RSS Feed MenuA new Quinnipiac poll shows that only 52% of American Jews now have a favorable opinion of President Obama. This is a remarkable drop in Jewish support considering that he won 78% of their vote in the 2008 election.
This raises the question that Norman Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary from 1960 to 1995, asked in his latest book of the same title: Why Are Jews Liberals? Perhaps many of America’s Jews are now asking themselves the same question.
Obama has shown himself to be a Big Government ideologue. Considering that American Jews are incredibly charitable in all aspects of our society – in philanthropy, poverty relief, science, education, the arts, – like Mr. Podhoretz, I am surprised there is so little resentment to this wealth redistribution mantra now run amok on Pennsylvania Avenue and Capitol Hill. Are American Jews finally starting to ask: How much of their treasure for Caesar is enough?
Maybe even more fatefully, Obama sees the Arab-Israeli conflict as, at its most benign, a conflict of moral equals if not the story of the oppression of Palestinians by overbearing Israelis.
Perhaps it is time for American Jews to do a forensic examination of just how closely in line with Jewish traditions are the systemic bureaucratic behemoths that we now have in the 21st Century. There is a moral abyss between charity and coercion. Conservatives understand that government does have a role to play. But to put forth the fallacy that those who espouse smaller de-centralized government somehow do not believe in social justice or are unfeeling is flat out wrong.
Take a stroll down any college campus quad, the side streets of Europe (or the halls of the UN for that matter), and you see it is the political left that harbors pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, and often overtly anti-Semitic sentiments. With its unwavering support of Israel as the only true and thriving democratic state in the Middle East (Iraq still remains to be seen) it has been the GOP’s thankless position to defend the interests of Jews abroad against the liberals and progressives with whom many Jews paradoxically still cast their lots today.
mlindroo // Dec 16, 2009 at 1:02 pm
> First of all Blacks and Jews have NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH in common
Well, in both cases we are talking about minorities that strongly support the Democratic party.
That’s why I mentioned them, since Republicans keep asking the “what’s wrong with Jews/blacks?!” question. I am saying both are MINORITIES, period, and they have perfectly rational and reasonable reasons for not trusting the GOP.
> That Blacks, however poorly treated they were still had stable families
> in the olden days as you call them.
So did whites, if “stable families” refer to low divorce rates and few out-of-wedlock children. Is it Lyndon B. Johnson’s fault that even Bristol Palin gets knocked up these days, despite having a deeply religious down-to-earth mum?
> they came out the other side just as poor and with DESTROYED families
I see. The Great Society, MLK and Affirmative Action have been breathtaking failures and blacks were much better off in the 1950s…
>..bloating of the welfare state and laid waste to the very societies it once helped.
If your arguments were correct, surely left-liberal social democratic countries such as Sweden or Canada ought to be in even poorer shape, no? Is family breakdown a more serious problem there than in the States? We could use metrics such as divorce rates, teenage pregnancies or the likelihood of parents staying together until their children become adults. To my knowledge, these countries fare no worse than the U.S. and usually perform better! And isn’t white illegitimacy a bigger problem in the deeply religious, “individual values” oriented South than in Blue states?
MARCU$
Raider1 // Dec 16, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“Well, in both cases we are talking about minorities that strongly support the Democratic party.
That’s why I mentioned them, since Republicans keep asking the “what’s wrong with Jews/blacks?!” question. I am saying both are MINORITIES, period, and they have perfectly rational and reasonable reasons for not trusting the GOP.”
A minority is a minority is a minority? Nice to lump them altogether. Very “liberal” of you. Is that the best you can do? As I said they have NOTHING in common other than what they are not…White or Christian, although most Jews are White and most Blacks are Christian so… Nice try.
“So did whites, if “stable families” refer to low divorce rates and few out-of-wedlock children.”
Yes. That is exactly how I am describing it. And the difference that it is Blacks, the most targeted by the Welfare state of the 1960s and 70s whose illegitmacy rates EXPLODED. (Whites too wen up some as social stigmas broke down, but the Black community self-destructed in a sea of unwed mothers that corrolates quite nicely with the introduction of the nanny state).
“Is it Lyndon B. Johnson’s fault that even Bristol Palin gets knocked up these days, despite having a deeply religious down-to-earth mum?”
Stupid statement (even for you). What are the overall macro stats. You point out one case to make yours? really? Nah you’re not that dumb, just transparent. You just wanted to take a shot at Sarah Palin.
“I see. The Great Society, MLK and Affirmative Action have been breathtaking failures and blacks were much better off in the 1950s…”
They are better off now in opportunity (in the PRIVATE sector) due to the discrediting of racism that I freely admit was more a gift of the cultural left than anyone. But if you honestly think that a society that has a 70% illegitmacy rate is better off than one that has 20% or less you are a fool. So socially and opportunity-wise Blacks have a more level playing field…but that field has been more than negated by a cradle-to-grave welfare state that rewarded the behavior that has now condemend so many to abject poverty, despair and crime. By the way, what are the incarceration rates of Blacks today compared to the 1950s?
“If your arguments were correct, surely left-liberal social democratic countries such as Sweden or Canada ought to be in even poorer shape, no? Is family breakdown a more serious problem there than in the States? We could use metrics such as divorce rates, teenage pregnancies or the likelihood of parents staying together until their children become adults. To my knowledge, these countries fare no worse than the U.S. and usually perform better! And isn’t white illegitimacy a bigger problem in the deeply religious, “individual values” oriented South than in Blue states?”
Each country is different and demographics I am sure play a huge part in it. Unless you think downtown Stiockholm and downtown Camden are alike? The fact is before the UNITED STATES’ welfare state kicked in Black illegitmacy was under 20%. After it is over 70%. You see no causal corrolation there?
MARCU$
Leave a Comment
mlindroo // Dec 19, 2009 at 6:44 am
raider1 wrote:
> They are better off now in opportunity (in the PRIVATE sector) due to the discrediting of racism
IIRC, a fairly large segment of the Black middle class works for government.
> The fact is before the UNITED STATES’ welfare state kicked in
> Black illegitmacy was under 20%. After it is over 70%. You see no causal corrolation there?
No, I seriously don’t because there are many, many other factors involved. Absolute standards of living have definitely increased, there is an increased focus on materialism and individual rights, there is the sexual revolution plus changing attitudes regarding sexuality, parenthood, marriage etc. etc..
> And the difference that it is Blacks, the most targeted by the Welfare state of the 1960s and 70s
> whose illegitmacy rates EXPLODED.
These trends affect all U.S. ethnic groups to some extent, e.g. it seems (see http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/chart-4.gif ) white out-of-wedlock births have increased from 5% in 1965 to 25% in 1999 while the black illegitimacy rate tripled (from ~25% to ~75%). In both cases the increase started before Great Society and the African American percentage was as high as 15% already in 1940 (while illegitimacy only hit 15% in the mid-80s) .
> Each country is different and demographics I am sure play a huge part in it.
Of course… For example, Sweden’s figures seem worse than they really are because cohabitation is more common than formal marriage.
MARCU$
handworn // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:57 am
Please do not abuse “anti-Semitic.” There’s an automatic implication of mindlessness to it, and though it’s true that being against Jewish people for being Jewish is mindless, being against Israel, Israel’s current leadership, or their current policies and actions is frequently not mindless. Does anyone really think the populism of catchphrases is a solid foundation on which to base anything?