Why are Jews Liberals

[stuW]

I'm a Jew. I'm moderate. My father is fairly liberal and my mother is fairly conservative. I think this article is interesting.

One of the most interesting political issues for Jews, where I'm from, is affirmative action. My anecdotal experience suggests this is an issue where they are most likely to differ.

Stu

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...116901498.html

Why Are Jews Liberals?
I'm hoping buyer's remorse on Obama will finally cause a Jewish shift to the right.

By NORMAN PODHORETZ

One of the most extraordinary features of Barack Obama's victory over John McCain was his capture of 78% of the Jewish vote. To be sure, there was nothing extraordinary about the number itself. Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for the Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75%—far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group.

Yet there were reasons to think that it would be different in 2008. The main one was Israel. Despite some slippage in concern for Israel among American Jews, most of them were still telling pollsters that their votes would be strongly influenced by the positions of the two candidates on the Jewish state. This being the case, Mr. McCain's long history of sympathy with Israel should have given him a distinct advantage over Mr. Obama, whose own history consisted of associating with outright enemies of the Jewish state like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the historian Rashid Khalidi.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama beat Mr. McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points. Except for African Americans, who gave him 95% of their vote, Mr. Obama did far better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. Thus the Jewish vote for him was 25 points higher than the 53% he scored with the electorate as a whole; 35 points higher than the 43% he scored with whites; 11 points higher than the 67% he scored with Hispanics; 33 points higher than the 45% he scored with Protestants; and 24 points higher than the 54% he scored with Catholics.

These numbers remind us of the extent to which the continued Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. All the other ethno-religious groups that, like the Jews, formed part of the coalition forged by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party. But not the Jews. As the late Jewish scholar Milton Himmelfarb said in the 1950s: "Jews earn like Episcopalians"—then the most prosperous minority group in America—"and vote like Puerto Ricans," who were then the poorest.

Jews also remain far more heavily committed to the liberal agenda than any of their old ethno-religious New Deal partners. As the eminent sociologist Nathan Glazer has put it, "whatever the promptings of their economic interests," Jews have consistently supported "increased government spending, expanded benefits to the poor and lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor."

As with these old political and economic questions, so with the newer issues being fought out in the culture wars today. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of "Jewish values." But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law. To cite just a few examples: Jewish law permits abortion only to protect the life of the mother; it forbids sex between men; and it prohibits suicide (except when the only alternatives are forced conversion or incest).

The upshot is that in virtually every instance of a clash between Jewish law and contemporary liberalism, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right. And to the dogmas and commandments of this religion they give the kind of steadfast devotion their forefathers gave to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. For many, moving to the right is invested with much the same horror their forefathers felt about conversion to Christianity.

All this applies most fully to Jews who are Jewish only in an ethnic sense. Indeed, many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

But avowed secularists are not the only Jews who confuse Judaism with liberalism; so do many non-Orthodox Jews who practice this or that traditional observance. It is not for nothing that a cruel wag has described the Reform movement—the largest of the religious denominations within the American Jewish community—as "the Democratic Party with holidays thrown in," and the services in a Reform temple as "the Democratic Party at prayer."

As a Jew who moved from left to right more than four decades ago, I have been hoping for many years that my fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was the case in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

In this realm, too, American Jewry surely belongs with the conservatives rather than the liberals. For the social, political and moral system that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth.

The Jewish immigrants who began coming here from Eastern Europe in the 1880s were right to call America "the golden land." They soon learned that there was no gold in the streets, as some of them may have imagined, which meant that they had to struggle, and struggle hard. But there was another, more precious kind of gold in America. There was freedom and there was opportunity. Blessed with these conditions, we children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these immigrants flourished—and not just in material terms—to an extent unmatched in the history of our people.

What I am saying is that if anything bears eloquent testimony to the infinitely precious virtues of the traditional American system, it is the Jewish experience in this country. Surely, then, we Jews ought to be joining with its defenders against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the philosophical principles, the moral values, and the socioeconomic institutions on whose health and vitality the traditional American system depends.

In 2008, we were faced with a candidate who ran to an unprecedented degree on the premise that the American system was seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record powerfully indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, I hoped that my fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism to which they have remained in thrall long past the point where it has served either their interests or their ideals.

That possibility having been resoundingly dashed, I now grasp for some encouragement from the signs that buyer's remorse is beginning to set in among Jews, as it also seems to be doing among independents. Which is why I am hoping against hope that the exposure of Mr. Obama as a false messiah will at last open the eyes of my fellow Jews to the correlative falsity of the political creed he so perfectly personifies and to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Mr. Podhoretz was the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995. His latest book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?" is just out from Doubleday.

[Paslode]

One of my former bosses liked to say:

Jews, they vote Democrat and like to live like Republicans.

[Warrior-Mentor]

I picked up a copy because it introduces an interesting question.

May be a while till I get to it though --- night stand is already overflowing with great books to read.

Would be interested to hear more of your thoughts on it Stu....

[HOLLiS]

The Democratic party today is not what it was a few decades ago. Part of Jewish culture is the concept of 'Chessid", compassion. Also historically Jews have been minorities in many countries and have felt the sting of being a minority or a unwelcome minority. Civil rights, welfare, compassion is important to the Jewish community. One might say, the Judaism requires a person to be personally conservative in nature yet outwardly liberal towards others. One reason in Western countries Judaism seem to be paradoxical. Torah logic is based on Byzantine thought rather than the linear Greek.

There has been a shift in recent years, because of the political view many democratic leaders hold towards Israel. Also the Republicans have gained in the area of Civil Rights over the Democrats. President Bushed out maneuvered the D's on the civil rights issues. Maybe that is why many D's were very visceral towards the president. (also the visceral attacks on Gov. Palin)

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

With the way this administration is and the way Iran seems to be behaving, there may not be an Israel by the time 2012 arrives IMO.

I think if things keep going in the direction they are going, there may not be an Iran in 2012. Israel is not going to take this stuff sitting down. I would lay odds on them every day of the week and twice on Sundays I think there are quite a few of Israel's neighbors that would "quietly" support Israel if push came to shove over Iran.

[akv]

the way Iran seems to be behaving, there may not be an Israel by the time 2012 arrives IMO. -Broadsword2004

Israel may not survive to 2012, but if so, Iran won't either...

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

My fear is if Iran starts acting up and Israel decides to take out their capabilities, but the administration won't support them. From my understanding, it is questionable if Israel could pull off attacking Iran by itself.

Another big threat of Iran, from what I understand, is if they decided to lob a nuke into say Saudi Arabia or something, and cut off the oil flowing out of there. That would cause HUGE problems economically worldwide.

There certainly are a lot of what if's. My own personal opinion, Israel doesn't need the backing of the US to pull off an attack on Iran. They would get the support they need from other places. The worry would be that they wouldn't hit everything they need to, or destroy enough of it to make a difference, even if they do hit it.

Iran lobs a nuke at Saudi Arabia, it wouldn't matter what they disrupt, they would be finished. I don't think Saudi's brothers in Pakistan would take that one lying down. That is why I think research of the "Sunni Bomb" are so interesting. Iran may have one or two nukes, but we certainly know that Pakistan has a whole arsenal.

What is there to say that Pakistan doesn't have the same kind of deal with their Sunni brethren that the US had with many of the European nations after WWII. "You don't need a nuke, We'll protect you"

Very interesting topic.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by afchic

I think if things keep going in the direction they are going, there may not be an Iran in 2012. Israel is not going to take this stuff sitting down. I would lay odds on them every day of the week and twice on Sundays I think there are quite a few of Israel's neighbors that would "quietly" support Israel if push came to shove over Iran.

I agree with you on picking Israel in that fight, though I don't think that Israel's neighbors would quietly support them, they might do nothing quietly but support them, I seriously doubt it. The question would be whether Israel would have the ability to go the distance in the fight without our help because I don't think this admin is going to offer any support and much of their arsenal comes from ours.

[Richard]

There are two classes of forecasters - those who don't know and those who don't know they don't know.

- John Kenneth Galbraith

Richard's $.02

[HOLLiS]

Richard,

Forecasting with accuracy is really quite easy, if one has to have the right chicken bones.

A simple test, forecast the correct 6 numbers out of 40 - 42 numbers. Not asking for much depth into the future, say at 5:45 PM on Friday. At 6:00 PM the 6 winning lottery numbers are called out. The complexity of predicting global event are much more difficult than those 6 lottery numbers.

[Soak60]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

My fear is if Iran starts acting up and Israel decides to take out their capabilities, but the administration won't support them. From my understanding, it is questionable if Israel could pull off attacking Iran by itself.

Another big threat of Iran, from what I understand, is if they decided to lob a nuke into say Saudi Arabia or something, and cut off the oil flowing out of there. That would cause HUGE problems economically worldwide.

The Israeli military is a thing to be feared, from my understanding. They are tested militarily almost continually, have technology that is superior on many levels, a well organized army, and a willpower and determination to fight through. Radical Muslims may have have their hatred of the Jew, but the Jews have the memory of the Holocaust. I would bet on Israel every single time; they will go farther than you would believe to secure their homeland...and it IS their homeland.

[Abu-Shakra]

Of course in speaking of the difference between left and right, or between liberals and conservatives, I have in mind a divide wider than the conflict between Democrats and Republicans and deeper than electoral politics. The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

But avowed secularists are not the only Jews who confuse Judaism with liberalism; so do many non-Orthodox Jews who practice this or that traditional observance. It is not for nothing that a cruel wag has described the Reform movement—the largest of the religious denominations within the American Jewish community—as "the Democratic Party with holidays thrown in," and the services in a Reform temple as "the Democratic Party at prayer."

The author is spot on in those statements.


I might not be as eloquent in my thought as the author but I will give you my take from my POV and observations as I developed this mentality too growing up.

Jews are obviously a successful and powerful group, however, I think what it comes down to, IMO, is that these liberal Jews have some sort of minority complex. As a once oppressed and constantly under siege group, they identify with the little guy, the have-nots, etc. I think they feel like now because of their position in society as one of the most sucessful minority groups, they must become the champion for these people and disrupt what are the old traditional institutions of our society. Isn't that what liberalism is all about??

Why do you think they hate Bush so much? He's a rich, WASP, male. He represents the establishment. Why else would they hate him? In their mentality these are the people associated with slavery, exploitation of the poor, manifest destiny, oppression, war, - the powerful people who make all the decisions at the highest echelons of our government, military, corporations, etc. Thats the type of people they associate being conservative and the Republican party; And as to why they can only associate themselves liberals and Democrats.

Believe me, it's a very strange mentality. It's slave mentality. I should know. I grew up in south Palm Beach county; a huge Jewish population, and a bastion of the Democrat party and liberalism (and phonies and wannabees. What a coincidence????). Like the author, I finally saw the light.

[Sigaba]

Commentary held a symposium to discuss Mr. Podhoretz's Why Are Jews Liberals? and has published the participants' responses here. (A pdf version is available here.)

Originally Posted by Abu-Shakra

The author is spot on in those statements.


I might not be as eloquent in my thought as the author but I will give you my take from my POV and observations as I developed this mentality too growing up.

Jews are obviously a successful and powerful group, however, I think what it comes down to, IMO, is that these liberal Jews have some sort of minority complex. As a once oppressed and constantly under siege group, they identify with the little guy, the have-nots, etc. I think they feel like now because of their position in society as one of the most sucessful minority groups, they must become the champion for these people and disrupt what are the old traditional institutions of our society. Isn't that what liberalism is all about??

Why do you think they hate Bush so much? He's a rich, WASP, male. He represents the establishment. Why else would they hate him? In their mentality these are the people associated with slavery, exploitation of the poor, manifest destiny, oppression, war, - the powerful people who make all the decisions at the highest echelons of our government, military, corporations, etc. Thats the type of people they associate being conservative and the Republican party; And as to why they can only associate themselves liberals and Democrats.

Believe me, it's a very strange mentality. It's slave mentality. I should know. I grew up in south Palm Beach county; a huge Jewish population, and a bastion of the Democrat party and liberalism (and phonies and wannabees. What a coincidence????). Like the author, I finally saw the light.

I respectfully and strongly disagree with the views expressed in post #14. It suggests that adherence to (contemporary American) liberalism is pathological when those views are held by Jews. It suggests that there's a normative trajectory for the development of one's political ideology and that outliers are the by-product of "some sort of minority complex," "a very strange mentality," and a "slave mentality."

Moreover, post #14 suggests that Jews are liberals because they are unenlightened, possess a youthful ignorance, and have an impoverished view of history (to say nothing of contemporary events in the U.S. <<LINK1>>, <<LINK2>>,<<LINK3>>, <<LINK4>>).

IMO, post #14 presents a disquieting mirror image of the rhetoric used by some elements of the American left to demonize, and to discredit cohorts of Americans who hold differing political views than they. What is good for the goose may be good for the gander, but I don't know how this approach is going to improve political discourse in America.

[HOLLiS]

Maybe part of the problem in resolving this riddle is how terms are defined. Think of liberal and conservative not in political context by more traditional definition.

Part of the Biblical carry over is similar to the term that is often used to describe the US; "No better friend, no worse enemy."

[stuW]

Not immediately about politics, but timely on this American Jewish discourse.

6 Minute Youtube link is pretty amazing.

stu

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/ny...r.html?_r=2&hp

A Soldier’s Voice Rediscovered
By PAUL VITELLO

Like many veterans, Max Fuchs did not talk much about what he did in the war. His children knew he landed at Omaha Beach. Sometimes, they were allowed to feel the shrapnel still lodged in his chest.

And once, he had told them, he sang as the cantor in a Jewish prayer service on the battlefield.

On Oct. 29, 1944, at the edge of a fierce fight for control of the city of Aachen, Germany, a correspondent for NBC radio introduced the modest Sabbath service like this:

“We bring you now a special broadcast of historic significance: The first Jewish religious service broadcast from Germany since the advent of Hitler.”

Mr. Fuchs, now 87 and living on the Upper West Side, was 22 that day at Aachen.

“I was just as much scared as anyone else,” he said in an interview in his Manhattan apartment. “But since I was the only one who could do it, I tried my best.”

Well-known in its time, the battlefield service became lost in obscurity, where it might have remained except for an archivist’s chance find and then, fast forward, unlikely fame on YouTube — where the 1944 service has drawn 310,000 hits — for Mr. Fuchs.

His grandchildren have been beside themselves with pride, relatives say, and the rabbi at Congregation Ramath Orah on West 110th Street, where Mr. Fuchs and his wife worship, is insisting that he sing at services on Saturday, which is Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year — though Mr. Fuchs says his voice is not what it used to be.

His performance on that 1944 broadcast, heard throughout the United States and later in Germany, however, brought a special poignancy to the 10-minute open-air service — partly because of his well-trained, stately voice, partly because a few seconds before he began the traditional “Yigdal” hymn, and for the three minutes it took to finish it, the crack of artillery shells exploding nearby could be heard clearly in the background.

A private first class in the First Infantry Division, Mr. Fuchs volunteered to sing that day because there was no cantor available. In fact, Mr. Fuchs had been studying to become a cantor, when the war broke out. But he had left his studies and was drafted, and never considered the chaplaincy.

His parents emigrated from Poland in 1934, when he was 12. Some of his aunts, uncles and cousins who remained were killed after the German invasion in 1939, he said in the interview. He wanted to fight the Nazis.

For 20 years afterward, Mr. Fuchs said, he suffered recurring nightmares about the war. He tried not to think about it too much.

He married Naomi Groob, they had five children, he worked in the diamond district and served as a cantor at the Bayside Jewish Center in Queens.

When his children were growing up, there was a photograph on the wall of their living room in Bayside, showing him with a prayer shawl over his Army uniform, singing while a radio reporter held a microphone in front of him.

Of the picture, “He would say, ‘Yeah, that was when I did the service. They recorded it. It was on the radio,’ ” recalled his daughter, Ester R. Fuchs, now a professor of public affairs and political science at Columbia.

But that was all he said. And deferring to his reticence, his wife never said more.

It was half a century before Mr. Fuchs’s children, born after the war, would know more than their father’s incomplete and almost shrouded version of the event.

In 2000, Professor Fuchs read a newspaper interview about the historic “Aachen service” with a former NBC radio reporter, James Cassidy. She began to put two and two together.

“Is that what you were talking about?” she asked her father.

“Yeah, like I said, it was on the radio,” Mr. Fuchs relied.

If the stories he told were sketchy, his emotions unexposed, it was because there was too much, he said, sitting at a table with his wife and daughter. “On the beach, the corpses every couple of feet. Guys I knew, their feet blown off. Their arms. It was not a pretty picture.”

As a Jew, and as a man with a web of intimate childhood connections to cousins and other relatives in Poland who were gassed and murdered, “there was a lot of anger, too.”

He remembered singing and looking over the assembled soldiers in that open field and thinking there was not a single one of them at that service who had not lost family to the Nazis.

Yet even then, while all of them understood and felt deeply the import of the service they were holding, “There wasn’t much talking going on. We were in a war.”

The American Jewish Committee had helped make the event possible, locating Sidney Lefkowitz, a chaplain to several hundred Jewish soldiers in the First Infantry Division, and arranging to have his service broadcast that day.

But even it had lost the institutional memory of the Aachen service.

Charlotte Bonelli, the organization’s chief archivist, did not know anything about it. She was researching the history of the organization’s radio division when she found a reference to it in 2004, and began to try to recover it.

Neither the committee nor NBC had the recording. Eventually she found it at the Library of Congress and commissioned a short documentary about it, which was presented at the group’s annual meeting in 2005.

As an afterthought, she posted it on YouTube.

David Harris, the American Jewish Committee’s executive director, said its Web master began noticing “some traffic” beginning in early 2006. “There were 1,000 hits, then 3,000, then it was in a lull for a while and all of a sudden it was hundreds of thousands.”

Max Fuchs’s name, however, was not mentioned on the original YouTube recording. He never asked the photographers at the scene to take his name.

It was only recently, when another of Mr. Fuchs’s daughters, Hana Fuchs, saw the service on the Internet and contacted the American Jewish Committee, that he received credit on the Web as the impressive voice behind the hymns.

In the interview the other day, Mr. Fuchs was asked how he selected the two hymns he sang in that service, “Ein Keloheinu” and “Yigdal,” both of which affirm divine providence and the anticipation of redemption in eternity.

They were familiar hymns, he said, and all the men would know the words.

But there was another criterion, he added: There was a war going on.

“They didn’t take too long,” he said.