January 31, 2012 | 12:26 am

Politics and Money: High Stakes Jewish Engagement

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.

Follow the money!  One of the keys to studying a political campaign is to identify the “flow” of financial support for a candidate. Then, why is it that so much Jewish money remains on the sidelines for the 2012 Presidential Election?  In 2008 candidates in both parties were receiving significantly more Jewish financial attention at this stage in the campaign, so what accounts for this different storyline?  Tablet in a recent article reported that 55% of the key Republican Jewish donors had yet to make a political contribution, in comparison to 2008 where nearly 2/3rds of these players had committed their resources.

First of all, significant Jewish donor support is actually ‘in play” as singularly represented by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, whose combined support for the Gingrich campaign involves to date, $10 million. Their donations, along with a number of other major players, is no longer directed to the candidate’s campaign but rather to the super PAC’s that have been established by each candidate. In the case of Speaker Gingrich, “Winning our Future” PAC was the beneficiary of these major dollars.

Second, major donors know that there are strategic times when to “invest” in one’s preferred candidate. “Early money” suggests that the donor wants the individual to know of his interest in and support of the candidate’s desire to test the field. “Late money” is designed to ensure that a candidate has the resources to finish, and hopefully win! Donors may not welcome significant public recognition associated with their support but clearly want the nominee to know that they are “invested” in his/her success and have demonstrated usually on various different occasions during the campaign cycle the nature of their commitment.

Third, some funders simply want the field to “shake out” before investing their resources. In some measure they want to see and hear more from the remaining candidates. While others hold back resources until their party’s frontrunner or nominee has been identified. Certain funders may be disappointed in their party’s selection or in policies being promoted by an incumbent and therefore delay their financial endorsement as a statement of their concern or even as a form of protest.

Fourth, PAC monies have been another venue by which Jewish groups, who share particular political interests around Israel, foreign policy and domestic concerns direct their collective support behind candidates who endorse their viewpoints. Federal multi-candidate PACs are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to candidate campaigns or other organizations:

• at most $5,000 per candidate per election. Elections such as primaries, general elections and special elections are counted separately.
• at most $15,000 per political party per year

An example of this type of campaign activity involves NORPAC, a non-partisan political action committee. This group is supports candidates and members of Congress, who “demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel”.

How important is Jewish financial support for political campaigns? While it is difficult to quantify the sources of all contributions, there is significant evidence that Jews play a major role in underwriting candidates and supporting both political parties. Historically, this has been the case with Democrats where Jews over time have played a defining role. In more recent times, this pattern of high-end political fundraising among Jewish Republicans has clearly accelerated.

---

Steven F. Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles Campus
www.thewindreport.com

January 23, 2012 | 5:04 pm

The Changing Status of Jewish Elected Officials in Washington: Unpacking its Significance

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.

Yesterday’s announcement by Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Ariz. 8th District) that she intends to step down from her Congressional seat, is part of an emerging story involving a number of the current Jewish members of the House and Senate, who are leaving government service or changing positions.

The make-up of this current Congress includes some 40 Jewish members of the House and Senate. However, this year will mark the largest drop off in Jewish representation in more than a half a century.

House of Representatives:

1. Departure of Representative Jane Harmon (Ca. 36th District) in order to serve as President and CEO of the Woodrow Wilson Center
2. Resignation of Congressman Anthony Wiener (NY, 9th District)
3. Decision of Representative Robert Filner (Ca. 51st District) to run for Mayor of San Diego
4. Retirement of Congressman Barney Frank (Mass. 4th District) at the end of this current session
5. Decision of Congresswoman Shelly Berkley (Nev. 1st District ) to step down in order to run for the Senate

In what will be one of the costliest House elections in history, two prominent members of the 112th Congress, Representative Howard Berman (Ca. 28th District ) and Brad Sherman (Ca. 27th District) will be competing for the Democratic nomination in the newly created 30th Congressional District in the San Fernando Valley.

Of some historical significance, Representative Eric Cantor (Va.7th District), the only Jewish Republican currently in the House of Representatives, is the first Jewish official ever elected to serve as the House Majority Leader.

Senate:

When the 112th Congress concludes later this year, it will be marked by the retirement of two Senators Joseph Lieberman (Con. Ind.) and Herb Kohl (Dem. Wis).

In addition, several Jewish Senators facing re-election this fall are likely to encounter significant challenges. Benjamin Cardin (Maryland, Dem) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont, Ind.) appear to have major campaign battles ahead, while Diane Feinstein (Ca. Dem) may face a less formidable challenge in seeking to retain her seat. There is also the possibility of several Jewish challengers emerging in Senate races this fall. In addition to the candidacy of Congresswoman Berkley, Ohio State Treasurer, Josh Mandel, may enter the Ohio Senate contest.

During this current session of the Congress there are 12 seating Jewish United States Senators:

In addition to Cardin, Feinstein, Kohl, Lieberman, and Sanders, Jewish members include:

1. Richard Blumenthal (Con. Dem)
2. Barbara Boxer (Ca. Dem)
3. Al Franken (MN. Dem)
4. Carl Levin (MI. Dem)
5. Charles Schumer (NY Dem)
6. Frank Lautenberg (NJ. Dem)
7. Ron Wyden (Ore. Dem)

Commentary:
Are we likely to see a diminution of Jewish influence as we move forward, or will there be the emergence of a new generation of Jewish activists who will seek to make their presence felt on the national political stage?

Steven F. Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles Campus
213-765-2190
www.thewindreport.com

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 19, 2012 | 6:06 pm

What Motivates Jewish Voters?

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.

Jews are like other American voters, but more so!  Sociologists have suggested that this fascination and engagement with politics has come to represent the “civil religion” of American Judaism. More than 80% of Jews who are eligible to vote actively exercise this democratic privilege!

As with every American voter, different issues are seen as important to individual Jewish voters.Yet, based on the data from an array of surveys, there are a set of priorities that define for many Jews their core interests and shared concerns. In selecting candidates for the presidency and other federal positions, Jews frequently reference these ten elements (Clearly, no one can speak for a community or even for an individual voter, but this compilation is drawn from an array of studies that have examined Jewish political attitudes):

1. A statement of support by candidates committing the United States to ensure Israel’s security and its territorial integrity.  Specific actions that reflect United States engagement with Israel through diplomatic, economic and military measures.
2. A commitment to this nation’s security by ensuring the maintenance of a strong military designed to enhance homeland security and combat international terrorism while being able to challenge the enemies of the United States and Israel.
3. A particular plan designed to isolate Iran, while preventing the regime in Tehran from developing or acquiring nuclear arms.
4. Where appropriate, engagement with other countries to seek multi-lateral, alliance-based actions to advance our collective interests. To embrace international organizations when and where they can be effective in combating terrorism and in advancing social change and democratic values.
5. Focus on a fiscal plan and tax policy that promotes sustainable economic growth while reducing government spending.
6. The framing of a domestic policy that ensures core health care and social services are available to citizens.
7. A commitment to equal rights and access for all citizens and the support of programs that promote economic opportunity.
8. Maintaining an overarching policy of church-state separation but nonetheless open to specific programs that bring together religious institutions and the public sector in meeting core social service needs.
9. Support for a woman’s right of choice by upholding Roe v. Wade.
10. Leadership and management experience as demonstrated by a candidate’s ability to bring different political factions together and the capacity to manage complex issues.

In addition, acknowledging that individuals have particular interests or priorities, some of the most pressing issues for Jewish voters include:

• Environment
• Energy
• Immigration Reform
• Darfur and Sub-Saharan Africa
• Social Security/Medicare
• Arts and Culture
• Education
• Gay Rights

(Again, these findings are taken from a number of studies and interviews concerning Jewish voting priorities.)  In the American Jewish Committee annual surveys of Jewish leaders, those who participated where asked to identify their political orientation:

1. Extremely Liberal	6
2. Liberal	22
3. Slightly Liberal	14
4. Middle of the Road	28
5. Slightly Conservative	12
6. Conservative	13
7. Extremely Conservative	3
8. Not Sure	2

From these studies and others that have been conducted over time, one can identify over time the configuration of the “Jewish vote” as consisting of primarily a moderate-liberal base of voters (64%).  Yet, as we have noted in earlier blogs and other writings, Jewish voters can be found in all sectors of the political spectrum.

Your comments and insights pertaining to this election series are encouraged.

---

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Service
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles campus
swindmueller@huc.edu
See: www.thewindreport.com

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 13, 2012 | 9:31 pm

The Great Jewish Divide: Competing Voices and Distinct Voting Patterns

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Blog 7: The Great Jewish Divide: Competing Voices and Distinct Voting Patterns

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.

Originally posted on Jan 5, 2012

This blog entry is part of a series of articles and commentaries prepared by Steven Windmueller regarding the 2012 elections and the Jewish vote.

There are “multiple Americas”, as identified by different regional characteristics, social and cultural values, and political interests.  The April (2011) edition of The Atlantic contains a map “showing how changing median incomes and demographics have divided the United States into 12 distinct geographic areas”.

This same notion holds for American Jewry; today, we find a distinctive set of political patterns amongst Jews, leading to voting behaviors that represent specific viewpoints and in some cases representing differing regional, economic and social priorities. Despite the commonly held view of “the Jewish vote”, one finds a series of Jewish voting constituencies. As with other groups, Jews take on the characteristics reflective of the social institutions with which they are aligned. This phenamenon applies to the political arena, as well.

Five such “groups” are identified below:

Southern and Mid-Western Jews who have longstanding family ties to these regions and their respective home communities often maintain distinctive political connections and loyalties, in many cases reflecting the social behaviors and characteristics of their neighbors.

Immigrant Jewish Communities often take on specific political sentiments. New Americans, arriving from Iran or the Former Soviet Union or other societies that exhibited hostility toward Israel in particular and the West in general, frequently identify with the foreign policy principles of the Republican Party, namely a strong military and defense posture.

Traditional Religious Jews emulate the political patterns of the Christian evangelical community.  Similar to their counterparts within the Christian fundamentalist camp, the political activism of religiously aligned Jews has emerged and taken form over the course of the past 25 years.

“Red-Diaper Baby” Voters are identified with socialist causes and left-wing political ideas.  Emulating the political passions of their grandparents’ generation, this block of voters retains links to the social mores of a distinctive group of American activists and voters.

“Urban Jewish Elites” represents an element of secular Jews who identify with an array of liberal organizations and often high-profile social causes. Identified with and supportive of Democratic Party candidates, this cohort has been a key force in defining and shaping American progressive ideas. Joining with like-minded Americans, this group has generated financial and voter support for liberal candidates in major urban areas.

There are no doubt other unique blocks of Jewish voters who not only reflect elements of the general American culture but also capture specific interests and priorities of the Jewish community.  The notion of a “monolithic” Jewish vote has really never existed, rather one finds that there are particular characteristics that represent distinctions within any voting segment.

As we know with all voter studies, groups are clustered around particular interests. “Israel” is certainly seen as one of the defining elements in identifying American Jews. In reality, a number of factors describe the particular “type” of Jewish voter. As with most segments of the voting public, such characteristics as candidate appeal, ideological affinity, concruence around key policy issues, and party loyalty, among other considerations, need to be taken into account when “measuring” the political behavior of Jews.

January 2012

Steven F. Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor
Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion
Los Angeles Campus
See: www.thewindreport.com

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 13, 2012 | 9:30 pm

How America is Re-Inventing Politics and the Role Jewish Organizations are Playing

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Originally posted on Dec 22, 2011

This blog entry is part of a series of articles and commentaries prepared by Steven Windmueller regarding the 2012 elections and the Jewish vote.

Across the political spectrum candidates are increasingly relying on various PAC’s (Political Action Committees), 501 C 4 advocacy groups, and even nonprofit institutions to promote and advance their campaign themes, and by inference lending support to a specific candidate or political party.  During this current campaign season numerous organizations have engaged candidates or endorsed policy initiatives identified with a particular politician. Over the past several election cycles this pattern of aligning political campaigns with the “third-sector” (nonprofit and advocacy organizations) has seen a sharp and significant rise in popularity. One of the key outcomes of such organizing strategies affords candidates the benefits of free publicity and wider exposure without direct costs to the campaign itself.

Several examples come to mind. The Emergency Committee for Israel, a group backed by William Kristol and other prominent conservatives,  recently posted ads in the New York Times and elsewhere critical of the Obama administration and its policies toward Israel. The introduction of such ads served to aid the President’s opponents in challenging his credentials on Israel. Similarly, the Zionist Organization of America’s recent annual dinner (November 20th) represented an occasion to honor Glenn Beck but more significantly provided an opportunity to host members of the Republican Congressional delegation, including Presidential-hopeful Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.  This setting permitted critics of the current administration to offer political messages on American policy in the Middle East.

In turn, policy groups and religious bodies often engage politicians as a way to advance their political agendas and social values. Hosting speakers or promoting ad campaigns that feature political elites provide visibility for these nonprofits while serving as a window of opportunity for candidates to be identified with particular causes.  In an effort to reduce ”incendiary rhetoric and without turning support for Israel into a partisan issue”, American Friends of Peace Now has launched a project entitled “Responsibility over Rhetoric” designed to “help candidates talk constructively about Israel and Middle East peace”.  Whether from the Jewish political left or right, groups are increasingly seeking ways to convey policy information and to garner candidates to embrace their messages and ideas.

Historically, nonprofit institutions, fearing the possibility of being investigated by the IRS, totally avoided hosting political candidates or in doing so made certain to include the political participation of all major candidates and parties. More recently, there appears to be a lessening of concern about being identified as “more partisan”. In turn, various 501 C 3 organizations have established “front groups” or have invested their resources to establish C 4 public policy bodies. In the case of the later, IRS regulations permit such structures greater political exposure and broader advocacy activities.

In recent elections both the RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition) and the NJDC (National Jewish Democratic Council) have played central roles in advancing their respective political agendas and have been setting the tone and direction for this type of new form of Jewish political activism.

Increasingly, Jewish advocacy organizations, emulating the behavior of other institutions within this country, are tracking and commenting on statements made by candidates and elected officials (as for example, J Street and the ZOA, each representing different political perspectives on the case for Israel), monitoring Congressional voting records of high profile House and Senate members, and polling Jewish constituencies and sharing that data with both candidates and the general press. While some of these tactics have been in play for a significant period of time, the increased intensity of these activities have pushed Jewish organizations deeper into the political fray than in the past.  Over the years, organizational leaders and board members of C 3 charitable institutions were frequently prohibited from engaging in partisan political work while holding office; today, one finds fewer constraints on organizational leaders. Carrying this notion further, over the past number of years, just as high profile Christian clergy have endorsed candidates or elected officials, some prominent rabbinic leaders are doing the same.

Both political parties and many of the current candidates running for the public office will continue to employ these “third parties” or take advantage of such opportunities to allow these organizations or their representatives to endorse their campaigns and embrace their political ideas. Increasingly, public officials and public policy institutions are finding common ground in advancing their shared interests.

Steven Windmueller
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles campus
swindmueller@huc.edu
See: http://www.thewindreport.com

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 13, 2012 | 9:29 pm

From the Tea Party Movement to Occupy Wall Street: Jews on the Political Edge

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Originally posted on Nov 21, 2011

Over the course of the past several years, a number of counter-cultural movements have entered the political arena. What has become increasingly apparent is the growing presence of Jews as part of these current political expressions.  Throughout modern history, one can find Jewish activists engaged with causes designed to challenge the status quo. As the Jewish community increasingly reflects the diversity and complexity of our larger society, we are likely to witness the growing presence of Jews within these alternative political movements.

For some decades there have been pockets of Jewish voters who have expressed their support for less government spending. Clearly, there is a segment of Jewish voters who share the economic philosophies advanced by the Tea Party Movement. A Gallup Study from last year confirmed that some 15% of Jews were connected with the this cause. In my study from last spring (April 2011) of Jewish political behavior, I was able to identify a significant conservative base who shares ideological positions that parallel the viewpoints found within the Tea Party Movement. This group of voters indicated their opposition to the President’s health care package and supported cut backs in government services and programs.

Similarly, there appears to be a significant presence of Jews among the ranks of the Occupied Wall Street demonstrators. Inside the Occupied Wall Street crowd we find threads of different political constituencies. One of the features we find in American protest movements identified with the political left involves the presence of “red diaper babies”. We are reminded that their parents and grandparents were identified with socialist and communist causes in the 1930’s and with the Vietnam anti-war movement thirty years later. Another element found among the Occupied Wall Street participants highlights young Jews who are seeking to align their political activism with their Jewish values and beliefs.

As we acknowledge the multiple political streams and ideologies that are present on the American landscape, we are able to identify the Jewish voices that today help to shape these emerging political messages.

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Service
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles Campus
3077 University Avenue
Los Angles, Ca. 90007
swindmueller@huc.edu
213-765-2190     Office
310-487-8143     Cell
see: www.thewindreport.com

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 13, 2012 | 9:27 pm

The Fall Out Over the Unity Pledge: the Politics of Distrust

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Originally posted on Nov 9, 2011

Jewish political behavior in 2011 appears to be mimicking the general social environment. If tax policy is the standard of measure for candidates in the forthcoming election among many voters, then the case for Israel represents the Jewish litmus test.

With the issuance on October 19th of the “National Pledge for Unity on Israel” by the ADL and the AJC, we would be introduced to an immediate and deafening round of criticism leveled at these agencies, especially on the part of the Jewish political right.  When reading the comments of those who opposed the statement, the language and intensity of the commentaries reflected the tenor of the national debate, at times, similar to the tone set by political leaders seeking to demonize their opponents and the other political camp over an array of actions or issues.

Commenting on this statement Abe Foxman noted: “We want the discourse on U.S. support for Israel to avoid the sometimes polarizing debates and political attacks that have emerged in recent weeks, as candidates have challenged their opponents’ pro-Israel bone fides or questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel.”

Yet the negative comments would focus on what the opponents of this Unity Pledge perceived as an attempt to stifle debate. Interestingly, the statement does not call for an end to discussion of Israel rather it suggests “Now is the time to reaffirm that Israel’s well-being is best served, as it has always been, by American voices raised together in unshakeable support for our friend and ally.” Written in the affirmative, it maintains the shared unity around the Jewish State on the part of politicians and leaders.

Yet, the Unity Pledge was seen, for example, by the Emergency Committee for Israel, as an “attempt to silence those of us who have ‘questioned the current administration’s foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel’ will re-energize us”.  Other groups took a more suspicious outlook related to the intent of this statement: “These organizations (ADL/AJC) have a vested interest in ensuring that the Jews continue to vote Democratic and re-elect this president. They fear losing access to the White House.”  Within the Jewish radical right, there are elements who view progressive Jewish groups and their leaders to be disloyal to the core interests and well-being of Israel and the Jewish people, suggesting that the statement was yet another example of the appeasement mentality of liberal Jews.

Morton Klein of the ZOA described the intention of the two national leaders, Abe Foxman and David Harris to serve as “thought police” whose “self appointed task is to suppress of criticism of politicians hostile to Israel”.

Groups on the political left, including J Street, have so far declined to support this initiative. Jeremy Ben-Ami suggests:  “You can have a unified support for Israel—for the state of Israel, for the concept of Israel, for its future and for its security—but a vehement disagreement about how you get there.”

The case of the Unity Pledge confirms the depth of the political divide among American Jews. As we noted in the 2008 presidential campaign, the harsh rhetoric that became increasingly evident within the Jewish community will be significantly more in play during this forthcoming election cycle. In some measure the Foxman-Harris initiative was designed to offset that type of discourse.

The anger and suspicion triggered in some of the comments offered over the past few weeks since the Unity Pledge was introduced suggests that the intensity and tone of the political conversation within the Jewish community over the course of the next year will be particularly acrimonious, emulating the tenor of the general campaign and our wider society.

The strength of a well-organized political minority is its capacity to speak with clarity and a shared commitment to specific political goals, just as we embrace differing political candidates and parties. Increasingly, one finds the depth of the divide within the Jewish world to be reminiscent of earlier periods in our history. An expression of solidarity and connection seems absent, and in its place discord and distrust have captured the Jewish political stage. As a community who has struggled over centuries to secure our political voice and to affirm our place and message among the peoples of the world, at this moment in time we have the unique opportunity to shape ideas.

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles campus
See www.thewindreport.com

0 Comments — Leave your comment

January 13, 2012 | 9:24 pm

The Emerging Debate about “the Jewish Vote”

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Originally posted on Sep 22, 2011

Over the past few days, in light of recent polling results, the election outcome in New York’s 9^th Congressional District and a myriad of articles in such publications as New York Magazine, the Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times, a national discussion has resurfaced related to the status of the Jewish vote. Are Jews likely to vote Republican in the 2012 election? One can track predictions of such a voting shift since the 1950’s. In past presidential elections, including the Carter-Reagan contest of 1980 and the Bush-Kerry race of 2004 as well as the 2008 Obama-McCain election, we were regularly introduced to this question.

Five elements ought to be considered in making any forecasts or projections about voter behavior within the Jewish community. First, Americans retain a very high degree of loyalty to their political values and party connections; the Jewish voting record seems to confirm this principle. Since 1916 Jews have inserted themselves into the ranks of the Democratic Party and without exception since 1932 have remained supportive of its national ticket.

Second, voter disenchantment should not be confused with expressions of unhappiness with particular candidates or Presidents as in the case of President Carter and now President Obama, as Jews have readily retained their ties to the Democratic Party.

Third, as we well know, these voters arrive at their decision based on an array of issues and political interests; the broader question for 2012 is what factors, beyond the current debate within the community regarding the President’s policies toward the State of Israel, will impact the Jewish vote? From past polling Jews have expressed an array of domestic and foreign policy interests that frames the basis of Jewish political behavior. It would be an error to view “the Jewish vote” as a “single-issue” constituency. More significant for such voters who are concerned with church-state issues, health policy, economic matters, among other considerations, is how effective will the President’s opponent be in convincing these voters to change their traditional political loyalties or to overcome their political fears when embracing a conservative Republican candidate? As important as the direction of the vote itself will be the pattern of Jewish financial participation within the 2012 campaign. Which Republican candidate(s) might benefit from any shift of campaign revenues? In the end, will the Democrats reclaim their base of Jewish donors?

Fourth, it is important to note a shifting set of Jewish demographic and social trends: among younger Jews one finds an increasing number of independent and Republican voters; newer American Jewish voters, especially from the former Soviet Union and Iran, who tend to identify with the Republican Party. A growing base of Republican Jewish support is represented by the active engagement of Orthodox Jews.  The impact of the Tea Party ought not to be diminished as well, according to a recent Pew Foundation study; some 15% of Jews are inclined to support that movement and/or its candidates. A subgroup in this coming election that will draw a great deal of attention will be Baby Boomers, who may feel the anxieties of an uncertain economy as they plan or enter retirement, will they find reason to support a different philosophy of finance and governance? Mainstream Jewish Democrats have tended to cast their votes in national elections that reflect their liberal values; will this focus on the collective good continue in 2012, or are we likely to see a shift that resonates a specific focus on personal or self-interest concerns?

Fifth, there are different elements or groups that comprise the Jewish vote. If we are to truly understand voting behavior, we need to appreciate the various cohorts that define our community’s political base. Elsewhere I have written about these distinctive voices within Jewish life. The Jewish vote is more complex than the media often describes. A shift on the edge among specific sectors of our community could have profound implications for a national election outcome. A 20% shift of the Jewish vote could have an impact on the results in such states as Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania.

I think it is health and essential for a community to examine its core interests and assess its political options.

I welcome your feedback related to these blogs and invite you to visit www.thewindreport.com

Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.
Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Service
HUC-JIR
Los Angeles Campus
3077 University Avenue
Los Angles, Ca. 90007
swindmueller@huc.edu
213-765-2190 Office
see: www.thewindreport.com

1 Comments — Leave your comment