Posted on 08/02/2002 5:34:12 PM PDT by veronica
For a several years now, growing numbers of Americans Jews have been abandoning their traditional electoral allegiance to the Democratic Party. Since September 11, thanks to the leadership of President Bush, this trend has not only accelerated in pace but has undergone a fundamental shift. Indeed, the Democratic Party is clearly worried about the American Jewish community's shifting support toward the Republican Party.
This shift has been reported at length, over the last several months, in mainstream media outlets like The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times. Such articles surfaced again after Bush made his groundbreaking June 24 speech, in which he fundamentally redefined American policy in the Middle East, calling upon the Palestinians to embrace Western, democratic reforms. This tide change is easily tracked and perfectly logical.
For starters, recent state and local elections strongly suggest not only that Jews have become less rigidly partisan at the local level, but also that they are displaying a certain degree of open-mindedness to conservative approaches to public policy. This is further attested to by the American Jewish Committee's 2001 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, which found substantial evidence of the Jewish community's diversity of political attitudes and showed nearly 70% job approval ratings for Bush.
Democrats, particularly Jewish Democrats, have refused to accept these facts. Indeed, they have been asserting that the news reports are all entirely unfounded and that the whole notion is wishful thinking. To substantiate such claims they, as a matter of course, defensively cite historic voting patterns to try and demonstrate that Jews will always be Democrats. Quite frankly that is like trying to drive a car by only looking in the rear-view mirror. And when the "once a Democrat, always a Democrat" argument proves unconvincing, Jewish Democrats try to play their ultimate "trump card" by raising the specter of the most dreaded force available to them: the religious right.
Yet even fears of the so-called religious right won't save the Democrats. For one thing, the institutional mainstays of the religious right no longer exist: Pat Robertson has exited political life, the Christian Coalition is now significantly smaller and the Moral Majority is defunct. What's more, these days the American Jewish community has generally recognized that Christian conservatives are often in that category merely in a technical sense. Most conservatives, including Bush, are first and foremost distinct individuals with distinct and varied political principles, who happen to be observant members of a particular faith. This is, at least in part, why Republican Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas — whom Democrats routinely single out as ultimate evil incarnate because of his religious convictions — received one of the largest ovations of any of the speakers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in May. This is also why the Anti-Defamation League, a previously harsh critic of the religious right, ran full-page ads in papers across the country reprinting a pro-Israel speech by Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition and current chairman of the Georgia Republican Party.
Mostly, however, American Jews recognize that the Republican Party, because of adherence to core political principles, is also a better friend to Israel than the Democratic Party. Republicans have a strong and natural affinity for Israel because it is a liberal democratic regime, and as friends of liberty, they support Israel. Indeed, because American Jews have for a very long time been one of the Democratic party's most reliable core demographics, Republicans support Israel expecting no political benefit; their support is not about paying off a particular constituency, but is primarily about shared values, protecting liberty and standing by a key strategic ally.
Bush has fundamentally redefined the American-Israeli relationship out of conviction, rather than political expediency. Unlike former president Bill Clinton, Bush has demonstrated a very clear understanding of the moral terrain in the Middle East and the moral and political failures of the Arafat regime. Bush has, as a result, been unambiguous in revealing his loyalties to Israel, making clear the importance of holding Israel's strategic and security interests foremost in mind when considering possible avenues for peace.
By contrast, much of the Democratic Party has seemingly abandoned support for Israel. A much touted CNN/USA Today/Gallup June 2002 poll found that while a plurality of Republicans say the Untied States demonstrates "the right amount" of support for Israel, a majority of Democrats — 51% — said that American support was "too much." When Congress recently passed a resolution in support of Israel and our "common struggle against terrorism," the only two dissenting votes in the Senate were Democrats — Senators Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina. Later, Hollings, seemingly just to remind us that he is just as anti-Israel as Byrd has always been, publicly compared Prime Minister Sharon to Saddam Hussein and Bull Conner, the infamous police commissioner who unleashed attack dogs and fire-hoses on civil-rights protestors in Alabama back in 1963. Yet instead of castigating Hollings, for striking as grossly an anti-Israel stance as, say, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, his Democratic Party colleagues have stood silent.
In fact, standing silent with regard to Israel has been something the Democrats have been particularly good at of late. For in that same congressional resolution, 42 Democrats in the House voted no or abstained. Although Democrats would like us to forget such goings-on, the American Jewish community has clearly taken notice.
Because of this obvious and tractable fact, the Democrats are running scared — and rightfully so. After all, the Democrats stand to lose big should the Jewish community prove less loyal come election time — and not just in terms of lost votes. According to research by University of Akron political scientist John Green, "Jews accounted for 21 percent of donors to the Democratic presidential primaries in 2000," or at least $13 million out of $62 million raised by former vice president Al Gore and former senator Bill Bradley. With such high stakes, it is understandable that Democrats should allow their own wishful thinking to cloud their vision.
In arguing against reality, however, the Democratic Party's leaders have highlighted just how out of step they really are with the country, as well as with the Jewish community. The party is locked in a September 10 worldview, refusing to recognize how the evil of September 11 fundamentally refocused every American's perspective, Jew and non-Jew alike.
Matthew Brooks is executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the only national grassroots organization of Jewish Republicans.
My wife is strange by Jewish standards. She grew up in a moderately-leftist Jewish household. At 18, when she was eligible to vote, she registered as a Libertarian, and has voted Republican/Libertarian ever since
Jewish males are starting to wake up to the fact that they are just "white males" per EEOC guidelines -- and as such are an officially persecutable minority. Jews may have a long memory when college "quotas", as applied to Jews, meant a MAXIMUM tolerated percentage, rather than a minimum
The problem is self-correcting long-term. Notice how many children "Streisand, Friedan, etal" have had? Orthodox Jews may have large families, but leftist Jews generally don't. Usually one at most, often none
I have a friend like that. She said the jewish voter is still voting for FDR and if they would come out of their FDR mentality they would all vote republican if they looked at the facts and didn't vote on ancient history.
I well remember the Schoharie Creek bridge collapse, which was carried the Thruway over a small river (a bit too big to be called a creek in my book). It was during Mario's 16-year reign and my memory has faded, but I think at least one person was killed, and maybe three.
Anyway, it just recently occurred to me that the bridge repair program was necessary because under Cuomo-daddy, the infrastructure of the state was just completely ignored. Bridges and roadways don't vote, so why spend a dime on them... I'm quite sure this is how Mario thought.
Another thing that occurred to me is that these are not the best of economic times in NY, but Pataki is following through with the repair program just the same. The amount of work being done this summer seems to be identical to what was done last summer.
(steely)
I've been talking with a friend of mine about this for a long time. It seems the closer you are to being Jewish blue-collar, the more you'll vote Republican (or at least not vote democRATic). His father sold suits, his wife's father ran a gas station. He's a college dropout and a Vietnam vet (Riverine Nine, Mekong Delta, class of '68).
We've come to the conclusion that the democRAT party sells itself to Jews as "of course we'll tax you, steal from you, and keep your children out of the good colleges. But you know we'll do that. If you vote Republican, they might establish a religious dictatorship, and put you in the death camps. After all, that's what Hitler did when he made Germany a theocracy. So vote for us, because we will only rob and screw you. Or vote Republican, and risk being turned into soap."
This view is borne out by some of the leftists in an online discussion group I belong to. As one woman put it, "the First Ammendment requires the government to protect me from people who have religious views. The Separation of Church and State requires them to keep under constant surveillance anybody who has ever expressed any opinion that might have been influenced by a religious principle. The greatest evils in this world have all come from Christianity, and if a person has considered any form of religious thought, the rest of their thinking is suspect, because there is no way of knowing if their other thoughts have been influenced by religious beliefs. Therefore, they're a threat to me, and I'll vote for any party that promises to keep an eye on them."
This woman to this day believes she's in greater danger from the Christian channels on cable TV than from the taliban and Osama. She'll gladly let the RATs rob her blind, as long as they promise to watch the "religious right". She's a walking poster girl for the RATs appeal to leftist Jews.
As my buddy says, "I've got a stainless steel .38, a Winchester riot shotgun, and a buddy to watch my back. Why should I be afraid?"
I guess all those centuries of the Inquisition, witch trials, ghettos, pograms, and all the other horrors of unsecularized fundamentalist tyrrany are still remembered. I'm a from a strickly WASP/Catholic background, and I am definitely secularized where religion is concerned. I am definitely not a fundamentalist.
It is clear to me that Western Civilization has reached a zenith of tolerance, good will, freedom, and democratic principles unimaginable at any other time in history; that Middle America and Israel are its bastions; that it is worth living for and dying for; and that freedom-loving people must unite in its defense. I hope they will. Its enemies are overtly intent on its destruction.
Actually, I don't think that's the main reason. Liberals, and especially Jewish liberals, treat liberalism as a religion, and government as god. Thus the party of government, the democRATS, become apostles and prophets of that religion. Government, and the party, can no longer be fallible, so healthy skepticism is impossible.
Secondly, the democRAT party has the unique ability to not only define itself, but the pubbies, too. Witness all the concerned advice they give the GOP to prevent its extinction. Republicans have no real agreement as to what their party means, as witnessed here on FR. But democRATS know exactly what's wrong with the GOP, and constantly offer suggestions, out of concern that their opposition will harm itself.
Liberals are profoundly religious, even if they claim to be secular. The federal government is their god, and Bill and Hitlery are his prophets. Thus when they're told that the "religious right" is a threat to their very existence, they listen and obey, even while they know that many liberal policies will hurt them directly. Better the devil you know ....
Of course this question is naive. Throughout history people have worshipped the very thing that threatens, endangers, and exploits them. Witness the "god" of Islam. Witness Kali. Witness Sobek, the deified crocodile, obviously terrifying, of ancient Egypt, and Anubis, the deified jackel that dug up their mummies and ate them, thus depriving them of eternal life.
The best of government is a necessary evil that enforces its power with violence and the threat of violence, and government can be fickle--your protector at one time, your exploiter another.
I think you have touched on something that has puzzled me: how can intelligent and clear-thinking people place so much confidence in government? Unless they are somehow convinced that they can control it and thereby control the population in general.
I think government is like a power tool. A router is a great tool for certain projects, but it was never intended to do all things for all people. When you try to use that power router to open cans, trim your toenails, and drive nails, bad things will eventually happen.
The other problem is that liberals have subordinated their lives to the power tool of government, and work hard to make sure everybody else does, too. They forgot that men made the tool to serve them, and not the opposite. In that sense, a liberal is like a cargo cultist in some primitive society, in that they worship a tool, and attribute magical properties to it.
From dealing with my 84 year old mom, I'm guessing that nothing will change an entrenched world-view. On the upside, they're steadily dying of old age, so as long as the younger generation is OK, the problem is self-correcting.
Karl Rove does not agree
Well History does not agree with Karl Rove.
Let’s take a look at some Moses history.
The Sons of Israel ask God to get them out from under the thumb of the evil Pharaoh.
God hears them and tries to convince Pharaoh to let go with the staff to snake, Nile to blood, frogs, gnats, flies, cattle, boiles, Flaming hail killing every thing in the fields, Locusts, darkness And the big one. The firstborn of everything not protected by following God command. Which is now called Passover.
So after the destroyer Passed over the marked lintel. And Pharaoh tells them to get going. They leave Egypt. With:
“ The LORD was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. “
Now Pharaoh had a change of heart And When out to get them back. After God had done all these thing already what’s the first thing they say:
“ they said to Moses, "Is it because there were no graves in Egypt that you have taken us away to die in the wilderness? Why have you dealt with us in this way, bringing us out of Egypt? “
Wow not even a thank you. But then what does God do for them. He move his pillar of fire to block the Egyptians. And has Moses part the waters of the Red Sea. And after they all get to the other side. God lets the Egyptians start to chase them into the sea. but then closes the water on them. If that wasn’t enough God provides them with water & food. There still complain. God Defeats the Amalek for them.
So what do the Sons of Israel do after seeing all God had done for them And Moses left them alone to go have a talk With God.
They make them selves a Golden Calf and worshipped it. What a way to say thanks. Now this theme has been repeater over and over.
So ya we hear one thing now. But I just don’t see Barbara Streisand Voting R anytime soon.
And you spelled "their" wrong.
Well sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.