The Key For Dems To Win Back the J-Vote
There's an article that was published today by The New Republic's Kenneth Baer about how the Democrats can win back even more of the Jewish vote i.e. to regain the 80-90% they used to get before people like some of my friends came around. I think it's a great article (I'll post it in full in the comments section since it's subscription-only and I found it, in full, on another blog) and would like to highlight the last two paragraphs:
...the Kerry campaign made the same points about Saudi Arabia and Iran that Dean, Reid, and Pelosi made at AIPAC this week, but doubts about Kerry's overall toughness and consistency on these issues kept him from making the sale. Add in Kerry's emphasis on multilateralism, and he only further alienated pro-Israel voters who see the United Nations and European Union as enemy territory. No matter how many times you said that Kerry had a perfect AIPAC voting record, it still didn't matter. The lesson is that while being "right" on individual issues may earn AIPAC's praise, it is unconvincing unless put up against a larger vision of American foreign policy that clearly and logically leads to those same positions.Now while that sounds all fine and great, I doubt that the Democrats can, much less will, change that much. And such, I feel very confident that "GOP Jews," as we're commonly called, will be around a while and that more of us will exist with the passage of time. I'm sure there will be a lot to say about this one and I look forward to your comments.
Bush and the GOP provide that vision: the terrorists are evil; democracies are good; America will defeat evil and support and spread good. It's simple [oversimplified, really-ed], but extraordinarily compelling, especially to pro-Israel voters. Strategically, the Democratic answer to Bush's idealism can't be realpolitik (after all, these voters know that interests can change more easily than beliefs). Ideologically, it's not the answer either. Democrats have fought for generations to bring values into the practice of foreign policy, from Wilson trying to make the world safe for democracy to Truman's stand against Soviet expansion and Clinton's launching an air war to stop a genocide in the Balkans--and shouldn't allow Republicans to take that mantle. Democrats need to remember that for decades they have been able to speak to Americans' deep sense that we are a unique "city on a hill" and a "light unto the nations." Democrats must reclaim that heritage and make the case that Republicans have undermined America's moral standing (and, by extension, our security) both in the world and at home. If they do that, Democrats not only will win over security voters of all faiths and win elections, but they also could once again become the automatic choice of the chosen people.
posted by Michael at 4:16 PM
1 Comments:
How Democrats Can Fight To Resecure the Jewish Vote
By Kenneth Baer
For the 5,000 pro-Israel activists attending the AIPAC Policy Conference this week in Washington, his story was a familiar one: born and raised in the suburbs of New York City in a staunchly liberal Democratic household; pushed right by Jimmy Carter's lukewarm support for Israel; heard Ronald Reagan talk about "peace through strength" and crossed over to the Republican camp; and now George W. Bush's war on terrorism has kept him there.
That Ari Fleischer, President Bush's former press secretary, was the one describing this journey should give no one pause. But that his remarks were met with knowing laughter and, at times, thunderous applause points is a growing problem for Democrats: Jewish-Americans, one of their most loyal constituencies, are now up-for-grabs. Many--especially those politically active on Israel issues -- are Fleischer's fellow travelers, making the same trip he once made across the political spectrum. Sure, the old saw that Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Hispanics is still largely true. What's changed is that, like Hispanics, Jews are becoming a vote that Democrats have to fight for.
Between 1996 and 2004, Hispanic support for the Republican presidential candidate more than doubled from 21 percent to 44 percent. The jump among Jewish voters from 16 percent for Bob Dole to 25 percent for George W. Bush is less dramatic and still allows Democrats to rack up their usual large majority of the Jewish vote. But because the national Jewish vote is relatively so small, it's hard to capture it in the exit polling. Looking at the election results, however, there is some evidence that there are more unsettling numbers among blue-and-white voters in the bluest states.
According to an analysis conducted in the upcoming edition of the Almanac of American Politics, of the 17 congressional districts that flipped from Al Gore to Bush between 2000 and 2004, 6 of them were in New York and New Jersey--all in the metro New York area. In Congressman Anthony Weiner's heavily Jewish district in Brooklyn and Queens, a 37-point Gore win became just a 12-point Kerry victory, and Kerry lost 10 points from Gore's vote share even in Congressman Jerry Nadler's ultra-liberal Manhattan district. Overall, Kerry lost more than 250,000 votes from Gore's total in Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk counties, four of the most Jewish counties in the country--and the counties most affected by the attacks of September 11.
With the potential for two open Senate races in New Jersey in 2006 and 2008 (and corresponding open congressional seats depending on who runs) and another open seat one year later in New York if Hillary Clinton vacates it to run for President, the shifting of hundreds of thousands of votes in New York and New Jersey could hurt Democrats in these federal races where terrorism and the Middle East are issues. Beyond that, don't forget that the New York area is the center of the Jewish-American world. Opinions there shape opinions throughout the community (especially in places like Broward and Dade Counties, Florida, otherwise known as the sixth and seventh boroughs of New York) which could not only move votes in critical states, but also deny Democrats millions of dollars in political donations.
How then can Democrats fight back and defend Republican encroachments onto their once solid Jewish turf?
Speaking on the same program as Fleischer Monday night, DNC Chairman Howard Dean touched on two issues that can become Democratic openings. First, Democrats can go to the right of Bush on terrorism, criticizing him for doing too little to crack down on Saudi Arabia's support for Islamic extremism and Iran's drive to acquire nuclear weapons. In fact, during three generally unmemorable speeches by Dean and the Democratic congressional leaders Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid, the crowd came to life when these speakers bashed Iran and the Saudis. Dean, whose relationship with the AIPAC crowd is particularly shaky, was met with huge cheers when he emphatically declared: "The President's friendship with the Saudis must never cloud America's judgment that the Saudis must be boldly confronted. There is a long-term danger in what the Saudis are using our oil money for."
Second, Democrats can go to Bush's left on the issues of separation of church and state. "Not only will Democrats defend Israel," Dean told the AIPAC crowd, "we also will continue to defend the rights of Jews to be Jewish in America." To make his point, Dean proceeded to tell the story of his wife's grandmother (who was Jewish) who immigrated to the United States to escape religious prosecution.
Both arguments can be powerful with segments of the Jewish community, but they are contingent on either missteps or overreaches by the Republicans. If Iran goes nuclear, the Saudis are caught funding terrorists, or there is another terrorist attack in the United States (all of which are more likely than not), the case can be made that America has become less secure on Bush's watch. And if Republicans follow up their handling of Terri Schiavo, stem-cell research, and the appointment of right-wing federal judges with even more concessions to the evangelical wing of their party, a strong defense of the separation of church and state could lead wayward non-Orthodox, pro-Israel Democrats back to the fold. But short of both happening at the same time--and there being a Democrat with strong national-security credentials to make that case -- there's an inherent problem with this left-right approach: Its two elements are virtually mutually exclusive. To take advantage of a GOP slide to the radical right domestically depends on things being quiet enough on the terrorism front that Jewish voters begin to re-orient their fears from Fatah to Focus on the Family--the exact opposite of what's needed to make the defense arguments stick.
But even if a total GOP meltdown occurred, this piecemeal strategy would have its limits. After all, these tactical moves are just that: tactics. And, as we saw last year, deeply-held beliefs--especially when it comes to issues of war and peace -- trump tactical positioning. Recall, for instance, that the Kerry campaign made the same points about Saudi Arabia and Iran that Dean, Reid, and Pelosi made at AIPAC this week, but doubts about Kerry's overall toughness and consistency on these issues kept him from making the sale. Add in Kerry's emphasis on multilateralism, and he only further alienated pro-Israel voters who see the United Nations and European Union as enemy territory. No matter how many times you said that Kerry had a perfect AIPAC voting record, it still didn't matter. The lesson is that while being "right" on individual issues may earn AIPAC's praise, it is unconvincing unless put up against a larger vision of American foreign policy that clearly and logically leads to those same positions.
Bush and the GOP provide that vision: the terrorists are evil; democracies are good; America will defeat evil and support and spread good. It's simple, but extraordinarily compelling, especially to pro-Israel voters. Strategically, the Democratic answer to Bush's idealism can't be realpolitik (after all, these voters know that interests can change more easily than beliefs). Ideologically, it's not the answer either. Democrats have fought for generations to bring values into the practice of foreign policy, from Wilson trying to make the world safe for democracy to Truman's stand against Soviet expansion and Clinton's launching an air war to stop a genocide in the Balkans--and shouldn't allow Republicans to take that mantle. Democrats need to remember that for decades they have been able to speak to Americans' deep sense that we are a unique "city on a hill" and a "light unto the nations." Democrats must reclaim that heritage and make the case that Republicans have undermined America's moral standing (and, by extension, our security) both in the world and at home. If they do that, Democrats not only will win over security voters of all faiths and win elections, but they also could once again become the automatic choice of the chosen people.
Post a Comment
<< Home