A 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.
29 responses so far
1 Independent Voter // Dec 14, 2009 at 12:33 am
Mr. Schaeffer,
Your article is disengenous. Your article argues Jews would be better off with conservative foreign policy positions over Obama’s/a liberal foreign policy. You presume American Jews fail to recognize the conservative/GOP foreign policy is more favorable to Israel. In essence, your argument presume American Jews (I understand you are not therefore significantly weakening your position as you have “no skin in the game”) are one issue voters and not sophisticated enough to focus on other issues. It may come as a surprise to you, but the vast majority of American Jews (I am one of them) are open to the GOP and conservative position of limited government, strong national defense and low taxes.
Unfortunately, over the last 30 years, the GOP has decided such a platform is not strong enough to attract enough voters. So, it decided to add a fourth plank – social conservatism (essentially Evangelicalism) – which recoils the vast majority of American Jews.
What I think the GOP and social conservatives have failed to recognize is that we live in a world where you can’t even get 5 people to agree on the same television program. Knowing that, why would anyone possibly believe that the social views they hold would be embraced (down the line on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights/marriage, etc.) by everyone?
2 Justin_Anderson // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:03 am
Kudos on such a pristine piece of garbage. From the beginning, where you clearly do not understand what begging the question means, to the overly bombastic language this piece is a miserable failure. Seriously, Big Government ideologue- Barack Obama? That might fly over at the Kiddie Corner (NRO), but if you’re trying to persuade non-believers, you might want to use language that passes the laugh test.
It seems as if you and Guardiano are vying for a spot at Clown Hall. It’s as if 2006 and 2008 didn’t happen in your universe.
3 Independent Voter // Dec 14, 2009 at 8:11 am
Justin,
I agree 100% percent. With crap like this, it’s no wonder the GOP finds itself deep in the majority.
4 Raider1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 10:24 am
Independent. How is Schaeffer’s piece “disingenuous.”? Is it not true that Jews overwhelmingly vote democratic no matter what? Even for a man whose salient points seem to be punishing the rich for being rich (Jews are the richest interest group) and anti-Isreal. What the hell?
As for his being non-Jewish. So? Maybe that gives him objectivity that he needs. He is on the outside looking in and wondering why? And I sask you…WHY are Americna Jews so hopelessly and knee-jerk (yes, the stats back it up) liberal??
5 Raider1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 10:40 am
Justine..I do find it hilarious that you criticze the article as childish and clownish with, gee, childish and clownish ranting that do not address his points…which are pretty brave points for a non-Jew (who obviously though harbors very pro-Jewish feelings) to make. I bet he takes some heat for this. But it’s a legit question.
He asked the same question of Blacks a while back. (I suppose he had no standing in that one either though?) At least this guy has a brass ones to send the pc.c police out the door and ask legitimate questions. Easier to snipe from weeds for you I guess?
6 Raider1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 10:53 am
Independent…is your theory then that American Jews turned democrat only recently? After the turn to the fundamentalist right seen by elements of the Rep. Party in the last two decades? So then it would stand to reason their vote was more split before that? Was it?
7 MI-GOPer // Dec 14, 2009 at 10:55 am
Brad, thanks for highlighting the massive movement of Jewish voters away from the Hype of Obama Messiah. They’re one more group with buyer’s remorse and the far Left type commentators, like Justin and IndependentVoter, have to scream louder to drown out the sound of the stampede AWAY from Obama. I guess life always looks different when you’re turn around assbackwards and on a democrat donkey.
Although I don’t think it’s a question of whether or not Jews are moving toward the center or rightward in their political or social philosophy, it’s just that they aren’t happy with yet another Democrat administration trying to sell-out Israel for a few gold pieces. American Jews, more than any other group –and it’s why their are so many neo-cons from the Jewish community– know that being tough requires talking tough with Israel’s enemies. To trumpet weakness or doubt, as Obama does in nearly every venue, nearly every speech, is to embolden Israel’s enemies and encourage violence against Jews.
Given Obama’s statements to date about Israel and Israeli issues, I think most American Jews could give him a D- or F, not the highly inflated B+ Barry might be inclined to give himself.
All the screaming from the democrats won’t displace this article’s main truth: American Jewish voters are running away from Obama. But then, so are every other major voter group save blacks and left wing anarchists; they still love and worship the guy! Riding assbackwards on the democrat donkey won’t solve the Left’s problems… finding a spine, stomach and heart for this president might.
8 Raider1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 11:00 am
GOP… Netanyahu (think it was him?) said it best in words to this effect. “If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis laid down their arms, there’s be no Israel.”
The GOP has been the most consistently pro-Israel force in politics. Because we get that there are just some bad people out there who cannot be reasoned with and do not want to live in peace. They want to destroy Israel. Period.
9 Raider1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 11:17 am
“What I think the GOP and social conservatives have failed to recognize is that we live in a world where you can’t even get 5 people to agree on the same television program. Knowing that, why would anyone possibly believe that the social views they hold would be embraced (down the line on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights/marriage, etc.) by everyone.”
Independent…do you not find the tremendous irony of this statement? 78% of Jews voted for the annoited one? So apparently there was some serious alignment of opinion by these people in favor of Barry and the DNC. What exactly are you even trying to say here???
10 mlindroo // Dec 14, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Raider1 et al,
It seems the Quinnipiac poll was based on a tiny sample of just 71 Jews which means it has a margin of error of 11.6% In fact, Quinnipiac’s Jewish polls have fluctuated wildly…in July 27-Aug.3 Obama’s Jewish approval was 66%, on Sept. 29-Oct. 5 it had collapsed to 46% before reverting to 75%(!) on Nov. 9-16.. There is no obvious reason for these wild reversals except small sample size.
—
The latest Gallup poll — based on interviews with 379 Jews — should be far more accurate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/123413/u.s.-jews-lead-religious-groups-support-obama.aspx
“Obama’s strength with U.S. Jews relative to other religious groups is even greater. Two-thirds of white Jews (66%) approve of the job Obama is doing, compared with 44% of whites nationwide, 45% of white Catholics, and 37% of white Protestants.”
“The higher level of Jewish approval of Obama compared to approval from those of other religions conforms with the much greater Democratic orientation of Jews, politically. Two-thirds of Jews overall identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, a much greater proportion than Gallup finds for any other religious group.”
11 MI-GOPer // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:09 pm
MindDrewl joins the the donkey patrol riding assbackwards, with “There is no obvious reason for these wild reversals except small sample size”.
Problem #1 > your poll is from Oct 2d, QP is Dec 10th (freshness counts in coffee, hookers and poll results).
Probelm #2> “no reason for wild reversals”??? How about Obama’s position on settlement construction, Palestinian capital, trading land for peace, being weak on Iranian kuclear designs that target Israel, etc.
Problem #3> American Jewish voters are almost as unhappy with Obama Messiah’s performance as are the rest of America; only 36% of AmJews are satisfied or somewhat satisfied with Obama to date.
Problem #4> AmJews have a mjor disconnect with Obama on a key issue: Obama thinks the Arabs and Jews can live in peace, the majority of AmJews do not.
Problem #5> 92% of AmJews have a favorable opinion of Israel… security and protection of land remains the highest issue for AmJews and Obama is all wrong on that score.
12 mlindroo // Dec 14, 2009 at 2:23 pm
My dear MI-GOPer,
In that case, could you please explain why Quinnipiac claims Obama’s Jewish support rose from 46% to 75% in just six weeks (late September-mid November). What great pro-Israel policies did Obama unveil two months ago that caused a huge surge in Jewish support, according to Quinnipiac?
> your poll is from Oct 2d, QP is Dec 10th
Accuracy and adequate sample size matters even more, as indicated by the widely fluctuating trendline.
> American Jewish voters are almost as unhappy
Ah, there is the key word — “almost”.
> 92% of AmJews have a favorable opinion of Israel…
So what — they have had a favorable opinion of Israel for ages and they always vote Democratic too.
MARCU$
13 Raider1 // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“So what — they have had a favorable opinion of Israel for ages and they always vote Democratic too.”
I ask WHY???
14 Demosthenes // Dec 14, 2009 at 3:48 pm
This poll is meaningless. Assume the Republicans nominate some far right winger with repugnant views on social issues. Jewish voters will hold their nose and vote for Obama. You can take that to the bank. If the Republicans are serious about getting Jewish (and moderate) votes, they would nominate a candidate that is not so far to the right, who doesn’t scare educated voters. Given the crazies exciting the Republican base (Palin and other right right nuts), I’m not holding my breath.
15 mlindroo // Dec 14, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Raider1 wrote:
> “So what — they have had a favorable opinion of Israel for ages and they always vote Democratic too.”
: I ask WHY???
I can think of several likely explanations for why Jews remain reliable Democrats, year after year.
1) Israel is only one issue, and since most Jewish voters aree are comparatively liberal they vote democratic since they regard domestic policy issues as more important.
2) Most Jewish voters regard the Dems as sufficiently “pro-Israel”. Although GOP politicians such as Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee arguably voice uncritical support, their fundamentalist Christian arguments hold little appeal to non-orthodox Jews. Social conservatives obviously have a soft spot for Israel but this is mostly due to religious reasons that may not have much to do with the way most secular Jews think and feel.
3) Being reliable Democrats, the Jewish minority naturally wields huge power. A whopping 15 Democratic Senators (out of 60, almost one in three!) are Jewish Americans. In the House, Dem Jews outnumber Republican Jews 31-2. So which political party pays more attention to issues that ordinary Jews care about? The GOP can claim that Jewish and African American voters are deeply misguided but it seems the Dems must be doing something right since those two minority groups keep voting democratic year after year.
MARCU$
16 aDude // Dec 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I chuckle when I see a lot of these polls. Smart presidents do the hard stuff (health care, fight inflation, etc) early in their terms, knowing that things will have time to settle down before they have to face the voters again.
I seem to recall in early 1983 Reagan wasn’t in the best of shape. The Dow had gone from about 1000 when he was sworn in down to about 750. Unemployment had gone from about 7% up to 10.8% (higher than it is today). His approval rating was in the low 40’s, and I think there was at least one poll around that time that put it at 35%. Democrats were crowing that he was going to be a one term president, and doesn’t “President John Glenn” have a nice ring to it…
Well, things didn’t quite work out that way. By 1984, inflation was whipped, unemployment was dropping, the Dow was rising, and Glenn burned out early (favorite comment – “Right Stuff, Wrong Staff”). Then there was that whole 49 state thing come November.
By Fall 2010 unemployment will be dropping, so Congressional Democrats will have a better chance than they have today. And by 2012 the economy will be roaring (as it always does after a recession), so Obama can play the game of seeing if he can break the 400 electoral vote barrier.
Unless, of course, Republicans can come up with a positive alternative view of the future. One that is inclusive, not exclusive.
17 anniemargret // Dec 14, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I think the only people that specify and articulate this thread are Jews themselves. However, having grown up in NYC and having close friends throughout the years that are Jewish, and understanding their viewpoints and ethnic/religious background….
Jews are for the most part, humanitarians. Their Jewish faith calls upon them to do good works, not just the ‘faith-based’ foundation for Christians. Understandably, it also includes a deep appreciation of social issues, and widespread support and concern for the underdogs in society. Their tragic past of the Holocaust also enforces their deep concerns about prejudice and hate – they know it all too well.
Now, taking the above in mind, which party stands more of a chance to attract Jewish voters?
18 sinz54 // Dec 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm
anniemargaret:
It’s not the party, but the candidate.
For example: In 1980, Jews, despite their liberalism, deserted Jimmy Carter in droves, as Carter interpreted liberalism to mean sucking up to Yassir Arafat and the Soviet Union.
OTOH, Giuliani was quite popular among New York Jews for his tough anticrime and pro-Israel stances.
Jews will always vote Democratic generally. But the way Obama is going, I think we can peel quite a few of them away from Obama himself.
19 anniemargret // Dec 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm
sinz: You said it yourself….”Jews will always vote Democratic generally…”
And what I gave as the answer is the hub of it. They have heart and they have compassion. They care about the poor and the needy. I have never met a Jew in my entire life who wasn’t concerned for the those more unfortunate. They are in the center of philanthropy… And it is why they lean Democratic. They are almost universal in their fight against social injustice.
Not to put them in box, however, I agree with you that it is always unwise to pigeon-hole any group.
But they most definitely tend to be more liberal in their outlook and personal philosophy. I have met far, far more liberal Jews, (and dated some liberal Jewish men as well), than ‘conservative’ Jews. And the thrust by Republicanism into fierce anti-intellectualism, their anti-big city stance, their embrace of a breakdown in church and state are all legitimate reasons why they cannot totally embrace them now.
20 Raider1 // Dec 15, 2009 at 9:14 am
Anniemargaret: that is the kind of self-righteous crap that drives conservatives nuts and is VERY insulting at the same time.
“They have heart and they have compassion.” SO DO CONSERVATIVES! ” They care about the poor and the needy.” SO DO CONSERVATIVES! “I have never met a Jew in my entire life who wasn’t concerned for the those more unfortunate.” SAME WITH CONSERVATIVES!…”And it is why they lean Democratic. They are almost universal in their fight against social injustice.” AS ARE CONSERVATIVES..
But your defintion of fighting social injustices is what? Big Government? Unfair affirmative action that treats minorities as incapable of competing on their own merits? Condescending welfare states that have DESTROYED entire poor communities and sent Black illigitimacy into the +70% level? You remind me of a parent who thinks they are being “compassionate” by giving their kids candy every time they ask for it! A conservative understands that that is notcompassion..that is doing the kid more damage than good. Same with our resistance to the cradle-to-grave wlefare nanny state you so wrongly equate with “compassion.” We call it destrroying entire generations with good intentions!
“But they most definitely tend to be more liberal in their outlook and personal philosophy. I have met far, far more liberal Jews, (and dated some liberal Jewish men as well), than ‘conservative’ Jews. And the thrust by Republicanism into fierce anti-intellectualism,” (Oh you mean like questioning global warming, resistance to seccular humanism as the new religion) their anti-big city stance, (come again?) their embrace of a breakdown in church and state (as opposed to the complete stamping out of religion in every and all factions of our lives despite the hirtorical nexus between religion and our nation’s oorigin, laws, and moral foundations?) are all legitimate reasons why they cannot totally embrace them now.”
You show yourself to be a self-righteous lefty loon who supports policies that have done so much damage to those you claim to care about…in the name of “compassion.”
21 sinz54 // Dec 15, 2009 at 10:15 am
anniemargaret:
Well, I guess that’s an improvement.
No, that’s not the only reason.
The other reason was that the American system of democratic capitalism is descended from the European Enlightenment, which was led by Christians. Adam Smith was a Christian. John Locke was a Christian. The Jews missed out on all that.
Whereas Jews gave the world socialism: Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, many others.
Here in America, Jews were active in many socialist Jewish organizations like the Workmen’s Circle and Hadassah. Some were active in the Communist Party USA. And the state of Israel was formed around an explicit socialist philosophy, put into practice in the kibuttzim, or farm communes.
While many Jews went into business for themselves and became quite wealthy, the prevailing Jewish philosophy never found a PHILOSOPHICAL justification for their capitalist endeavors. Jewish philosophy was more compatible with socialism. AFAIK, there were no Jewish philosophers of capitalism comparable to Adam Smith until recent times (Milton Friedman, and to a lesser extent, Ayn Rand).
So Judaism and capitalism never officially embraced, even though many Jews were capitalists. Christians remembered, though Jews forgot, the words of Psalm 122: “They shall prosper that love Thee.”
22 sinz54 // Dec 15, 2009 at 10:28 am
AnnieMargaret:
I should explain what I meant by “improvement.”
I meant that it’s cool that you perceive the Jews as so compassionate. There was a time when Christians perceived Jews as grubby money-lenders and usurers.
23 Raider1 // Dec 15, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Christian/Jew is doesn’t matter now. What matters is that Annie reveals the fundamentally insulting belif set that only liberals are compassionate. We are BOTH compassionate. But liberals believe that compassion is directly expressed through public giving through the tax code and wealth distribution networks of the government bureacracy whereas conservatives believe that compelling one to be more self-reliant is better for them in the long wrong. In short one’s compassion, as Annie would have you believe, is directly related to how much they support a big centralized “behomth” (in the author’s words) centralized government! That is utter and total nonsense.
There is no better destroyer of poverty than the free enterprise system.
Give a man a fish (compassionate liberals) and he’ll eat for a day — until of course you take yet another fish from the other guy’s net who worked for it all day (American jews). Teach a man to fish (ala conservatives) and he’ll eat for a lifetime — and beomce a thriving and self-reliant middle class. I ask you, which side is TRULY more compassionate?
24 mlindroo // Dec 16, 2009 at 6:28 am
Raider1 laments:
> But your defintion of fighting social injustices is what? Big Government?
> Unfair affirmative action that treats minorities as incapable of competing on their own merits?
> Condescending welfare states that have DESTROYED entire poor communities and sent
> Black illigitimacy into the +70% level?
This is basically a conservative version of the “what’s wrong with Kansas?!” argument. How can blacks and Jews be so blind and stupid that they don’t grasp how compassionate and color-blind we conservatives are! Yet those two core Democratic groups just don’t want to see a return to the olden days, when churches and voluntary charities were responsible for helping the poor.
—
Like it or not, there is a widespread perception among minorities that aggressively emphasizing “individual rights” tends to put the have-nots at a strong disadvantage. The 1950s civil rights debate is a classic example of this: conservative intellectuals such as Bill Buckley felt deeply uncomfortable about racial discrimination in the South but they always rejected fixing the problems since it would have required state intervention/coercion. In contrast, blacks at the time felt the conservative suggestion on how to defeat racial segregation (=voluntary consumer boycotts of segregated bus companies or lunch restaurants) was not going to prove effective any time soon.
MARCU$
25 Raider1 // Dec 16, 2009 at 8:14 am
Mindrool writes: “Yet those two core Democratic groups just don’t want to see a return to the olden days, when churches and voluntary charities were responsible for helping the poor.”
First of all Blacks and Jews have NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH in common and, in fact, Blacks are among the most anti-semitic groups there are! One is the richest strata of our society..the other the poorest. One has the stablest of family units, the other the least. Jews were never slaves in America. The victims of predjudice at times? Sure. But who wasn’t (“no dogs nor Irish allowed.” “Irish need not apply”).
Your lame attempt at sarcasm denies this basic fact: That Blacks, however poorly treated they were still had stable families in the olden days as you call them. After the Great Society wave of “compassion” you liberals (who have no inkling of human nature) gushed upon them, they came out the other side just as poor and with DESTROYED families–genrations of fatherless children (other than in sperm donating) in the 70% range. Man with “compassion” like that who needs the KKK!
YOU also write: “Like it or not, there is a widespread perception among minorities that aggressively emphasizing “individual rights” tends to put the have-nots at a strong disadvantage.” Gee. I wonder who porffered THAT idea? Liberal media perhaps??? Hmmm. The left whose directly equate government largess with compassion? True consequences be damned?
Liberalism had its time in place…as in teh 1950s-60s to end Jim Crow and institutionalized discrimination (of legitimate minority groups). But that conscience turned into the blaoting of the welfare state and laid waste to the very societies it once helped. Liberals are stuck in a fairy-tale world of Tuxedoed and top-hatted Repunblicans with their canes and monicles sipping brandy in restricted country clubs and holding down the little guy–it is an archaic, out-dated, and bogus image. The wlefare state has done more harm to minorities than any grand wizard. You can keep your “compassion” that makes you feel good about yourself while condemning generations of black youths to permanent servitude to the state.
26 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$
27 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
28 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$
29 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?
You must log in to post a comment.