The Republicans’ Jewish Problem
Today on Tablet
Last week was another week and therefore it brought another poll, this time conducted by the liberal Jewish group J Street. As Washington Jewish Week‘s Adam Kredo showed, the poll found that more American Jews than usual do not approve of a Democratic president’s handling of Israel issues, but that, as before, a pronounced majority of American Jews will vote for the Democratic candidate in the next presidential election.
Polls shouldn’t to be dismissed, and columnist Michelle Goldberg does address them today in Tablet Magazine. But she also goes beyond them, making the case that they have historically undersold how much Jews actually end up backing Democratic candidates; and she goes even beyond that and explains why Jewish voters, particularly since the 1984 election, have backed the Democrat in massively disproportionately numbers: it’s because the Republican Party has increasingly aligned itself with groups, from the Christian Coalition to the Tea Party, that see America as a fundamentally Christian nation, and, as Goldberg puts it, Jews “are unwilling to assume a role in their own country that’s in any way analogous to that of Arab citizens of Israel—a people with legal equality who are nonetheless excluded from their nation’s raison d’être.”
Speaking of polls, the last time a plurality (though not majority) of Jews did vote for a Republican, according to Goldberg, it was 1920, and 43 percent went for the victor, Warren G. Harding. The runner-up for the hearts of Jewish voters that year was the legendary Socialist Eugene V. Debs.
Manifesto by alleged slayer of 92 articulated Islamophobia, ‘Israeli nationalism’
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.