« Krugman on the new Congress | Main | Labor and commodity pricing »

November 10, 2006

Comments

The black support for social security is all the more surprising when you consider that they really get the short end of the stick on it for demographic reasons.

You also missed a number of democrat constituencies, like civil libertarians and antiwar types... pro-protectionism union workers... but I'm sure your list was not intended to be exhaustive.

Nice analysis. The Democrats have a much more diverse (I mean this in the political as well as racial sense) base than their opposition, which is actually a _bad_ thing for them. The lifestyle limo liberals want to save the world through giving jobs to Third World countries...which means taking them away from the union people. Jewish people want to help the state of Israel, which hardcore lefties (including hardcore lefty Jews--Noam Chomsky anyone?) think is an evil oppressor state like the USA. The lifestyle limo liberals again want to have lots and lots of immigrants, who compete with union guys and black people for jobs. Many union guys don't like black people (remember busing in Boston?). Etc.

The Republicans have a much simpler strategy, serving God (the white southern/midwestern vote) and Mammon (business). God provides the votes, Mammon provides, well, mammon. (Recall this was just the word for 'money' at first, no matter what you might have thought when reading Monster Manual II.) But like any party, they can get corrupt with power.

I do wonder about all these gay scandals. I don't really understand why a virulently anti-gay party has so many gay people working for it; it's almost as if the Nazi leadership and middle ranks were full of closeted Jews. My best guess is that rich free-market gays are holding their nose and trying to stick up for the free market they believe in, but it still does seem kind of weird.

Here's one theory: we all know gay men tend to be feminine and lesbians masculine. (Queer Eye, softball, etc.) Maybe gay men, because of their femininity, have better verbal and grooming skills and this makes them uniquely positioned for politics, where you have to talk nice and look good all the time. Similarly, Jews tend to have good verbal skills, which has enabled them to find employment in the media.

Recall Mike Blowhard's observation that all the men in publishing were either Jewish or gay. It's also sort of unfortunate. If the Jews had a knack for manual labor they'd just be an accepted part of societies around the world, but they're good at precisely the things that let you rise in society and this causes animosity. It's not unique to the Jews either--overseas Chinese have been the targets of ire in Malaysia for, basically, making too much money.

"Protection from Christianity" is a charitable interpretation, and one that would mystify the vast majority of American Christians, who think of Jews with fond sentimentality, if at all.

Dr. Kevin MacDonald of USC Long Beach has an alternative interpretation that merits consideration.

Hey, HS. Good job.

>>"Protection from Christianity" is a charitable interpretation, and one that would mystify the vast majority of American Christians, who think of Jews with fond sentimentality, if at all.

Ditto that. I don't get it.

To what extent are Jews in professions that benefit from big government? Public employees, teachers, and trial lawyers are all at the government teat. They are all well compensated, and I would suspect that they are all over-represented by Jews. Maybe that explains the non-guilt portion of the Jewsish/ Democrat connection.

No, I really think the Jewish vote is unnecessarily paranoid at this point in time. With sound historical reason, granted, but I don't see the Christian Right as being anti-Semitic at this point in time. Certainly was a few decades ago, but not now. A rapprochement might be in order, though I doubt major Jewish organizations will agree.

Anyone care to refute MacDonald?

"To what extent are Jews in professions that benefit from big government? Public employees, teachers, and trial lawyers are all at the government teat. They are all well compensated, and I would suspect that they are all over-represented by Jews."

That's part of it I'm sure but it's not nearly enough to explain the overwhelming Jewish preference for the Democrats. There are too many Jews in the private sector. I think a lot of it's the whole urban-rural thing; conservative parties have more rural support and liberal parties more urban support in Europe, which leads me to suspect it may be a universal pattern.

Black America is one of the most anti-semitic groups in the US. Yet, they exist in the same political party in the US.

I wonder if Jewish America knows that it can avoid interacting with black american much more than it can avoid interacting with middle class evangilical white American.

Other way around, I'd say. Jews live in cities, where there are many blacks but few evangelicals.

Jews worry about anti-semitism excessively, and have become bigoted and anti-Christian to an extreme in many cases. The ACLU is chock full of jews who are actively trying to erase Christianity from public (and private) life. No matter how successful, many jews also perceive themselves as an oppressed minority, thus their identification with blacks and liberalism in general. I find it ironic how sensitive jews are to living in a primarily white and Christian country, and are trying mightily to secularize and mongrel-ify it, while they themselves have a country which is primarily based on a single racial and religious identity. I guess they think it assures them of safety if nobody takes religion (especially Christianity or Islam) very seriously (with the exception of themselves, of course). Also, very few jews live near the blacks. So no problems there!

Also, you will find many jews throughout history involved in leftist movements, especially communism in the former Soviet Union. To secular jews, left-wing politics has become their religion. I am not an anti-semite, but I can see how this minority of people has often been an irritant to different populations throughout history. If they want to make the world a better place, they could start by exhibiting much more tolerance themselves, and not trying to undermine the traditions and beliefs of the cultures they live in.

I am not an anti-semite

I think you qualify. 'very few jews live near blacks' is false. 'They themselves have a country...' - well, no, American jews live here and don't have a separate country. 'mongrel-ify' ... well, Jews are doing a fine job of intermarrying with Gentiles themselves; as I recall the outmarriage rate for secular jews is about 50%; but I expect you had something else in mind. 'many jews throughout history involved in leftist movements' - true that, but then they're overrepresented in almost every political movement. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and so on.

I'd qualify that. At least here in America they historically have not been involved with socially conservative movements, probably because those are so tied up with Christianity. Note that liberals and libertarians (and I've known quite a few Jewish libertarians--it's actually not a bad fit given that Jews actually do pretty well on average under the free market) are both socially liberal.

bbartlog,

I believe the statistic was that 80-90% of jews vote democratic. I'll stand by the statement that jews are mainly left of center and have been the driving force in that movement both here and abroad.

When I talk about an Israeli state that definitely is based on a single racial and religious identity (an idea quite distinct from that which most leftists promote, including leftist jews), and you say that the american jews live here, and don't have their own separate country here, that's a logical non-sequitur. It doesn't address the point. Anyway, most american jews I've met very much support Israel and the way it is configured, while expressing abhorrence at the thought of a segregated America, or any other country for that matter. It seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

America is basically a white Christian nation. The demographic change (mostly illegal too, I might add) to alter that is fully supported by most jews I've seen, on the left and on the right. I think its because of their personal experience of America as a haven and their fears of white Christians, despite the illegality of it all. They seem quite comfortable with the change, while 80% plus of the natives don't think so. I would say that they are distinct in that regard.

As far as living close to blacks, do you mean in cities? Many orthodox jews live in enclaves in big cities, near black neighborhoods. That's because the orthodox walk to their temples on the sabbath. But in my experience (in Chicago), they mainly live in white neighborhoods or suburbs. That's where nearly all of the temples are. There are enclaves in Hyde Park, but that's because of the U of C. The reason I note that is because of their identification and support of black politics and causes. Most people like to live around those like themselves, so it doesn't surprise me much, just that it again seems somewhat hypocritical. But I guess self preservation trumps that here.

P.S. I don't need your knock as an anti-semite. I can note distinctions amongst groups I've personally interacted with if I choose, and even offer some negative observations as well . No group is pristine. That doesn't make me some kind of race hater or bigot. Again the tactic of name-calling if you disagree and don't have an argument. Jews do not on the whole act as most americans do--they have a distinct history and prevalent patterns within their group that are unique. And given their presence in the media and highest circles of power in this country, it is necessary to understand and evaluate that uniqueness in point of view to see why they say and do the things they do. If less than half of white christians are democrats, and almost 90% of jews are, as well as 90% of blacks, there must be some reason for it! If not income and government largesse, then why?

You may as well single out HS for even asking the question. No jewish questions allowed! All observations must be positive, or you are a bigoted anti-semite! Please!

The ACLU is chock full of jews who are actively trying to erase Christianity from public (and private) life.

I remember when the ACLU broke into my house, smashed the crucifix I made out of clothespins in 3rd grade, and made me read a science textbook. Those bastards!

Chris,

I noticed you didn't really argue against the accuracy of my statement. I'll take that as a compliment and that you agree with my point. Thanks for your support!

SOCIAL IDENTITY PROCESSES, PERCEIVED JEWISH GROUP INTERESTS, AND JEWISH RADICALISM

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/macdonald.html

One view of Jewish radicalism emphasizes the moral basis of Judaism. This is yet another example of the attempt to portray Judaism as a universalist, morally superior movement - the "light of the nations" theme that has repeatedly emerged as an aspect of Jewish self-identity since antiquity and especially since the Enlightenment (S~ID, Ch. 7). Thus Fuchs (1956, 190 191) suggests that the Jewish involvement in liberal causes stems from the unique moral nature of Judaism in inculcating charity towards the poor and needy. Involvement in these causes is viewed as simply an extension of traditional Jewish religious practices. Similarly, Hertzberg (1985, 22) writes of "the echo of a

{p. 80} unique moral sensibility, a willingness to act in disregard of economic interest when the cause seems just." {Yet Benjamin Ginsberg writes in The Fatal Embrace, "That fully three-fourths of America's foreign aid budget is devoted to Israel's security interests is a tribute in considerable measure to the lobbying prowess of AIPAC and the importance of the Jewish community in American politics" (p. 2). Jews are either deceiving themselves about their unique moral sensibility, or deceiving Gentiles.}

As indicated in PTSDA (Chs. 5, 6), there is every indication that traditional Jewish concern for the poor and needy was confined within Jewish groups, and in fact Jews have often served oppressive ruling elites in traditional societies and in post-World War II Eastern Europe. Ginsberg (1993, 140) describes these putative humanistic motivations as "a bit fanciful," and notes that in different contexts (notably in the postrevolutionary Soviet Union) Jews have organized "ruthless agencies of coercion and terror," including especially a very prominent involvement in the Soviet secret police from the postrevolutionary period into the 1930s (see also Baron 1975, 170; Lincoln 1989; Rapoport 1990, 30-31). Similarly, we have seen that Jews were very prominent in the domestic security forces in Poland (see Schatz 1991, 223-228) and Hungary (Rothman & Lichter 1982, 89).

Pipes (1993, 112) theorizes that although it is "undeniable" that Jews were overrepresented in the Bolshevik party and the early Soviet government as well as communist revolutionary activities in Hungary, Germany, and Austria in the period from 1918 to 1923, Jews were also overrepresented in a variety of other areas, including business, art, literature, and science. As a result, Pipes argues that their disproportionate representation in communist political movements should not be an issue. Pipes couples this argument with the assertion that Jewish Bolsheviks did not identify as Jews - an issue that, as we have seen, is questionable at best.

However, even assuming that these ethnically Jewish communists did not identify as Jews, such an argument fails to explain why such "de-ethnicized" Jews (as well as Jewish businessmen, artists, writers and scientists) should have typically been overrepresented in leftist movements and underrepresented in nationalist, populist, and other types of rightist political movements: Even if nationalist movements are anti-Semitic, as has often been the case, anti-Semitism should be irrelevant if these individuals are indeed completely deethnicized as Pipes proposes. Jewish prominence in occupations requiring high intelligence is no argument for understanding their very prominent role in communist and other leftist movements and their relative underrepresentation in nationalist movements.

Social identity theory provides a quite different perspective on Jewish radicalism. It stresses that perceived Jewish group interests are fundamental to Jewish political behavior, and that these perceived group interests are importantly influenced by social identity processes. If indeed radical politics resulted in a strong sense of identification with a Jewish ingroup, then Jewish involvement in these movements would be associated with very negative and exaggerated conceptions of the wider gentile society, and particularly the most powerful elements of that society, as an outgroup. In conformity with this expectation, Liebman (1979, 26) uses the term "contraculture" to describe the American Jewish left because "conflict with or antagonism toward society is a

{p. 81} central feature of this subculture and . . . many of its values and cultural patterns are contradictions of those existing in the surrounding society." For example, the New Left was fundamentally involved in radical social criticism in which all elements that contributed to the cohesive social fabric of midcentury America were regarded as oppressive and in need of radical alteration.

The emphasis here on social identity processes is compatible with Jewish radicalism serving particular perceived Jewish group interests. Anti-Semitism and Jewish economic interests were undoubtedly important motivating factors for Jewish leftism in czarist Russia. Jewish leaders in Western societies, many of whom were wealthy capitalists, proudly acknowledged Jewish overrepresentation in the Russian revolutionary movement; they also provided financial and political support for these movements by, for example, attempting to influence U.S. foreign policy (Szajkowski 1967). Representative of this attitude is financier Jacob Schiff's statement that "the claim that among the ranks of those who in Russia are seeking to undermine governmental authority there are a considerable number of Jews may perhaps be true. In fact, it would be rather surprising if some of those so terribly afflicted by persecution and exceptional laws should not at last have turned against their merciless oppressors" (in Szajkowski 1967, 10).

Indeed, at the risk of oversimplification, one might note that anti-Semitism and economic adversity combined with the Jewish demographic explosion in Eastern Europe were of critical importance for producing the sheer numbers of disaffected Jewish radicals and therefore the ultimate influence of Jewish radicalism in Europe and its spillover into the United States. Jewish populations in Eastern Europe had the highest rate of natural increase of any European population in the nineteenth century, with a natural increase of 120,000 per year in the 1880s and an overall increase within the Russian Empire from 1 to 6 million in the course of the nineteenth century (Alderman 1992, 112; Frankel 1981, 103; Lindemann 1991, 28-29, 133-135). Despite the emigration of close to 2 million Jews to the United States and elsewhere, many Eastern European Jews were impoverished at least in part because of czarist anti-Jewish policies that prevented Jewish upward mobility.

As a result, a great many Jews were attracted to radical political solutions that would transform the economic and political basis of society and would also be consistent with the continuity of Judaism. Within Russian Jewish communities, the acceptance of radical political ideology often coexisted with messianic forms of Zionism as well as intense commitment to Jewish nationalism and religious and cultural separatism, and many individuals held various and often rapidly changing combinations of these ideas (see Frankel 1981).

Religious fanaticism and messianic expectations have been a typical Jewish response to anti-Semitic persecutions throughout history (e.g., Scholem 1971; PTSD~, Ch. 3). Indeed, one might propose that messianic forms of political radicalism may be viewed as secular forms of this Jewish response to persecution, different from traditional forms only in that they also promise a utopian

{p. 84} Even successful Jewish capitalists have tended to adopt political beliefs to the left of the beliefs of their gentile counterparts. For example, German-Jewish capitalists in the nineteenth century "tended to take up positions distinctly to the 'left' of their Gentile peers and thus to place themselves in isolation from them" (Mosse 1989, 225). Although as a group they tended to be to the right of the Jewish population as a whole, a few even supported the Social Democratic Party and its socialist program. Among the plausible reasons for this state of affairs suggested by Mosse is that anti-Semitism tended to be associated with the German Right. Consistent with social identity theory, Jewish capitalists did not identify with groups that perceived them negatively and identified with groups that opposed an outgroup perceived as hostile. Social identity processes and their influence on perception of ethnic (group) interests rather than economic self-interest appears to be paramount here.

My impression is that there is as much or more anti-Semitism on the left now as there is on the right. Howard Dean was basically right that the Republican party is the white Christian party. But I think Orthodox Jews, the most religious, voted for Bush in 2004.

"I think a lot of it's the whole urban-rural thing; conservative parties have more rural support and liberal parties more urban support in Europe, which leads me to suspect it may be a universal pattern".

I also observe an left-right urban-rural pattern. America, Canada, the UK, and Australia all follow it. But Thailand is an outlier. The Thais Love Thais party is the party of economic nationalism and its base is in the countryside. The Democratic party is the party of economic liberty and its base is the urban bourgeois of Bangkok. My impression of Mexico is that friends of liberty are more readily found in the city than in the countryside. Perhaps the split flips during a certain stage in development. Recollect that Great Britain once had an era of Court vs. Country followed by an era of City vs. Gentry.

Additional counter-examples are welcome.

Hmmm. Let me refine that. Socially conservative parties tend to hang out in the countryside and socially liberal parites in the city. Thais Love Thais sounds pretty nationalist and socially conservative to me. There's no reason economic and social liberty have to track oppositely the way they do in America.

Economic liberty tends to increase inequality as well as wealth. It could be that if the cities are rich, they favor economic liberty and thus you get a libertarian-antilibertarian split, whereas if the cities are poor, they favor economic conservatism. How much do you know about this?

SFG's thesis is at least as old as Wells (the Land Ironclads) for instance, and seems accurate, but we need more explanation.

"My impression is that there is as much or more anti-Semitism on the left now as there is on the right. Howard Dean was basically right that the Republican party is the white Christian party. But I think Orthodox Jews, the most religious, voted for Bush in 2004."

I get the impression the left is more anti-Zionist (i.e., opposed to the policies of the state of Israel) and the right is more anti-Semitic (i.e., convinced the Jews are undermining American society). As I've stated, in my opinion the majority of the American right is not, however, anti-Semitic at this point in time. They may be anti-Judaic in terms of truth value, in the sense of opposing the Jewish religion, but that's just because you can't be Jewish and Christian at the same time--either JC was the Messiah, or he wasn't. I don't see them trying to close down synagogues or gas people named Goldberg though.

"I do wonder about all these gay scandals. I don't really understand why a virulently anti-gay party has so many gay people working for it; it's almost as if the Nazi leadership and middle ranks were full of closeted Jews. My best guess is that rich free-market gays are holding their nose and trying to stick up for the free market they believe in, but it still does seem kind of weird."

Here's a theory. The Republicans tend to be the party of married people. They don't have time (kids) or the motivation (finding a mate) to be politically active.

The Democrats tend to be the party of the unmarried.

So, when looking for volunteers, the Democrats have a larger pool of singles to draw upon. The Republicans pool is much more restricted to gays, since many of the straights are married.

Just a theory.

Could be. Certainly a lot of 20-somethings are liberal, and also interested in shacking up.
I always thought it was kind of funny how middle-aged people objected to young people dating at Democratic events but their own business networking at Republican events is OK. Young people date, middle-aged people focus on work. It's the life cycle.

I suppose the Democrats have plenty of gays but nobody cares.

It's worth noting that Jewish tradition not only bans abortion for any purpose other than saving the mother's life. it even bans abortion for Gentiles.

It's ablso worth noting that Jews who become atheists are still identified as Jews but Jews who become Christians generally aren't.

"It's ablso worth noting that Jews who become atheists are still identified as Jews but Jews who become Christians generally aren't."

Jews are still part of the community even if they think the religious part of the community doesn't make any sense.

But converting to Christianity is a direct repudiation of Judaism.

Really, the same applies to any religion. Someone can show up at the Episcopal Church from time to time and be considered an Episcopal even if he doesn't believe in the superstitious nonsense.

Note that the largely Jewish Ayn Randers are explicitly scared to death that Christianity is "coming back" - so they urged their acolytes and fans to vote Democrat!

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/11/road-to-theocracy.html

Israel's OK, though, no matter what:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=8553

No offense, but I think Ayn Randers are about as influential as D&D fans. There are a lot of threats to the Republic but this is not one of them.

While I am perfectly willing to admit the risk of Jewish influence to support Israel via the media, these anti-semites really take the cake sometimes. Ugh!

Whoa, SFG. Who's an anti-semite? The thread is about Jews voting for Democrats and why. Part of the reason, I submit, is that they're scared of Evangelical Christianity. With Sasha Cohen ("Borat"), they're afraid of pograms from the red-state bible-thumping heartland.

My comment above simply references an example of this (in my view utterly unjustified) fear.

As to the influence of Ayn Rand on the culture, since about 1943's _The Fountainhead_ it has been considerable! That influence is one factor that gave birth to the modern Right, with its Libertarian party and Libertarian-leaning Repubs. Ask almost any successful person, and they'll likely tell you "Ayn Rand gave me the confidence to think for myself and pursue my own goals," etc. (of course, these people obviously read only some of her books; if they had continued reading, they wouldn't be successful!).

Don't play the anti-semite card any time you hear a viewpoint that makes you feel somehow uncomfortable. Look into the content of what the person is saying. Otherwise, you risk looking paranoid yourself!

"How much do you know about this?"

Been watching Thai politics for about a year now. Been there recently. Have friends there. When I first started Thai-watching, politics didn't make much sense. It doesn't map well onto an American political landscape. Although still problematic, a British political landscape is closer.

There over a million Christian and Muslim Arabs living in Israel proper, so to say that Jews are hypocrites; well you don't know what you're talking about

The comments to this entry are closed.