The Dartmouth Beacon

This long-lasting attachment to a single party is rare among ethnic and religious groups in America, for groups tend to change party affiliation as their interests, the party’s platform, or both, evolve with the times.

Irish Catholic immigrants, for example, were once even more heavily Democratic than American Jews, because their penniless status as recent immigrants led them to become heavy involved in and dependent upon the Democratically-dominated labor unions and political machines of large cities such as New York. However, this attachment to the Democrats lessened as Catholics worked their way into the middle-class and ceased to associate their well-being with the strength of unions and machine politics, and as the Democratic Party developed an increasingly pro-abortion stance incompatible with traditional Church teachings.

Such a political realignment has yet to occur within the Jewish community. The time may now be ripe, however. As a historical analysis demonstrates, many of the original reasons for Jewish identification with the Democratic Party no longer apply.

Economics

In the 1960’s, author Martin Himmelfarb described Jewish voter preferences with the memorable but somewhat controversial declaration that American Jews “earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans.” Himmelfarb’s point was that Jews vote against their own economic self-interest. Support for Democratic economic policies in the early 20th century made sense for poor Jewish immigrants of that time. However, largely because of the culture’s strong emphasis on education, American Jews have since progressed rapidly up the economic ladder and are now one of the most affluent ethnic or religious communities in the US. Jews are unique, however, in that rising Jewish income levels have not been accompanied by a substantial increase in conservative voting. This phenomenon is attributable both to the Jewish community’s admirable concern for the poorest and weakest members of society, and to the Republicans’ failure to overcome Democratic rhetoric of class warfare and convince Jewish voters that their economic policies are aimed at benefiting society as a whole, not merely the upper class.

Judaism regards tzedakah, or charity, as one of the most important commandments, and Jewish communities have historically provided very well for their impoverished members. Indeed, according to the Jewish worldview, one who gives charity should actually be grateful to the recipient of his aid, for allowing him to fulfill the divine commandment of tzedakah. The overwhelming migration of Jews to the Democratic Party in the 1930’s can be attributed to the New Deal’s concern for the poor. Franklin Roosevelt received 82% and 85% of the Jewish vote in the 1932 and 1936 presidential elections respectively, as compared with 57.4% and 60.8% of the popular vote nationwide. (The government’s response to the Great Depression was the main area of dispute in both of these elections; in the 1940 and 1944 elections, where WWII had become an issue, FDR’s portion of the Jewish vote increased to 90%.)

However, a Jew who votes for a Democrat over a Republican today based on the idea that Democratic policies help the poor while Republicans care only about the rich betrays an incomplete understanding of either Republican economic policies or the idea of tzedakah. Moses Maimonides, the 12th century Jewish scholar, ranks different ways of charitable giving in the Mishneh Torah, stating that the highest degree of charity is given by “providing [the poor man] with a gift or a loan, entering into a partnership with him, or helping him find work; in a word, by putting him into a position where he can dispense with other people’s aid”1. This view that the best way to help another is to get him out of a situation of dependency accords almost exactly with the economic philosophy of the modern Republican Party. Although both parties agree that the safety net provided by welfare is necessary, Republicans have led the way in welfare reform based on the belief that the best way to help a poor person is to enable him escape from poverty and government dependency and become self-sufficient. More liberal attempts to combat poverty through extensive welfare programs without incentive to find employment may be well-intentioned, but they condemn the poor to continued dependence upon others’ aid. The Jewish ideal of charity resembles the Republican Party’s economic philosophy much more closely than it does that of the Democrats.

Israel

US support for the state of Israel is an issue close to the hearts of many American Jews. According to the 2000-2001 National Jewish Population Survey, 63% of American Jews claim emotional attachment to the Jewish state, and 72% believe that Jews share a common destiny. This strong support of Israel is by no means a new phenomenon. Strong American Jewish support of Israel helped influence President Harry S. Truman to support the state’s creation. Conversely, the role that Truman, a Democratic president, played in the state’s creation helped the party of Roosevelt retain the votes and gain the trust of its Jewish demographic after the end of FDR’s presidency. No doubt Jewish support of Truman was motivated by a variety of factors, but it certainly was not hurt by Truman’s role in the creation of the Jewish state. If Truman’s support of the state was an effort to win Jewish votes, it paid off; Truman carried 75% of the Jewish vote, while his Republican opponent Thomas Dewey received only 10%, the same percentage he had received running against Roosevelt in the previous election. Jewish attachment to the Democratic Party, begun by FDR’s New Deal and the fight against Nazi Germany, was confirmed and strengthened by Truman’s support of Israel.

Today’s Democratic Party, however, has shifted far from its initial enthusiastic support of the Jewish state. While few politicians of either party dare to come out strongly against Israel, Republicans are clearly the state’s stronger backers today. The 2004 Democratic Party Platform is fairly strongly pro-Israel, affirming the party’s commitment to “the security of our ally Israel,” and Israel’s right to self-defense. Yet, it also contains the promise that a Democratic Administration will “demonstrate the kind of resolve to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that President Clinton showed”. Backers of Israel look back with anything but fondness on Clinton attempts to act as even-handed mediator in the peace process by promoting Yasser Arafat as a partner for peace, inviting the PLO chairman to the White House numerous times. Only with Arafat’s rejection of a peace deal granting 95% of his demands did Clinton stop treating him as legitimate partner in the peace process.

More worrisome than the Democrats’ official position on Israel (supportive, precisely because Democrats are terrified of losing their Jewish constituency to the Republicans) are the extreme, paranoid, anti-Israel views held by members of the American left-wing, which has become increasingly influential in Democratic politics of late. Indeed, the Democrats have conferred far more credibility upon the radical left than Republicans would even consider giving to similarly extreme, paranoid views from the right.

Skeptical? Consider reactions to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 and a similar right-wing 1994 film The Clinton Chronicles. The Clinton Chronicles, which accused Bill Clinton of corruption and involvement in drug-related crime during his Arkansas governorship, was scorned by mainstream Republicans as a ridiculous concoction of propaganda and conspiracy theory; Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, on the other hand, earned him a seat in Jimmy Carter’s box at the Democratic National Convention and implicit endorsement of his film by several Democratic politicians who attended its Washington, D.C. premiere.

Statements about Israel from Michael Moore and fellow radicals are troubling, to say the least: at a recent speech in Liverpool, Moore essentially called Israel one of the sources of right-wing evil in the world, declaring, “"It’s all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton." 2 Yet, Moore is attacked by fellow leftists for being – you guessed it – soft on Israel. The main problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 for many leftist conspiracy theorists, is Moore’s failure to blame Israel for the War on Iraq, and even the September 11 attacks. An article entitled, Blind, Or A Coward? from tompaine.com states that Moore is “[b]lind, if he can’t see Bush’s craven ties to Israel, driven by the neocons and the Christian Zionists…”. More disturbing are sites like this, which literally accuses Israelis of carrying out the 9/11 attacks, disguised as Saudi terrorists, in order to strengthen US support for Israel.

Republicans, Americans (whom Moore has called “possibly the dumbest people on the planet”) and Israel share common enemies in radical leftists like Michael Moore. The degree of legitimacy the Democrats have bestowed on Moore bodes ill for the party’s future Israel policy. Jews seeking a party that will strongly support Israel in the years to come would do well to turn to the Republicans.

Anti-Semitism and Fear of the Right

A third major reason for Jewish ties to the Democratic Party is a historically understandable fear of enemies on the Right. After the horrors of the Holocaust wreaked on them by right wing fascists whose sworn enemies also included Communists, Jews have been wary of anything associated with the right and far more tolerant of radical movements on the left. (An ironic situation, considering that Stalin executed tens of thousands on trumped-up accusations of a “doctor’s plot” or “Zionist imperialist plots”.) Many American Jews cannot bring themselves to vote Republican solely because the Republicans represent the right in the American political system. I have an elderly Jewish friend who preferred Bush to Kerry because of the increasingly anti-Israel position of the Democratic Party, yet could not bring herself to vote for Bush, because of her family’s traditional loyalty to the Democrats and opposition to Republicans; rather than vote Republican or against her principles, she abstained from the election.

Such actions are absurdly counterproductive. It is time for American Jews to get over their outdated fear of anything conservative and begin to vote their beliefs. For in the modern world, anti-Semitism is associated far less with the Right than with the Left. The KKK and other traditional “conservative” racist groups are effectively powerless today. Members of the Christian Right, whom Jews have long viewed with suspicion for their attempts at proselytizing, are currently some of Israel’s and the Jewish people’s staunchest supporters. Yes, some Christians undoubtedly support Israel with the ultimate goal of converting Jews to Christianity at the time of the Second Coming. But Judaism, in contrast to many other religions, places greater importance on actions than on beliefs. Whatever the doctrine behind their actions, the modern Christian Right treats Jews as friends, not enemies.

Anti-Semitism from the radical left, however, is on the rise. I do not for a moment claim that anti-Israel sentiments are equivalent to anti-Semitism. At my high school in the notoriously liberal town of Boulder, Colorado, the vast majority of the population held strongly anti-Israel viewpoints, many equating soldiers in the Israeli army with suicide bombers. These kids were not anti-Semitic, just sadly indoctrinated and uninformed. However, anti-Semitism is often hidden behind the guise of anti-Zionism. Leftist conspiracy theories accusing Israelis of perpetrating the September 11th attacks are not only baseless and idiotic, they also fuel anti-Semitism by casting all Jews as possible suspects in a supposed “Zionist plot”. Such theories have their origins in the undeniably anti-Semitic rhetoric of radical Islamist ideologues. Leftist radicals who propagate such ideas help spread anti-Semitic ideology, even if they are not anti-Semitic themselves. Similarly, while attacking Israel is not anti-Semitic in itself, European countries that attack Israel for human rights abuses, while ignoring far worse actions elsewhere in the world are engaged in de facto anti-Semitism. The worst enemies of the Jews are no longer to be found on the right, nor do their friends hail from the left.

On a variety of issues today, Jewish interests are no longer compatible with their traditional ties to the Democratic Party. And while old habits die hard, recent trends are hopeful. Jewish support of Republicans fell from a high of 39% for Reagan in 1980 to a low of 11% for Bush in 1992, but has been rising again ever since, and reached 24% in the 2004 presidential election. American Jews may well be beginning to vote based on the issues, rather than tradition. If and when they do so entirely, the Democratic Party has reason to worry.

---

Sources

1 Maimonides, Moses, Mishneh Torah, “Laws Concerning Gifts to the Poor,” 10:7
Cited in Telushkin, Joseph, The Book of Jewish Values.

2 David Brooks in the New York Times, June 26, 2004

3 http://www.tompaine.com/20050502/articles/blind_or_a_coward.php

4 Byron York, Michael Moore Loses It
5 The Washington Dispatch, June 26, 2004

Jewish presidential election percentages source:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

General population presidential election percentages come from the appendix of Brinkley, Alan, American History: A Survey. 10th Edition.