intended.  The only prohibition included in the first amendment regarding religion is one against an official federal religion.  It in no way prohibits individual states from declaring an official denomination or religion.  Now, I'm not advocating that any state should declare an official religion, but you can't use the Constitution of the United States of America as evidence supporting your secularist view of American society.

As far as your charge that in extolling the virtues of Judeo-Christian philosophy I "indicate a preference for a system of ethics over the others."  You are quite right in that charge.

Ideas are not all equal.  If all ideas, all philosophies carry equal weight, who can pass judgment on any action?  Who can justify the law, and the act of punishing the offenders of that law, if all ideas and, consequently, all actions, carry equal weight.  You cannot logically tell me that I am wrong in insisting upon the supremecy of Jedeo-Christian ethics if all value systems carry equal weight.  Is liberalism "better" than conservatism?  If not, how can you logically argue in favor of voting for a Democrat over a Republican?  We all pass judgment on ideas, on value systems, and systems of government whether we like to admit it or not.  You have judged Judeo-Christian values and found them lacking.  So be it, but don't produce some ridiculously inconsistent argument as to why I'm wrong for defending those values.

Without God there can be no morality; Without morality there can be no law; Without law, there can be no order.  We find ourselves in such a contradiction:  Without morality (all those pesky things that "ought" to be), there can be no rationale for an egalitarian, post-modern "Not good, not bad, just different" philosophy.  And yet, what such a philosophy proposes is, not just the end to "out dated" ideas of morality, but alsoan end to the very reason for its existence.

You can say all you want about Christianity or about generic Judeo-Christian values, but please, have some kind of coherent philosophy.

[migrendel]

I would first like to challenge your interpretation of the Establishment Clause because it is so removed from historical and legal reality. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association declaring a "wall of separation" between church and state. George Washington wrote to the congregation of the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island stating that their religious freedom would always be protected as long as government and religion would be apart. James Madison campaigned against a tax which would subsidize the established church of Virginia, citing the Constitution. James Madison apparently felt that a state establishment of religion was unconstitutional. But, considering that he wrote it, I still would seem that you know better. Also, in 1947, Justice Hugo Black conceived the Incorporation Doctrine, which applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This principle has been accepted by judges of all ideologies, including Robert Bork. But I suppose he's too liberal for you. Now, in light of these observations, we shall examine the concept of superiority of ideas and religions. I would posit that some ideas are superior to others. That's how I am able to take a position on an issue. But, these views, are ultimately informed by my personal predilections, as are yours. Predilections are little more than biases. I would not support your conservative views as a matter of policy, but I could reconcile myself with them philosophically if they indicative of thought, not reflexive bias. I would also take to ask anyone that says that philosophy, morals, and religion are inseperable. Every major philosopher who has posited a system of ethics has done so without God. Even those most quintessentially religious philosophers, Protestant theologians, declared God dead in the 1960's. Jurisprudence, the branch of philosophy pertaining to laws, has developed in the abscence of God. If you read any major judicial opinion it makes no mention of God. God does not come up in Marbury v. Madison. Incidentally, in Sir Edward Coke's common law opinion in Dr. Bonham's Case (1610), the antecedent of Marbury, doesn't involve God. Brown v. Board of Education is a Godless source of law, and Roe v. Wade's only reference to religion is to say that those trained in the respective discipline of theology could not agree on when personhood began. Now that I'm thinking about it, there are some cases that do make explicit use of religion to justify the precedent. They are Dred Scott v. Sanford and Minor v. Happersett. But both of those decisions of bad law, and illustrations of the peril of making religion and law close cousins, unless you think slavery and limited suffrage are good things. To sum it up, law and philosophy can stand on their own two feet without religion, because so often in the past they have.

[jravnsbo]

ok a real question-not being stereotypical or anything but really asking.

Right or wrong what does the normal person think of whne asked about Jews.  Israel and Money-

Both big topics that favor the GOp as they are for keeping down taxes and generally seen as the investment/business party plus tthe GOP is undoubetedly the party that favors the military/national defense spending and thus is usually more aggressive in protecting Israel.

What issues get jewish voters to vote for the Dems so heavily?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Civil Rights

[NorthernDog]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As Howard Dean should say - they've been voting against their own economic interests for 40 years, and what have they got to show for it?

[MAS117]

Dean will not get the Jewish vote in the election nor will Bush. They both have not done anything for Israel and do not support it enough

[M]

Nu, so who den vill ve vote for, Likud Party Usa???

This Jewish vote is going to Bush, and I can tell you for a fact that I have several traditionally liberal Jewish friends who will vote Bush over Dean for a variety of factors.

Percentages are hard to break down. But Dean has a history of statements that are not only vitriolic but bizarre. A few more in the wrong places and the Children of Israel will be led out of the Wilderness.

[jravnsbo]

I would say Bush has helped Israel.  Bush has taken Saddam and the Iraq regime out of power.  Iraq is the one during the Gulf War that shot missles at Israel.  Plus Saddam supported the suicide bombers terrorizing Israel.

With Saddam gone there goes a major resource of revenue against Israel.

Dean will not get the Jewish vote in the election nor will Bush. They both have not done anything for Israel and do not support it enough