When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
im still flabergasted that jewish people are democrats -- it like doesnt add up.
Are you being serious?
At a purely objective, factual level, American Jews tend to be one of the most socially liberal religious groups on earth. Hence, a leaning towards the values which, on paper at least, are espoused by the Democratic party.
They also tend to be better educated and more culturally-aware than the average American, which explains a sub-conscious aversion towards the GOP (at least, in the form in which it's existed since the democrats flipped away from open supporting the KKK and took a more covert approach towards marginalizing / subjugating black Americans.)
Why most American Jews vote for Democrats, explained
By John Sides March 24, 2015
President Obama takes the stage to speak at the 71st General Assembly
of the Union for Reform Judaism at National Harbor in Maryland on
Dec. 16, 2011. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
In a recent interview, Rep. Steve King of Iowa said:
I don’t understand how Jews in America can be Democrats first and Jewish second and support Israel along the line of just following their president.
Steve King has questions. We have answers.
I turned to the political scientist Kenneth Wald, who is the distinguished professor of political science and Samuel R. “Bud” Shorstein Professor of American Jewish Culture & Society at the University of Florida. He is also the author of the newly published article “The Choosing People: The Puzzling Politics of American Jewry.” He graciously responded to some questions via e-mail. Below is a lightly edited version:
Q: The title of your article refers to the “puzzling politics of American Jewry.” So what is puzzling about their politics?
In their voting behavior, political identity and attitudes, American Jews are disproportionately clustered on the liberal/Democratic side of the political spectrum. The pattern has held more or less steady since the late 1920s. But we expect most affluent people to favor the party of the right. As a group, even allowing for individual differences, American Jews rank at or near the top on most measures of social class — education, income, occupational prestige and such. That makes their commitment to the Democratic party and liberal values puzzling.
Q: Your argument discounts explanations that depend on the distinctive aspects of Judaism. For example, you say that it’s not that Jewish values promote liberalism, or that liberals have historically been more accepting of Jews, or that Jews tend to make common cause with other socially marginalized groups on the left, like blacks. What’s wrong with those explanations?
I criticize what I call “Judaic” theories that emphasize Jewish values, Jewish historical experience, and minority consciousness as the cause of this liberal/Democratic skew among American Jews. I don’t mean to deny that one can interpret Judaism as intrinsically left-liberal or read the historical record to conclude that liberals have historically been supportive of Jewish aspirations, or that having been a stigmatized minority may engender Jewish empathy with other oppressed groups.
But these explanations don’t help us explain political differences among Jews across countries or over time. American Jews share a religious tradition, historical inheritance, and minority status with most Jewish communities around the globe — and yet only Jews in the United States are concentrated on the left. Jews outside the U.S. are sometimes centrist, sometimes rightist, and occasionally indistinct from the general population, but never as tightly clustered on the left as American Jews.
And if, as these theories presuppose, liberalism is intrinsic in the Jewish experience, how can we explain short-term fluctuations in American Jewish political behavior? Judaic theories are universal and static, so they cannot account for American Jewish political exceptionalism nor the oscillations in American Jewish voting patterns.
Q: Your explanation centers on something different: the desire of Jews to defend the separation of religious identity and membership in the state. Where does this desire come from?
My account of American Jewish political behavior emphasizes the uniqueness of the American context. The U.S. Constitution follows a classic liberal model in separating citizenship and religion. Rather than rooting citizenship in blood or religion, the American system eliminates ethnic particularity as a condition for full membership in the political community.
This arrangement resonates powerfully with American Jews for practical reasons — it gives them a chance to participate as equals in a way they had not experienced elsewhere — and it differs radically from their historical experience as, at best, a “tolerated” minority whose status often changed on the whims of rulers.
American Jewish communities in the late 18th centuries celebrated the Constitution’s prohibition on religious tests in Article VI as their Magna Carta. Despite the passage of centuries, they have remained deeply attached to the idea of a secular state, believing that it accounts for their integration in what some have described as the “Kingdom of Kindness.”
Q: How does this account help us explain why Jews tend to vote for Democrats, and why that tendency is sometimes stronger or weaker?
Most Jews embrace the classic liberal regime of religion and state in the U.S. and typically support candidates that they perceive as most committed to it. Since the New Deal at least, the Democrats have been that party, but the pattern has occasionally been disrupted. For example, under the influence of identity politics in the late 1960s, Democrats favored policies that seemed to some American Jews to violate the classic liberal idea by granting legal privileges and benefits on the basis of race and gender. In reaction, the Democratic vote share among Jews dropped significantly and oscillated in the 1970s and 1980s.
When, however, the Republican party reached out to white Protestant evangelicals, who eventually came to constitute the party’s base, Jews reacted negatively because they perceived a threat to the liberal regime. Evangelicals, with their “God talk,” insistence on a “Christian America,” and general willingness to deny fundamental liberties to some minorities on religious grounds, struck many American Jews as a fundamental danger to core values of the polity. Accordingly, Jewish support for Democratic presidential nominees rose from roughly two-thirds to three-fourths in the 1990s and thereafter.
Even the glaring exception, the Republican-oriented Orthodox Jewish community, manifests similar dynamics. Less concerned with integrating in the manner of most American Jews, some of the Orthodox support Republican candidates who promise policies like tuition tax credits that might facilitate communal integrity. The point is that Jews strategically adapt their political behavior in response to the agendas and rhetoric of the political parties.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Monday said his “memory hasn’t evolved” on the meeting where President Donald Trump reportedly questioned why the U.S. allows in people from “shithole” countries, according to a local news report.
"My memory hasn't evolved,” Graham said. “I know what was said and I know what I said."
Graham had issued a statement Friday that appeared to back up the report that Trump used such language. "Following comments by the President, I said my piece directly to him yesterday," Graham said. "The President and all those attending the meeting know what I said and how I feel. I’ve always believed that America is an idea, not defined by its people but by its ideals."Graham’s fellow South Carolina senator, Republican Tim Scott, on Friday also saidGraham had told him that reports that Trump used the term “shithole” were “basically accurate.”
Trump has denied making the comments, and Sens. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) both said on Sunday that they didn’t hear Trump say “shithole.”
The president has been roundly criticized by Republicans, Democrats and world leaders for allegedly uttering the “shithole” phrase, a remark many have called racist.
From the Bible itself: In fairness, those suits date from long ago, and the discriminatory policies were probably put in place not by Donald Trump but by his father.
I'm just wondering when we'll be circling back to the Hitler meme? Trump has been called a racist for a while, last week he was losing his mind, I think he's still considered a potty mouth (right?). Oh, is he still taking orders from Mother Russia?
Booker said the president disparaged immigrants in New Jersey who serve as entrepreneurs and service members.
Booker said he was in Puerto Rico meeting with hurricane victims when Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) contacted him to recount what he heard Trump say in the meeting.
“I hurt,” Booker said, adding that he then cried “tears of rage” at Trump while continuing his work on the storm-battered American protectorate.
when I saw this exchange, I would have lost it if she called him a *****.
Trump has been called a racist for a while, last week he was losing his mind,
I was thinking about this yesterday, in a roundabout way.
More specifically, I was thinking about how the US has been at unending war for the past 17 years, but it's such a low-intensity war that it kind of diminishes the value of the term. Yes, I know it doesn't seem low-intensity to the families of those American servicemembers killed, but the reality is that caskets draped in flags get unloaded from cargo planes by the handful, rather than by the hundreds, here in the 21st century. A whole generation of Americans will be entering adulthood next year, with the mindset and experience that war is normal, without an appreciation for what a "real" war actually is.
Because Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
And, really, it's not like any country out there is really stupid enough to attack us. Japan tried in 1941, and it didn't end well. Germany tried in 1917, and it also didn't end well. Mexico attacked the US several times, and, well, there are an awful lot of US flags hanging in places which used to be Mexico these days.
But what about North Korea? While it defies logic and reason to imagine that a place like North Korea might actually launch an attack against the US, most things about North Korea defy logic and reason.
So maybe, just maybe, there's a cosmic reason for Trump to be the President right now. Any other man would probably be sane enough not to start World War 3 in retaliation, but I'm not sure that Trump is. And maybe the leadership of NK realizes this.
It reminds me of the old "Nuke the Moon" white paper, which I've posted before but will put here again, as it seems oddly prescient right now.
A Realistic Plan for World Peace a.k.a Nuke the Moon
"Gotta nuke something."
-20th century philosopher Nelson Muntz
World peace cannot be achieved by sitting around on our duffs singing hippy songs to the moon. Peace can only be achieved through excessive acts of seemingly mindless violence. Who do bullies pick on in the playground? The giant, crazy looking guy who looks ready to snap and kill the person nearest or some harmless looking weenie who appears to do anything to avoid conflict? People pick on the weenie because people like to start fights they think they can win. In the same way, people will continue to attack America and our interests when they get the idea that they can **** off America without us immediately eradicating them and everyone around them in the most painful way possible.
Now, if I were president, here's what I would do. Next time some country does something we don't take a pining too, such as supporting terrorism or speaking French, I'd pick the dumbest reason for an attack, e.g., "A 'q' should always be followed by a 'u'. I don't make the rules, Iraq, but I will enforce them." The more irrational you look, the more scared the country will be that you will really hit them hard. I'd then give the country the old one-week notice until bombing starts. Then, after just twenty-four hours, I'd start bombing. When the stupid dictator calls to complain, I'd say, "I meant one week max. Oh, and by the way, ground troops - one week." I'm sure that would be enough to capitulate the average evildoer, but some extra measures could help intimidate others as well. Like, instead of just saturation bombing a city, super-saturation bomb it. After annihilating everything until nothing but ash is left, I'd nuke the ashes. It's that extra bit of extremely disproportionate use of force that makes other countries start to wonder if America "has it all together" and really worrying who we'll lash out against next.
Of course, Europe will start complaining, and Europe's bad mouthing of America gives comfort to our enemies. I mean, those guys values are so messed up they think calling someone a "cowboy" is an insult. Best idea would be to assassinate the leader of the first European country we hear a peep out of. This will probably make us look evil, though, when we want the image of crazy and violent. So, when the Europeans ask why, I'd claim to never have heard of the person: "I didn't even know France had a leader. Sure it wasn't suicide? Yeah, committing suicide with a sniper rifle would be hard, but not impossible if you had a five-hundred yard length of string to work the trigger." Assassination does seem a little extreme, but we're talking about Europe. I mean, what are they going to do other than quickly capitulate under a mild threat of force. We'll probably start seeing, "We all love America!" parades in bids to not be our next targets.
Now the world will be pretty convinced that America is frick'n nuts and just looking for a fight, but we need to really ingrain it into everyone's conscious so that no one will ever even contemplate crossing us. This requires making good use of our nukes. I know, nukes can kill millions of people, but they sure aren't doing anyone any good just sitting around. I mean, how many years has it been since we last dropped a bomb on someone? No one even thinks we'll actually use one now. Of course, using nukes shouldn't be done haphazardly; all uses have to be well planned out because the explosions are so cool looking that we'll want to give the press plenty of notice so they can get pictures of the mushroom cloud from all sorts of different angles. But what to nuke? Well, usually the idea is populated cities, but, by the beliefs of my morally superior religion, killing is wrong. So why can't we be more creative than nuking people. My idea is to nuke the moon; just say we thought we saw moon people or something. There is no one actually there to kill (unless we time it poorly) and everyone in the world could see the results. And all the other countries would exclaim, "Holy @$#%! They are nuking the moon! America has gone insane! I better go eat at McDonald's before they think I don't like them."
But why stop there. We've got like tons of national parks; we surely wouldn't miss just one if we nuked it. Our excuse will be that we heard a drug dealer was hiding there. Then the foreign nations would be like, "Sacre bleu! These Americans are nuking themselves! Surely they will think nothing of bombing us! Let's adapt their vapid culture as our own so they might consider us one of them."
Now all other countries will be completely freaked out and never even dream of messing with us. They'll say the name of America with hushed whispers and always praise us in public for fear of reprisal. We'd be like an Old Testament god to them; perhaps they would even start worshiping us - actually, we should make that a condition of favored trade status. Not only will we have ensured peace for ourselves, but we can also now easily end any conflict between other countries. We see two nations warring over some territory, all we'll have to do is say, "Hey, break it up," and they'll be racing to concede to each other rather than get on the bad side of the "crazy, homicidal Americans." And, if people are being oppressed by an evil government, all we'll have to do is say, "Hey you! Stop being communist!" and the next day they'll have elections, capitalism, and free-press to keep from having their country turned into a parking lot. It will be that easy to motivate our fellow man, because there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Now all that's needed to keep peace is to come up with new and creative ways of looking insane and belligerent without actually harming anyone. Missile defense is probably a good step in that direction. Next time some country steps out of line, we launch a nuclear missile at them. Just seconds before it hits, we blow it up with our missile defense so that everyone there sees the huge explosion in the sky. Then the president would just call up their leader and say, "Hey, we lost sight of our SDI test. Did you see if it worked?"
By now, you're probably saying, "Great idea. But how to do we pay for all these random acts of violence?" Just create an "Other Country Tax", a tax for being a country other than the U.S. After implementing my plan, all the countries will be eager to pay the money, and probably add a nice tip to win favor.
So there you have it, a real peace plan that could actually work. Warmongering pacifists want us to act all nice such that countries think we're rational and won't kill everyone with a blind fury, thus making it possible they might actually attack us and draw us into a war. But, if America follows my idea and lashes out at the slightest provocation with unmeasured vengeance, there can be peace. So there's the choice: either be a homicidal maniac thus ensuring peace and love in the world, or be some pacifist hippy while the streets flow with the blood of the innocent.
But what about North Korea? While it defies logic and reason to imagine that a place like North Korea might actually launch an attack against the US, most things about North Korea defy logic and reason.
did you read that N and S Korea are going to have joint teams in the winter Olympics this year... more logic defying.
Yes, most of the Cubans have moved to either Tampa or Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami is now mostly Haitian / Dominican / white trash.
Yeah, not really. Cubans account for more than half of the hispanic population. The rest are composed by other countries, some barely coming to 5% each.
Originally Posted by hector
In order to be a refugee you have to be fleeing from a country you no longer believe offers you a semblance of "Life, Liberty, and Happiness".
The "people" you refer to in Miami (SoFla) are not refugees. I would refer to them as tourists or propagandists or opportunists.
And yes, I've met quite a few. And have told them what I think of them. Something I can do in this country, unlike in Cuba.
In order to be a refugee, the US has to label you as one.. I agree with the propagandist and opportunist.
Overall, I had no issues with the older crowd. The younger generations want to feel the bern too much.
01-12-2018, 08:41 PM
0
*
