Politicians a century ago seem really to have been looking to win every vote, rather than cynically seeking to win some groups and write off others. Doubtless there were the cynical manipulators and wire-pullers behind the scenes, but they had the smarts to stay in the wings, and not get in the way of the candidates on the stage of public discourse. Today the analysts and spin doctors are almost the stars. Politicians today can woo everyone, but there's so much talk of key demographics and who's aiming to win over which group, that we don't take what candidates say at face value, but always look for a hidden agenda. We know, or think we know, which statements to roll our eyes at, and find little to trust in political speeches.
Taft's reputation seems to have benefitted from his sincerity. Since he didn't especially want the Presidency, people are more inclined to accept that he really believed what he said, or at least that he wasn't simply saying it for personal advantage, but out of civic-mindedness and public-spiritedness. Nor were their great unconscious drives behind his comments as was the case with Wilson, Roosevelt, and others. So even to some who disagree with the stances Taft took, he seems to look more like a Washington, and less like a partisan, ideologue, or self-seeker. Unfortunately, such people don't often rise to the top or if they do, don't stay there for long, since you can't take the "politics" out of government.
"Our Jews" vs the "New Crowd".
I haven't seen it, and it seems a bit too declarative for Taft. When Taft called the Payne tariff the "best ever" he violated his own rule against the superlative. If I find it, I'll let you know. He might have said it, for here's the context of Taft and the Jews:
After much agitation in Congress and in the press, Taft abrogated an old treaty with Russia regarding the rights of visiting American citizens over violations of it by Russia towards American-Russian jews (who were treated, or mistreated, as Russian jews by the anti-semite Duma and regime; Russia did not recognize emigration). Before acting on it, Taft worried that if he abrogated the treaty the U.S. would lose all power over influencing Russia regarding her treatment of American jews, and of any American. He thought it would curtail trade and backfire on the American jews in that they would end up with no protection at all. While considering it, he wrote his brother,
Now, you observe that there are some very clear but nice distinctions in this matter, all of which I think will be overlooked in the indignation of the Jews at Russia, and under the influence of the political power that they exercise in New York city and elsewhere throughtout the country. Just what is to be done we must await events to see.Taft and his ambassador to Russia tried to clarify things in a new treaty, and, I think, both sides refused to budge. So, in December of 1911, Taft abrogated the treaty (and the Senate soon after concurred). I haven't studied this carefully, but I do know that American jews hailed Taft as a modern Lincoln for the action. He spoke to Jewish groups and likely took their vote in 1912. Taft was no anti-semite, although if we looked hard we'd likely find one or two of the typical slurs for the period in either his or his wife's correspondence. In the early 20s he got into a spat with Henry Ford over the latter's anti-semitism. There's online a fascinating retelling of the Russian situation by Ford: Taft Once Tried to Resist Jews - and Failed. Ford, of course, said the jewish bankers and financial interests got the better of Taft, and he hinted that Taft's failure to be re-elected may have been because of it! If you're interested in this, I'll send the full text of Taft's explanation to his brother. It was a reasonable position, as was the outrage at Russia by the American Jews. Diplomacy failed, politics had its say, and Taft abrogated the treaty. They hailed him for it.
Taft very directly went after the various ethnic groups and their lobbies. When the 1912 Woodrow Wilson Symposium papers are up ( here -- only one paper is up so far), you may be wish to see a paper on Taft and the Chicago polish vote, as well as another on Taft and the Mormon vote.
As for history's view of Taft as sincere, this was not the attitude taken by the symposium. They very pointedly treated him as insincere and politically-motivated. The other actors, of course, were earnest, honest, and sincere... That is, if you spoke for the issues that are dear to modern PC-ness, you were sincere. If you spoke for and defended the Constitution and the courts, you were merely political. It was that inane.
Thanks, as ever, for your great analysis.