November 8, 2012 | 12:03 pm

Jews and the 2012 Elections: Striking Realities

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Follow JewishJournal.com on

Jews no longer count in defining election outcomes. The Jewish community's numbers are simply too small and getting smaller. Several decades ago, Jews comprised some 4% of the electorate; today this constituency accounts for less than 2%. The Jewish vote continues to decline in proportion to the overall national population and in relationship to other ethnic communities, portending a further weakening of this community's political prowess at the polls.

This political reality may create a discussion around whether there still exists a "Jewish vote" or what strategic roles this constituency can play in future elections.

Despite all of the hype associated with the "Jewish vote," Barack Obama held this constituency securing around 69% of the vote. While this percentage is below his 2008 total of 78%, Jews clearly remain embedded inside the Democratic Party. Since 1916 Democratic presidential candidates have on average secured 71% of the Jewish electorate. Jimmy Carter, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis received less support from Jews than this President. This respondent had suggested prior to the election a 9-12% adjustment in the 2012 Jewish vote.

The number of Jewish elected officials at the federal level is dropping and the 2012 election points dramatically to these losses. Therefore, the overall political clout for the community will be undergoing a fundamental change. With fewer members in the House and Senate, this marker of political influence will need to be recast.

No doubt, there will be a new round of recrimination and anger from within the Jewish community following these election results. With Jews deeply divided over the President and his conduct of foreign affairs, the discourse around Israel and American priorities will remain intense over the months ahead. As in the past, American Jews did not vote the "Israel card" in this election but rather joined with other Americans in focusing their political energy around the economy, health care, and a host of other domestic-based considerations.

October 23, 2012 | 12:14 pm

The Debate and the Jews

Posted by Steven Windmueller

During last evening’s debate some 33 minutes was devoted to the Middle East and more directly, United States-Israel relations. No other indicator more directly points to the significance placed by both campaigns on the “Jewish vote” in this coming election.

Employing an array of different frameworks, Bob Schieffer of CBS introduced a series of questions that gave both the President and Governor Romney ample opportunity to define their “pro-Israel” credentials and relationships.  And indeed, each candidate took the occasion to reassert their respective record in connection with issues that were introduced around Iran, Syria, and the broader tensions within the Middle East to define their special connections to the State of Israel.  Providing their personal connections and policy positions, the two Presidential candidates invoked their support for and commitment to the future of the US-Israel relationship.

Of particular importance, it permitted a sitting President and his rival for the Oval Office to expand America’s engagement with Israel and to create an umbrella of security for Israel when Mr. Schieffer asked if as a nation we would be prepared to defend the Jewish state in the event of it being attacked. This moment within the debate ought to be seen as historic in the context of the American-Israel connection.  The question and the two responses represent a fundamental transition of United States’ policy, where the leaders of both political parties articulate such a defined commitment.

This segment of the 90 minute debate was designed specifically to play to the Florida Jewish community, a state key to both campaigns.  In a state where only a few percentage points separate the two campaigns, the shift of even a few key voting groups can make a significant difference.

This moment on national television confirmed several political realities, namely the importance of Israel as a strategic and valued ally to the United States.  By the attention extended to this relationship, it would symbolize and affirm the significant standing within American society provided to Jews by both political camps.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2012 | 8:07 pm

The Election and the Jewish Vote: Coming into the Homestretch!

Posted by Steven Windmueller

What will happen prior to November 6th?

1. The Arrival of Late Money: Americans of all political stripes will be pouring additional resources into this election and the Jewish community is no exception. In 2010, Jews provided nearly $13 million to candidates and political parties, with Jewish PAC’s offering nearly $3 million. In this campaign, late money serves as a reminder to both political camps of our core expectations and interests.
2. Let the Mobilization Begin: During the remaining six weeks, we will see efforts by both campaigns to ‘bring out the troops” as volunteers head to the battleground states. Jews will be present not only to persuade their co-coreligionists but all independent and undecided voters.  There will be a good deal of movement as this organizing effort unfolds by phone and in person. Jewish voters in such “swing states” as Ohio, Florida, and Colorado will be among the target audiences, as every vote will be seen as critical in this election. The Key Swing States Will Be the Center of the Campaign's Attention: No Jew Left Behind in these Eight States!
3. The Intensity of the Campaign Will Exacerbate Political Tensions:  In the closing weeks of the 2008 campaign the level of charges hailed by supporters on both sides against the other party was particularly intense, and among Jews it was extraordinarily loud and at times angry.
4. The Late Surge: We will see an array of advertisements in the pages of the Anglo-Jewish press as well as campaign debates in synagogues and elsewhere where both sides will be making their final appeals for support. Rabbis and community leaders are being asked to endorse candidates and/or speak on their behalf. We ought not to be surprised to find letters to the newspaper and the presence of campaign ads and endorsements in our mail box, focusing on our vote as Jewish Americans.
5. Watch the Outcomes in Several Key Races: There are a number of interesting races this year involving Jewish candidates; among the election results to monitor include the Nevada Senate Race, the Ohio Senate Race, and the Hawaii Senate Race, as well as a number of key Congressional seats in which we find Jewish candidates or incumbents (check out New Jersey, New York, Illinois and California in particular).
6. Examining the Numbers:  From the polling data available at this point, the President will win the Jewish vote, but his overall numbers show a drop of support between 9-12 percentage points from his 2008 totals.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

August 28, 2012 | 12:12 am

Rules of Jewish Political Engagement

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Over the course of history, Jews would operate in the public sector adopting various political behaviors.

In contemporary times, several of these competing ideas remain in play, influenced by different elements of Jewish experience and practice. Five of them are being introduced here:

Nationalist Orientation vs. Accommodational Behavior: Historically, Jews operated in one of two political spheres, either understanding their political destiny as tied to a national (i.e. Jewish) perspective, seeking to create a Jewish state or to work toward sustaining it, or striving for some type of acceptance by making political compromises whereby they would accommodate to the social environment around them. In other terms, we might describe these characteristics, as “going it alone” vs. “fitting in”.

Judaism as Americanism:  Over the course of the 20th century a body of political thought would emerge that would define Jews as full partners in the American story and where “Judeo-Christian values” would frame the social fabric of this nation. This “melting pot” concept would allow Jews full access into the mainstream of the society.

“Be a Jew on the Street and an American at Home”:  Historian David Biale has suggested that unlike the mindset of the Enlightenment where Jews publicly shed their Jewishness, the American context represents precisely the reverse idea, where one can reject the melting pot viewpoint in favor of a Jewish political assertion.

Never Forget: “The commanding voice of Auschwitz” would not allow a Jew to forget his/her historical and political distinctiveness. One may understand this concept best when viewing it in the following terms: “failure to support Israel represents a denial of the lessons of the Holocaust.”

Rule of Marginal Effect:  Jewish influence is centered only in those selected areas, such as Israel-United States relations, where the interests of the community go generally unchallenged by other interest groups or are offset by broader policy priorities of the United States.

These ideas are part of a body of literature on Jewish political behavior and reflect the historical engagement of Jews with power.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

August 10, 2012 | 10:43 am

Two Views of America: Unpacking the Jewish Vote, Up Front and in Person

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Every voter has his/her own motivations and passions related to the nature of their vote.  Yet for 2012 two distinct viewpoints frame the collective “Jewish vote.” We can actually study these two political contrasts by exploring the stories of two individuals. For our purposes, we have “Naomi” and “Sam.”  So, let’s meet them:

Naomi lives in Southern California. She is a 30 something single professional. An Ohio native, Naomi came to Los Angeles following graduate school.

A businessman in his 60’s, Sam is a resident of Florida, who is married with three grown kids.  Sam has lived in South Florida all of his life. Following college, he opened his own construction and real estate firm.

Background:

Naomi’s family has long ties to the Democratic Party and to various social causes in Cleveland.

Sam is a first generation American. His parents were nominally “Democrats.”

Religious Affiliation:

Naomi grew up in the Conservative Movement but now is involved with an alternative Minyan.

A member of a Reform congregation, Sam in more recent years has become active in and supportive of Aish HaTorah.

Political Affiliation:

Describing herself as a “Liberal Democrat,” Naomi intends to support President Obama and volunteer for his campaign in one of the “swing” states this fall.

Switched party affiliations a number of years ago, Sam now considers himself a “Moderate Republican.” He has contributed this year to the Mitt Romney campaign and to the the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Israel:

Naomi is a J Street Supporter but has a broad set of political interests that align with her general liberal values.

Sam is a supporter of AIPAC and other Pro-Israel organizations, including Stand With Us.  Sam sees Israel’s security and well-being as a central political interest.

Liberal Causes: 

Naomi is active in an array of liberal initiatives that involve the environment, health care, international human rights, etc…  She tries to support organizations and causes that reflect her priorities.

Pro-Israel Priorities:  Sam supports a number of Jewish and civic groups that are focused on Israel and US security interests.

2008: 

Naomi supported Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination but supported Barack Obama in the fall campaign.

Sam had been a long time supporter of John McCain, so he was active on behalf of the Senator from the outset.

Friends:

For the most part, Naomi’s friends share her politics.

Sam’s friends are divided politically. A group of his friends share his political positions, yet a number are long standing Democrats; others are still uncertain how they will vote this fall.

Summary:

For both Naomi and Sam this election cycle has been particularly contentious as they each have encountered political conversations that they describe as difficult. Friendships in some cases have been strained, and conversations around Israel have been problematic. Sam has noted that dinner conversations frequently now avoid the “I” (Israel) word, while Naomi reported that she has witnessed scenes where name calling replaced civil discourse.

The political divide that we read about in American politics in general is also being played out within the American Jewish community, as clearly two distinctive political perspectives have emerged over Israel in particular and Jewish interests in more general terms. Probably many of us can identify with the above descriptions.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 30, 2012 | 9:39 am

The Last One Hundred Days: Rhetoric, Money, and Target Constituencies

Posted by Steven Windmueller

With approximately 100 days to the November elections, the intensity of the campaign has accelerated. One can identify four core elements: focusing on fund raising, escalating the political rhetoric, studying key voter trends,  and creating new organizing initiatives.

 

If the recent polls are on target with reference to the Jewish vote, the roughly 14% of Jewish voters who are considered as “undecideds” will be the recipients of most of the attention by both political camps

(http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-elections-2012/countdown-to-2012-elections-new-jewish-vote-poll-shows-slight-gain-for-romney-1.433764). How and where will that energy play out?

Fund Raising: This past week, the Romney campaign reportedly raised some $1.5 million among Jewish supporters in Los Angeles, while the Republican Jewish Coalition launched its own fundraising effort to target Jewish voters in key swing states, including Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio.  In what they have labeled, “My Buyer’s Remorse” the RLC is seeking to sway disenchanted Obama voters into the Republican camp for 2012.

Political Rhetoric and Key Issues: The conversation around “who would be best in support of Israel” is playing out with the forthcoming visit to Jerusalem scheduled by Governor Romney.  The debate over Israel security issues has created points of controversy and tension between Jewish leaders supporting both candidates, especially in Florida.

Key Voter Trends: A series of new voter polls has also created a conversation over voter “enthusiasm.” In a recent Gallup Poll, one finds thirty-nine percent of Democrats indicating that are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, but this number is down from 2004 (68%) and 2008 (61%).  In turn, this study found that Republicans (51%) are more enthusiastic than in 2008 (35%) but register the same as they did in 2004 (51%). The key for both campaigns moving forward will be stroking their base, mobilizing their supporters, and targeting the remaining uncommitted.

Organizing Initiatives:  Targeting key elites will be one strategy. The mobilization of prominent Jewish Democrats and Republicans and Hollywood personalities will allow each side to demonstrate the scope of endorsements that they have secured in an effort to sway non-committed voters and to re-enforce support from their base. Rabbis and other prominent Jewish communal leaders will be summoned to meetings with both candidates to hear “off-the-record” briefings and to garner their endorsement and/or support.

 

Mobilizing important constituencies will be the second focus. Each side will now launch a series of ads and outreach initiatives to “sell their message.” Be prepared to be bombarded as your mail boxes will be filled with campaign literature and appeals.  Despite all of these specific steps, once past the conventions, the candidates will be concentrating on two core missions: secure financial resources and carry their message to the “toss-up” states.  As Jews are seen as an important donor base for both parties and are present in several key swing states, including Florida and Ohio, they will be central players to the unfolding events that will follow in September and October.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 15, 2012 | 8:13 pm

Hate and Politics: How Anti-Semites Interpret the Contemporary Political Scene

Posted by Steven Windmueller

Jews have always encountered anti-Semitism. In this society, however, unlike many in which Jews have resided, one finds limited expressions of religious hatred or political attacks, yet such messages are still present. In surveying websites and political commentaries in preparation for this fall’s election, one can identify a number of traditional anti-Jewish themes interlocked with political rhetoric. Among the most common messages:

“Jewish influence and control” in its various forms and iterations over politics, finances, and media”

“Israel as having undo influence over America”

“Jews as possessing too much power”

During election cycles these types of conspiratorial ideas and distorted images are seemingly accentuated.  Jews are often depicted by an array of labels and negative images, including “communists”, “disloyal”, and “parasites”. Some of these sites are generated by traditional anti-Semites and others sponsored by various extreme political elements. In addition, political cartoons and editorials within the Arab press play on these same canards on an on-going basis.

Actions taken by candidates or their political parties are interpreted through this lens of conspiracy.  Governor Romney’s trip to Israel this summer and the President’s participation this past May with Jewish Heritage Month are seen as manifestations of “Jewish control”.

Some of these commentators of hate note that it will make little difference who will win in November, suggesting that Jewish influence is so imbedded within both parties and their campaigns that Jews will continue to dominate the political landscape.

Upon reflection, Jews account for less than 1.7% of this nation’s population, yet in the mindset of the anti-Semite Jewish influence must appear to be overwhelming.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

July 1, 2012 | 1:34 pm

Origins of the “Jewish Vote”

Posted by Steven Windmueller

“The Jewish Vote” Uncovering its Origin and Role
in Shaping American Bipartisan Politics in Support of Israel
Steven Windmueller, Ph.D.

Sonja Schoepf Wentling and Rafael Medoff in their recent book, Herbert Hoover and the Jews: the Origins of the “Jewish Vote” and Bipartisan Support for Israel, we gain some fascinating insights into the political history of Herbert Hoover and more significantly into the origins of the “Jewish vote”.

In a chapter entitled “Hoover and the Origins of the Jewish Vote,” Wentling and Medoff initially revisit Roosevelt’s reluctance to act on behalf of European Jewry covering the period of 1942-1945. In turn, they provide a fascinating account of Republican efforts in 1944 to embrace the case for a Jewish State in Palestine and in turn, seek to pull the Jewish vote away from the Democratic Party. “…for the first time in history, the Republicans and Democrats adopted planks pledging support for Jewish statehood and actively competed for Jewish electoral support on that basis.”

In this political analysis the reader is introduced to the humanitarian orientation of President Hoover and to the political environment covering a twenty-five year period, 1919-1944, in which this former President would play a high profile role. “Despite Hoover’s record on Jewish concerns, most mainstream Jewish leaders refrained from building ties to the former president or other prominent Republicans.”

For Hoover, who was born in West Branch, Iowa, his Quaker upbringing would frame his social and political values.  Over the course of his public career he would hold to the view that America was unique among the nations, and with this historical status, came a special responsibility.  American exceptionalism was also a perspective that he would share with his Jewish friends.

During his Presidency, and at other times throughout his political career, Hoover was outspoken in his support of Jewish claims to Palestine.  As early as 1922, he called for developing in Palestine “an asylum for the less fortunate masses of the Jewish people and as a restoration of religious shrines.”  During his tenure as President (1928-1932), Hoover would speak out in support of the Zionist cause, despite facing strong opposition from his own State Department.  Of the course of his Presidency, Hoover would issue statements of support to both Jewish and Pro-Zionist Christian groups.

Toward the end of this book, the authors move away from Hoover and focus almost exclusively on the “Jewish vote” seeking to identify any possible shifting patterns over the years that would suggest a change in the historic support garnered by Democrats among the Jewish electorate.

At the same time the authors offer a far less sympathetic view of Franklin Roosevelt; commenting, for example, on Roosevelt’s involvement with the Evian Conference of 1938, they would write: “Roosevelt exhibited a kind of amateur geographer’s fascination with the idea of moving people around and creating new countries or societies.”

One might ask what is the ultimate goal of the writers: Is this book intended as an attack on the Democratic Party, and in particular, President Franklin Roosevelt for his failure to intercede on behalf of European Jewry, or is it a thoughtful historical study of the rise of Herbert Hoover and his impact on shaping and empowering the pro-Israel agenda?

0 Comments — Leave your comment