all i know is that whenever i go to a function at the 92nd street y, i am amazed by the overwhelming rock-solid support for the democrats, liberals, etc. of course, we're talking about nyc jews and we are we're own breed of jew, maybe.

NYC people are their own breed of anything.

Hmmm ... methinks that a VDH event ain't exactly your world's-best statistical sample.

I'm a Jew in NYC and it's happening here too. I have seen, talked to, and heard many anecdotes about Jews doing the following:
- leaving ultra-liberal congregations, after years of feeling at home with their politics
- publishing articles about their shift in alliegance, and getting letters saying "I don't dare speak up, but thank you for doing so."
- confessing they read Andrew Sullivan or LGF every day
- speaking out in classes or meetings when others make anti-Bush or anti-war remarks and assume that everyone in the room agrees with them
- going to hear conservative and/or pro-war speeches and panels
- re-evaluating their assumptions about conservative Christians and Republicans
and more.

Wel, it certainly wasn't a scientific survey. But my anecdote (and Yehudit's) are starting to get interesting. All I can say is, we can feel the shift. And for me, it isn't the greater acceptance of conservatives that pings my register so much as the increasing hostility toward lib-left points of view.

Actually, the interesting thing about the VDH event was that you had about 50-75 people in the audience who knew him and loved him (my category). Then you had some liberals being brought along by their politically-shifting friends, like the folks behind me. Finally, you had a couple hundred folks who didn't know who he was and had to be given reprints of past articles to read on the way in. Many, and possibly even most of them, came because the Rabbi had recommended that they come.

VDH appears to have been briefed - his speech was almost a textbook case of how to make one's point to a predominantly liberal audience. Ought to blog about that, if/when I find the time.

I should mention one more thing: the VDH event was held by a Reform synagogue.

Since the founding of the movement in the 1800s, one could reliably identify this entire branch of Judaism almost exclusively with left-wing causes via the religious doctrine of tikkun olam (repairing the world). To a large extent, that's still true. Which made the Rabbi's recommendation of this event doubly interesting.

It's not quite at the level of, say, Iran's Ayatollah Khameni going out and urging his followers to read LGF. But it sure ain't business as usual, either.

Whereas my suspicion is that the Jewish vote for Bush/Republicans may twitch upwards anywhere up to five percentage points, but I'll be quite surprised if it's larger or more significant than that.

I suspect selection bias in all of us.

Gary, you or Joe may be right, although I hope it's Joe. I'm not a Jew, but I've always been a bit of a semitophile, so if they're coming over to the "dark side" then all I can say is "Welcome." They'll be a great asset to us.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin has said the Jews will vote Democratic (in the US) despite all the democrats have done to them--and Israel--and vote against republicans despite all republicans have done for them.
In effect,they get to vote in a way that makes them feel good, while subconsciously aware that, when things get really bad, the republicans and conservative Christians will ride to the rescue.
Not a bad place to be, if you're an adolescent.
Sort of like a kid, "I hate you. I want a larger allowance."

I think the Jewish problem with the Left springs from the Left's adoption of identity politics and it's abandonment of it's traditional emphasis on judging people as individuals divorced from their inclusion in a larger group.

Back when religion and race played such giant role in American social, economic and political life, the political philosophy of secular Leftism worked to integrate Jews into Christian America. Leftism provided and social, economic and political model that let Jews interact as equals within a otherwise Christian social milieu without having to abandon their identity as Jews.

The 60's however, brought the rise of identity politics where in ones group identity overshadows ones individuality. Modern Leftist are taught to first and foremost judge a person based on race, sex, sexual orientation etc BEFORE you consider them as individuals. This present a grave danger to a people who have been the outsiders for 2000 years.

On the flip side, social and political Christian conservatives no longer discriminate against Jews. Indeed, many view Judaism as a equal partner in the struggle against secularism.

Jews interested in preserving their ethnic identity and being judged on individual merit now find a warmer home on the political Right than on the Left.

and the Jewish problem with the right is that when they talk about school prayer, they don't mean the Shma.

"and the Jewish problem with the right is that when they talk about school prayer, they don't mean the Shma."

Andrew, I know that your default feelings towards the Right are fear and loathing, and that's your privilege, but can you at least update your shibboleths? That one was old news in 1996.

Richard Aubrey's point doesn't just go for Jews but for many other hardcore Dem constituents: it is socially and logistically much smarter to talk and vote Dem in urban areas (especially while knowing, deep inside, that it's the people, policies and values of the red states that keep America safe at night). In NYC the Democrats enforce the ideological purity of the office lunch rooms and cocktail parties with a revelational ferocity (see, for example, the Village Voice theatre review that Instapundit just linked to: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0403/feingold.php - those kind of sentiments are not at all uncommon). Speaking up Republican in NYC often means immediate and unqualified social (and economic, since so many firms here are run by big Dems) expulsion. A tacit understanding reinforced constantly by the Times, New Yorker, and so forth. And remember, these people are in the kind of bubble where Ken Auletta can declare that "Republicans love PBS" and "PBS has run to the right" and he doesn't get laughed out of a job. It's total inverse reality around here.
But I am hoping that all the quiet folks who don't say a peep but voraciously read Instapundit, LGF, Roger Simon, this site, etc. will at least display some bravery in the booth when the curtain closes behind them.

Actually, Andrew Lazarus is correct here.

His statement really does describe a major issue Jews have with the right, and especially the Christian Right: not just school prayer, but seeing Jews as a means to an end (in some cases literally, as in "end times"), or conversion efforts, etc. In short, they see an embrace by the right as something akin to an embrace by Microsoft... one isn't sure where it will end, or what's next, or whether one's own desires will play much of a role.

Some Jews have stepped past that because they've put other priorities first, and believe it's possible to address all these issues. Others are, to put it charitably, less sure. I think it's clear which side of this divide Moe and I stand on, but we have to be honest and acknowledge that many others see it differently.

Which is why I think the "turning away" is more powerful as an indicator than "attraction to." We've had a core of Jews forming part of the "neoconservative" movement for 35 years now, and it hasn't budged the Jewish community's own patterns much. What's changing now is the perception of "we're not sure we can trust those people over there, but many of these people over here seem to actively hate us, or are allied closely with people who do." THAT will actually shift people.

And before my fellow righties get too happy about that, consider how the very same dynamic is playing out in the gay community right now - but in the other direction.

I lived in Manhattan for years, though no longer do, a life long (Catholic) Dem with mostly Jewish friends. I've recently registered Republican and would love to see some of my friends join me, however, they remain rock solid Democrats. I've expressed my intention to vote for Bush - big loud arguement in the restaurant - but wouldn't dare reveal I'm a Republican. If I did it would be as if I'd always been secretly stained and just now showing it. No one would believe a decent person was driven away by the rank garbage expressed by the left and by the failure of so much leftist policy. Ideology trumps all.

A Republican in NYC....

I'd rather live with a big red A (or perhaps R) on my shirt than live a coward all my life.

But That's just what a guy from Southern Illinois would say.

The reason so many Jews are liberal Democrats is because in Europe, Jews lived in fear of right wing nationalists who would foment hatred against the Jewish "foreigners". Jews brought this fear of nationalists with them to America..

Most Jews think it's just a matter of luck or good timing that there hasn't been any pogroms in Ameirca. They see America the way the Democratic leadership wants everyone to see America.......as a country that's half filled with good "progressive" people, and half filled with racist rednecks.

They can't grasp the fact that America is a great country because it's founders practiced a very enlightened form of Christianity. Nor can they grasp the fact that the bible belt's support for Israel is a logical extension of the Puritan settlers giving their children Hebrew names like Daniel, Benjamin, Ruth, Sarah, etc.

America and Ancient Israel, are to my knowledge, the only two countries founded on a set of ideals for a free and just society with a group of prophets or founding fathers who possesed great vision. Lenin had an idealistic vision for Russia, but Russia already existed. Ditto for the French revolution......France was already France. But Moses didn't let the Jews storm into Canaan without first equiping them with the the Torah and the Ten Commandments. Likewise, America wasn't ready for independence until the great writings of the founding fathers were composed.

Liberal Jews from my parents generation who grew up during the Father Coughlin era have a hard time recognizing the inherent parallels between America and the Jews. They foolishly allie themselves with left wing atheists on issues of seperation of church and state in much the same way that idealistic left wingers foolishly allie themselves with Islamic Fundamentalists on the issue of the war on terror and the Palestinians. The atheists have no more respect for the Jews' belief in G-d and the bible than the Islamic Fundamentalists have for gay rights and women's rights.

Jews came to America and saw all these persecuted minorities and figured that all these minority groups should stick together. But the Marxist overtones of the Black Power movement cast the Jews as hook nosed versions of country club Republicans. How can Jews expect sympathy or support for Israel from Blacks and Hispanics from low income neighborhoods when the Jews are driving fancy cars and living in big houses and the left wing activists from these poor minority communities along with the Democratic party are telling their people that all their problems should be blamed on the rich?

The Jews' alliance with poor American minorities has outlived it's usefulness. And their aversion to American nationalists has always been a mistake. In an era where liberal values eschew personal responsibility (people suing fast food chains for obesity, public schools letting kids graduate who can't read or speak english, welfare queens, etc) , the success story of the Jewish American community is one more reason for hard working, capitalist Republcans from the American heartland to take kindly to Jews.

Let me be blunt. Any Jew who doesnt' vote for Bush deserves a swift kick in the teeth.

The Jewish split with the Democrats began with affirmative action. They saw it as a new quota system.

Quotas had always been used to keep Jews down. They were against it. That caused the Jewish/black split despite the fact that for some 60 or more years Jews and blacks had been traditional allies. (look at the names of the freedom marchers killed in the South in those days).

This disengagement from the Democrats has been in the works for a long time.

I'm Jewish. Three of my 4 children (get busy Joe :-) ) who are old enough to be interested in politics are right leaning. BTW we belong to a Reform Congregation. Very supportive of gay civil rights etc. Our rabbi (a very nice lady) does not know what to make of this.

If you're Jewish and you live in Virginia's 8th District, you have had a front row seat for how the local Democratic party operatives behave when one of their own, Rep. Jim Moran, spouts anti-Semitic drivel. They endorse him.

Jim Moran is facing a Democratic primary battle on June 8th against Andy Rosenberg, a good progressive Democrat who will represent the district with dignity.

Yet the party operatives line up behind the Moranti-Semite. It certainly makes this contributor to NARAL and the Sierra Club give the GOP a second look.

Although shannnon and Fop identify a number of points which they think should bring Jews to the Republican Party, only one has any salience: national security. The anti-secular alliance is just a codeword for crackdown down on smut and gay marriage, and neither of these issues is proving so important. And it'll be a long time before Jews are interested in greater involvement of religion in the state, not when we're such a small minority. And it must have pained Fop to read the criticism of George Soros I excerpt below, tinged with overtones of anti-Semitism:

BLANKLEY [editor of the Moonie paper, the Washington Times]: This is a man who has blamed the Jews for anti-Semitism ... This is a man who, when he was plundering the world's currencies, in England in '92, he caused the Southeast Asian financial crisis in '97 ... He said that he has no moral responsibility for the consequences of his financial actions. He is a self-admitted atheist, he was a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust.
...
When a man is worth this kind of money, and he's spending it on trying to influence the American public in an election, trying to buy the election, he's not going to, we have a right to know what kind of an unscrupulous man he is ... He's buying influence all over the world. He's a robber baron, he's a pirate capitalist, and he's a reckless man ... He supported abortion in Eastern Europe, in a country that's losing population, he's a self-admitted atheist, I think he's a very bad influence in the world. He's entitled to spend his money, and the public is entitled to know what kind of a man he is.

That phrase about being a Jew who "figured out a way to survive the Holocaust" is especially charming, second only to the slur that Soros, unlike large GOP contributors, is going to "buy the election". Maybe the idea that conservatism is purged of anti-Semitism (are Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran officially thrown over the gunwales now?) needs a re-think.

Oh, and Fop, I'd take your macho posturing a little more seriously if you didn't use a pseudonym. Kick my teeth? Bring it on.

I forgot the link for the Blankney quote: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_06.php#003043

Mr. Lazurus....

I don't care that George Soros is Jewish. He deserves all the nasty criticism he's getting. Susan Sontag, Oliver Stone, Noam Chomsky, etc, are all Jews. I'm not going to dissect the criticism that is heaped upon them in an attempt to find evidence of antisemitism. Is it antisemitic to make Jesus jokes? I have liberal Jewish friends who make comments like "did you ever see a dirtier looking Jew than Paul Wolfowitz?"

I'm not claiming that Republicans are less antisemitic than Democrats. I'm just making the point that Jewish Americans' aversion to the Republican party is driven by outdated, old world beliefs that don't apply here.

And how do you know that Fop isn't my real name? My parents did makeup for Marc Bolan, David Bowie and Hall & Oates.

Mr. Fop,

Would someone be justified in saying "George Soros arranged for murder of Christian babies to make matza"?

I think not. As it happens, I agree with much of what Soros as to say, and almost nothing of what Noam Chomsky and Paul Wolfowitz have to say. The point, however, is that the various rich allusions in Blankney's screed—those of you not so attuned to its profoundly anti-Semitic undercurrents can get annotated versions here and here—don't belong in criticism of any of these Jewish figures, even the ones whose politics I abhor.

David Brooks has an interesting column on how political affiliations are formed and changed. I've re-examined my own political ties, because where I live, the Republicans seemed to be nominating a lot of people I didn't respect and thought were stupid and deceitful. That's one of the reasons for preferring more local government over nationally centralized, it's harder to know whom you're voting for, and parties become more important.

AST, that's such a great article that I'm going to post the New York Times Blog Link Generator version here. That way, it will always be accessible. I hope Brooks keeps looking into the issues of polarization and partisanship, and keeps bringing us these kinds of interesting studies.

RE: Andrew's point - I have no time for George Soros.... frankly, I think he's way out of his depth. That said, the Washington Times editorial was WAY over the top, and said a number of things that crossed all lines of decency.

My take on all this is the same as my view was on 16 May 03 in my guest blog here.

1. The Democrats will be destroyed as a political force in Nov 04.
2. Subsequent to the election the Republicans will split into a Libertarian and a religious conservative wing.

Why? Because a lot of the November Republicans think that separation of church and state is a good idea. Guys like myself and Roger Simon (no relation).

Right now none of this shift is showing up in the polls. This is shaping up to a Dewey/Truman type race with the polsters unable to get a good reading.

There are just too many anecdotal reports of commited leftists leaving the plantation. Hitchens is another sign post. The fact that New Jersey a normally solid Dem state is in play is another sign. As a Dem operative put it (roughly) "I don't think it is true, but if it is it means a Bush landslide.

Bush will defeat Kerry by using his own words against him. This effort has barely started. Take biowarfare. Kerry claims the administration is not doing enough about it. Kerry voted against increased funding for bio-war defence. And that is only one example.

The Texas GOP didn't get the message about a joint Christian-Jewish campaign against secularists. Their state convention ended last week. From the newspaper story: [Link, obnoxious registration required]

A plank in a section titled "Promoting Individual Freedom and Personal Safety" proclaims the United States a "Christian nation."

"The party affirms freedom of religion and rejects efforts of courts and secular activists who seek to remove and deny such a rich heritage from our public lives," says a passage added this year.
(snip)
Two years ago, at a GOP convention prayer rally, state District Judge Faith Johnson called on all judges to accept Jesus Christ.
(snip)
At a 7 a.m. Friday prayer rally, thousands of delegates turned the convention floor into a house of prayer.

As delegates prayed and sang, oversized religious images, including Jesus on the cross, were displayed on the hall's giant video screens.

George Bush will win Texas with or without the votes of Texas Jews. But to me, out here in Berserkeley, this looks a lot like a plan to make me and my children second-class citizens in our own country. And that threat seems much more real and immediate to me than the idea that John Kerry will surrender to Osama bin Laden and establish Sharia in the United States. (I can imagine what it looks like to George Soros.) I actually agree with a small number of "conservative" political positions, just ones generally not mentioned on this website, and there are any number of others that I find respectable although I disagree with them. The idea that America is a Christian nation is not one of those respectable ideas, and, frankly, the GOP is going to go nowhere with outreach as long as Democratic activists can print up the official Texas Republican Party Platform and send it to politically moderate Jews.

[Aside to M. Simon: did you predict in 2003 that the Democrats would win two House by-elections in formerly Republican hands, the first time since 1991, and one by a remarkably large margin? Rather odd for a party you say is on its last legs.]

Most Jewish Americans and Canadians have historically been raised in "liberal" households in political outlook, which outlook until recently generally meant in the U.S voting overwhelmingly Democrat and in Canada voting strongly Liberal. Indeed, in the 1980 US presidential election, only a tiny minority of the Jewish poulation voted for Ronald Reagan (who was generally unfavourably regarded by most Jewish voters as "reactionary"). However it became clear by the time of 9/11 (and with the hindsight of the benefit of a President like Reagan) that (1) voting Republican should be given not just fully fair consideration but also strong support, and (2) the historical divisive Republican/Democrat split (with the Democrat Presidential candidate being the perceived higher moral and effective force--eg, Nixon vs Kennedy; Ford vs Carter) no longer applied at all. In Canada, the record of the federal Liberal party over the last 11 years of majority government(under Jean Chretien throughout and under Paul Martin far too often) has proven that having a Liberal government in power in Ottawa is highly inconsistent with and detrimental to Canada's having a strong, safety-enhancing and ethical-based foreign policy generally and,in particular, when applied to democratic Israel.

"Let me be blunt. Any Jew who doesnt' vote for Bush deserves a swift kick in the teeth."

Good way to convince waverers. Very persuasive. I'm very impressed with your argument.

Not convinced, though, of what you want me to be convinced. Impressed in a different way.

Trouble is, those who are Jewish and staunchly Democratic are finding it harder to span the two. Note this, from the SF Chronicle, about Rep. Tom Lantos' being banned from a CCSF commencement, at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/02/BAGHA6VC2J1.DTL. Silencing a senior Democratic House member is a bit much, but ...

There's also the local example of Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun, a peace activist and Israel critic who has been unwelcome at any event involving International ANSWER because (1) he criticized them and (2) he doesn't want to see Israel wiped off the map. (See FrontPage archive, e.g., at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6109).

Look for more otherwise-progressives pushed away.

Joe Katzman is right about the dynamic that is forcing Jewish people away from the Democrats -- and the gay community toward it. I'm stuck in the Democratic Party for that reason.

"Trouble is, those who are Jewish and staunchly Democratic are finding it harder to span the two."

This seems to be observedly true of a minority of Jews, not "those who are Jewish," or even a majority of such. "Dynamic," or not. (And I'm certainly neither unaware of nor underestimating the roiling tides of anti-Semitism, wherever they lay, including amongst a signifcant portion of the extreme left, as I've frequently blogged about, including just a few days ago.)

"There's also the local example of Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun, a peace activist and Israel critic who has been unwelcome at any event involving International ANSWER...."

I don't see what this has to do with Jews and the Democratic Party; ANSWER is, of course, a bunch of whack-job communists and deeply confused America-haters; they're certainly not part of the Democratic Party, or affiliated.

When Tom Lantos defects to the GOP, drop me a note. Until then, I don't think the reaction of the student body att SFSU (whose political activists are way left of the Democratic mainstream) has much to do with Jews and Democrats. Jews and SF State, OK.

I'm likewise baffled by the reference to Rabbi Lerner, for he is a far-left Nader/Green activist who publicly refused to vote for Al Gore as the lesser of two evils. Leaving this aside, the only way your comment makes any sense is if you believe the Democratic Party has the same beliefs as International ANSWER, so that ANSWER's refusal to hold events with Rabbi Lerner (incidentally, I believe the refusal to work together is the other way around; ANSWER is willing to have another slightly more respectable comrade-in-arms and Lerner refuses) in some way implicates the Democrats. Hunh? Would you like to try again?

Gentlemen, Some corrections. The incident -- please read the URL -- was at CCSF, not SF State, so it does represent a wider problem. Since I do serve on the California Democratic state central committee I can testify that the Party (in this state at least, that's all I know) is reasonably pro-Israel, but the tenor of this thread seems to be that the community elsewhere may be parting with the Democrats over Middle East policy. If Joe Katzman is noting a trend I do tend to pay attention.

Point I was trying to make about Tikkun, and I know at least one board member there, is that they did want to oppose the Iraq war but have been shoved bodily out of the peace movement. In testimony thereof, something from today's SF Chronicle, at
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/06/BAGHA71JQ21.DTL. Money quote: ""I'm anti-war. I don't agree with almost anything George Bush does," said counterprotest organizer Dan Kliman of Oakland. "But I'm here to support Israel. We want to educate people that ANSWER has hijacked the anti-war movement to advance its jihadi agenda.""

It is true that International ANSWER isn't mainstream, and its adherents are apt to vote Green, not Democratic, but here on the left coast it's a little hard to hear any other voices in the peace movement. It's certainly one reason I support Israel.

I doubt if Intl ANSWER's members vote at all, and if they do it is for socialist splinter candidates. It is Rabbi Lerner who supports Nader, and I still can not understand what a dispute between Communists and a Green has to do with Jews and the Democratic Party.

(I myself am unhappy with the role ANSWER plays in the antiwar movement, and we failed, on purpose, to attend their last demonstration.)

I'm sorry I confused CCSF and SFSU, but unless you wish to argue that CCSF represents some faction of the Democratic Party, I don't understand that point either.

You complain of the treatment of a pro-war Jew in one place and an anti-war Jew in another place, neither related to the Democrats. I repeat: Hunh?

Andrew,

An international "answer" to some of the points you raised. The "pro-war Jew" is a senior Democratic Congressman whose district includes parts of San Francisco and San Mateo County -- in fact, he is a Holocaust survivor originally from Hungary. The "anti-war Jew" is very active in SF as well and was trying to put together a consensus on peace in Israel, via Tikkun, that wouldn't visit destruction on one side or the other.

San Francisco is basically a one-party (Democratic) town, home to Feinstein and Pelosi, the Greens notwithstanding. So it is very emblematic, and in line with Joe's thread.

All this is a series of seeming non sequiteurs, but they're all in SF. Chinatown, if I can borrow a metaphor from Jack Nicholson.