web analytics
October 1, 2014 / 7 Tishri, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



Home » InDepth » Monitor »

Presidential Politics And Jewish Priorities


Media-Monitor-logo

Two decades ago, Jimmy Carter was closing out a stunningly unimpressive four years in the White House. His approval ratings were lower than Richard Nixon’s had been on the eve of his resignation, and even American Jews, that most doggedly loyal constituent group of the Democratic Party, were not immune to the disaffection with Carter suffusing the nation.

At the same time, Jews were hardly rushing to embrace either of the two main alternatives to Carter in the November 1980 election – Ronald Reagan, the conservative Republican former governor of California, and John Anderson, the little-known liberal Republican congressman running a quixotic third-party campaign.

What was it that in the end finally tilted the majority of Jewish voters against Carter (39 percent chose Reagan while 16 percent went with Anderson)? According to various exit polls and post-election studies, the issue that most resonated with a wide cross-section of American Jews – more than the basket-case economy or the Iranian hostage situation or Carter’s uninspiring leadership style – was what they perceived to be the steadily deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

(Now, had times been good and Carter viewed as a great success, many of those Jews who voted for Reagan or Anderson would likely have gone with their reflexes and stuck with the Democratic incumbent, despite his increasingly chilly demeanor toward Israel. It was the unusual combination of Carter’s general ineffectiveness and his problematic handling of Israel that ultimately closed the deal for many Jews.)

But 1980 is an anomaly when compared with virtually every other U.S. presidential election going back to the very founding of Israel.

With the possible exceptions of 1948 (when Truman kept a wary eye on the polls as he navigated the minefields of Palestinian partition) and 1976 (when fresh memories of Ford and Kissinger’s “reassessment” of American-Israeli relations, short-lived as it was, helped many in the Jewish community overcome their initial discomfort with the unfamiliar born-again Southerner Carter), Jews have repeatedly demonstrated that when it comes to choosing a president, domestic issues clearly outrank concern for Israel.

It’s true, of course, that a relatively small number of Jews who might otherwise have been disposed toward Bob Dole in 1996 voted instead for Bill Clinton because they were uncertain of Dole’s commitment to Israel. And it’s equally true that some Jews who voted for George Bush in 1988 abandoned him in 1992 because of his Middle East policies. But one has to go all the way back to 1980 for the last presidential election in which the votes of an appreciable number of Jews were decided primarily by concern for Israel.

The one unchanging political rule of thumb in American Jewish life is simply this: It matters little whether a candidate is the incumbent or the challenger, whether his record on Israel is solid or not, whether Israel is at peace or at war. Ultimately the lion’s share of Jewish votes – anywhere from 65 to 90 percent – will go to the Democrat.

The average Jewish vote for Republican presidential candidates since 1948 has been just under 25 percent.

The phenomenon might be understandable in elections where there is no discernable difference between the candidates’ views on the Middle East – Eisenhower vs. Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, Bush vs. Dukakis in 1988 – but it takes on a more mystifying aspect when viewed against elections where the Republican candidate is clearly superior on Israel-related issues – Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972 and Reagan vs. Mondale in 1984 come immediately to mind.

In 1972, Nixon defeated McGovern in the country at large by a landslide margin of 60.7 percent to 37.5 percent (49 states to 1), and while Nixon did double his share of the Jewish vote from the paltry 17 percent he received four years earlier, the startling fact remains that McGovern – a weak candidate with no strong ties to Israel or the Jewish community running against an incumbent with a solid record on Israel and a relatively moderate domestic agenda – actually did better among Jews than Adlai Stevenson, a liberal Democrat beloved by Jews, had in 1952 and 1956.

Despite the requisite lip service by Jewish leaders and elected officials, Israel has rarely emerged as a decisive issue for Jews at election time (segments of the Orthodox community excepted). The reason for that is the slavish (no other word will do) devotion of most Jewish voters to liberal ideology and the Democratic Party. The rest is commentary.

About the Author: Jason Maoz is the Senior Editor of The Jewish Press.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Presidential Politics And Jewish Priorities”

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas speaking in Ramallah, July 1, 2014.
PA Demands Nov 2016 Deadline for UN to Force Israeli Disengagement
Latest Indepth Stories

There is not even a hint of recognition that Hamas deliberately fires rockets at civilian targets in Israel while storing arms and rocket launchers among its own civilians in Gaza.

No one with any sanity would dream of rationalizing or justifying the depredations perpetrated on the Arab world by ISIS.

With $2 billion on hand the Islamic State is an extremely well-funded terrorist group that may pose a major international crisis for the U.S. and the world. Learn about their rise to power and the toll they’ve taken thus far.

In the recent Gaza war and its aftermath, we saw a totally illogical reaction from the world.

A., a teacher: “I do not know a single Gazan who is pro-Hamas at the moment, except for those on its payroll.”

Is the global community clear in its response to these extremist groups?

Like our fabled character, Don Quixote, President Obama has constantly spawned his own reality.

Boroujerdi was informed that “the pressures and tortures will increase until he has been destroyed.”

Fatah: Hamas stole relief aid for Gaza and distributed it amongst its followers in mosques.

Can teenagers seriously be expected to behave properly when they are surrounded by so much suggestive material? Is it fair to expose them (and ourselves) to so much temptation and then tell them, “Just say no”?

Washington remains ignorant of the need to dismantle alliances with various Muslim countries.

Defeating IS requires bombing its strongholds and recognizing the violent nature of Islam.

Abbas again used the UN to attack Israel, distort history, and undermine prospects for peace.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority cannot even agree to move their clocks back on the same day.

More Articles from Jason Maoz
William Safire

“It’s a lousy column and a dishonest one,” Halberstam wrote. “So close it. Or you will end up just as shabby as Safire.”

Charles Krauthammer

Wye would be seen to have set the groundwork for the creation of a Palestinian state

These are not necessarily the best all-around biographies or studies of the individual presidents listed (though some rank right up there), but the strongest in terms of exploring presidential attitudes and policies toward Israel.

The Clintonan “engagement” liberals remember with such fondness did nothing but embolden Arafat and Hamas and Hizbullah as they witnessed Israel’s only real ally elevate process ahead of policy.

What really makes one wonder about the affinity felt by certain Jews for Grant was the welcome mat he put out for some of the country’s most pernicious anti-Semites.

With 2013 marking half a century since Kennedy’s fateful limousine ride in Dallas, the current revels are exceeding the revisionist frenzies of years past, with a seemingly endless parade of books, articles and television specials designed to assure us that, despite everything that has come to light about him since his death, JFK was a great president, or at least a very good president who would have been great had his life not been so cruelly cut short.

As someone who for the past fifteen years has been writing a column that largely focuses on the news media, I’ve read what is no doubt an altogether unhealthy number of books on the subject. Most of them were instantly forgettable while some created a brief buzz but failed to pass the test of time. And then there were those select few that merited a permanent spot on the bookshelf.

George W. Bush has been getting some positive media coverage lately, with recent polls showing him at least as popular as his successor, Barack Obama, and a big new book about the Bush presidency by New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker (Days of Fire, Doubleday) portraying Bush as a much more hands-on chief executive than his detractors ever imagined.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/presidential-politics-and-jewish-priorities/2007/10/31/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: