By
Larry Laibson
There have been many questions and articles regarding the voting characteristic of some groups that have generally been consistently “liberal” and “Democratic: i.e. Jews, Blacks and Hispanics.
I continually get questions from friends on how Jews in such large majorities support Democrats over the years especially Obama. Responses can vary and from the ’30,000 foot level” books like Norman Podhoretz’s “Why Are Jews Liberal” (a hard read) which try to cover it by addressing liberalism arising from “the hardships faced by our ancestors in the old country.” A more understandable Podhoretz was exhibited in his 2009 Wall Street Journal 2009 with the same title. This article is clearer with “social issues” being a driving factor but the full answer was not totally satisfactory for today’s generation and the current occupant in the White House.
Jews, Blacks and Hispanics strongly supported Obama in his 2008 election. The Bush War Years was on everyone’s mind and the collapse of the housing bubble/stock market was taking a big toll. Obama, with no background or accomplishments, was charismatic, was a liberal’s delight in being Black and promised “Hope” and “Change”.
I can understand these dynamics in 2008, but not four years later in the 2012 election in which the problems of the Obama Administration were becoming clear to many, including growing tensions in the Middle East/Benghazi, lack of delivery of “promised results” and cracks appearing in the U.S.-Israel relationships.
In 2012, recognizing the importance of Florida to winning a Presidential election, a key target was the Democratic sections of South Florida punctuated by a large Jewish population.
The odd prevailing thing at that time was that the majority of these Jews supported “social issues” over “Israel”, and I personally found this out on a phone bank I participated in during the 2012 Presidential election where Jews in South Florida were the target audience for the phone questionnaire asking them to prioritize 5 items including health care, the economy, foreign affairs and Israel (I forget the other question.) By a substantial majority of those polled, Israel was typically number 3 or 4 in priorities with 1 being the highest.
Yes, a significant percentage of Jewish voters supported Obama in 2012, but the percentages were lower than in 2008, and the percentage supporting Democrat candidates has dropped even further as the result of the Obama Administration’s negativism toward Israel and Netanyahu. Obama’s arms deal with Iran and the general failures of both domestic and foreign policies have all become clearly evident. This shift in the support of Jews away from the Democrats, while not “large” to some, is nonetheless measurable, and I have spoken to here-to-fore “hard-core” Democrats who were at strong odds with the President’s negative relationship and actions with Israel.
Let’s look at the Jewish vote in the last 5 Presidential elections. One can see a constant level of support for the Democrat candidate including the 2008 election and then a significant drop of 9% between 2008 and 2012.
1992 Clinton 80%
1996 Clinton 78%
2000 Gore 79%
2004 Kerry 76%
2008 Obama 78%
2012 Obama 69%
I don’t have the statistics readily handy but a similar trend occurred for Black voters with Obama’s 90% support in 2008 eroded by about 15% in 2012.
Obama strongly urged a heavy Black turnout for the 2014 midterm elections seeing this as a necessity to retain control of the Senate and to take back the House. This turnout did not occur for a number of reasons that political analysts have dissected in many fashions. However, the lack of Obama himself being on the ticket was certainly a factor along with the lack of delivery of his 2007-2008 promises to the Black community in jobs and increases in their well-being. These had not materialized since Obama took office and, in fact, were worse in many cases. The Blacks stayed home in large numbers, the GOP took control of the Senate, increased control in the House and increased their majority in Governorships.
Presidential Election Day is 19 months away, but the campaign already has begun. Aside from Democrat Hillary Clinton, three Republican candidates with reasonable chances at the nomination have declared and many others are on the cusp. It will be a very large primary field with very diverse candidates covering the spectrum of GOP issues and positions. This is certainly true for the GOP field but “the jury is out” for the Democrats as Hillary is marching fairly unimpeded to what many have called “the coronation she expects”. Unless something drastic happens, Hillary is both “team and the bench” of the Democrat Party. In spite of the numerous questions surrounding her, other viable candidates have yet to come forward.
Will the idea of the “first lady President” be a positive factor in the minds of liberal Jews, Blacks and Hispanics in 2016 just like the “first Black President” was a strong factor in 2008?
Will the Blacks and Jews support Hillary as they did her husband in his two elections? This is doubtful as he was very charismatic and the health, and state of the economy and world position was much better in the late 1980s-early 1990s than they are today. Plus, Hillary has a record as Secretary of State for four years, being directly tied to Obama’s foreign policies and problems including those permeating in the Middle East, Russia’s incursions and hegemonic expansions by both China and Iran.
The Republican Party is making significant inroads in heretofore Democrat strongholds; the Jewish, Black and Hispanic communities as more have personally felt or have seen the ravages of today’s Democratic Party which is not the Democratic Party of the past, but has morphed to the Far Left or Progressive Party whose policies have already been demonstrated by Obama.
Amazingly, Hillary is fighting hard to retain this label and Base. Is she going to run on “a third Obama term” platform or deviate as she is being asked to by strong blocs like the Unions who want her to speak out against one of Obama’s legacy items, TPP, even though she was an integral part of its development?
Obama was way ahead of the masses on the use of social media and his campaign used this to their advantage in 2008. The GOP was far out of date but demonstrated that they have caught up by their use of better technologies in the 2014 mid-term elections.
Today, there are even more social media alternatives to the Main Stream Media which give more and better information to the voters, including cable news, Facebook, Twitter, etc., and so many new Jewish, Black and Hispanic groups are spreading their message thought both formal organizations as well as social media. One is the Republic Jewish Coalition, a national organization with Chapters throughout the Country, including Atlanta and South Florida. Measurable increases in conservative Blacks and Hispanics have also occurred, along with their leadership in GOP ranks and their fostering political activist groups to grow their numbers. All three demographics are increasing in their numbers, their outspokenness, their activities and their contributions to the GOP.
2016 will certainly not be a cakewalk, whether or not Hillary is the Democrat candidate. Strong grassroots efforts all around will be the name of the game. Additionally, unlike the 2012 election, the GOP will need to coalesce around the final candidate emerging at their Convention in July 2016.
In conclusion, I’m optimistic about the emerging dynamics of Jews, Blacks and Hispanic voters. There has been enough enlightening and movement away from past arbitrary “line in the sand and that’s how I and my family has always voted” politics that nothing should be taken for granted in the upcoming 2016 elections.
I do not think the Jewish, Black and Hispanic and vote for Hillary will return to the higher numbers experienced by Obama etal in the 2008 and prior Presidential elections.
As demonstrated in the 2014 elections a measurable shift, albeit “small” and still giving a majority to the Democrats, is more than enough to win the election.
Larry,
I appreciate your analysis, much of which I agree with. But I also differ with your comments in some regards, most especially with your conclusion. And to help you understand where I come from, I self-describe as a ‘Conservative American’. By that I mean a true or Paleo conservative, a la Pat Buchanan. Today’s Republican Party has been hijacked by the Left, and if the media were honest (which they are not), they would clearly label the Republican Party as ‘Neo-Conservative’. Very little commonality exist between the true conservative and the Neo-Con. And by American, I mean just that. Not a dual citizen or an individual with divided loyalties. Sort of like our oath of citizenship states that one can’t be loyal to two potentates.
So with that said, while more of those groups you discussed might likely be voting Republican as you suggest, what truly are they voting for? A Neo-Con candidate who sports an ‘R’ in front of his name is worthless to me. That candidate likely supports homosexual marriage (‘social issue’ as you term it) and has ventured out to Las Vegas to kiss the ring and receive the blessing (and $s) of wealthy casino magnate Sheldon Adelson who self admits his first priority is to the foreign nation of Israel. Larry, I view that, in my opinion, as a form of Treason, I really do. You mention ‘cracks in the U.S.-Israel relationship’ helping to move some to the Republican Party. I think that relationship should be blown wide open in order that the U.S. might regain it’s sovereignty!
And all this can be seen in our foreign policy today. I’m old enough to have feared and hated the former Soviet Union. But today’s Russia and Putin, is more of a throwback to the days of the Czars, not the Soviet Union which was substantially controlled by the Bolsheviks, who are related to today’s Neo-Cons. Russia should be our ally, but we continually attack Russia and demeanize Putin. Larry, you mentioned ‘Russia’s incursions’. The facts support Russia playing defense to U.S. aggressiveness. Fortunately for the world, our madness here in the U.S. is beginning to be marginalized as the rest of the world has had enough of it.
I’ve gone on long enough here, and I hope it’s clear that the U.S. has tremendous problems with both ‘controlled’ parties. There really is no diversity in the candidates to any large degree. We somehow need to evict the entire political class, and start over. Somehow the American people must be awakened and educated to the mess we are in. All institutions in the Western World have been corrupted!
I agree that the American people must be awakened and educated to the mess we are in but not that “all institutions in the Western World have been corrupted.” Some, certainly, but “all” is too pervasive for even the expanded Federal Government that has “forgotten” the bases and limitations for its creation by our Constitution; a federal Government for specific responsibilities and powers with the States retaining their sovereignty in all others (emphasized in Amendment IX and X).
I agree that both parties have been guilty in this deviation from the Constitution but I believe you and I differ on degrees of responsibility attributed to both of the Parties and to Individuals within these Parties. To me, the two Parties are like a football field with the 50 yard line separating the Democrats and the Republicans. To some it is Black or White versus Grey on whether one is either a Democrat or Republican and recent critical elections, such as the 2012 Presidential, was lost because of this. The battle for winning elections is in the middle of the football field which is plus or minus 20 yards on either side of the 50 yard line. Between the goal post and the 30 yard line on either side are the hard core, the Far Left/Progressives on the Democratic side and the Far Right on the Republican side. An important difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that when a “Democrat” strays toward the middle and may have some “R” values, the Hard Core Democrat still comes out to vote for the Democrat candidate as they are still preferable to the Republican candidate. Unfortunately, the opposite is true for too many Hard Core Republicans who see their candidate, as you put it, a “Neo Con Candidate” (I guess this is what others call a RINO) and they stay home at the election.
This is a guaranteed lose-lose proposition as evidenced by the 2012 Presidential election where so many stayed home because Romney was “not Conservative enough.” I pro-offer that there was a world of difference of “conservativism” between Romney and the Far Left/Progressive ideologue that was allowed to win a second term in the White House. The likely Democrat candidate in 2016 will be similarly from the Far Left/Progressive camp. The huge Republican field is too large and I wish it would be substantially smaller and concentrated with viable candidates. However, it does offer a large diversity in candidate values, again ranging from the 50 yard line to the 0 yard line on the Republican side of the field. While all of the “too many” Republican candidates may not have “Every R Value or Principle” that some Republicans want, All of them are have substantially more conservative values that say Hillary or Warren. I applaud that hard primary fights of the Hard Core Republicans but I implore that after the candidate is selected at the GOP Convention in July 2016, they support that candidate in November 2016. Staying home and not voting is a victory to the Far Left/Progressives that they deplore.
Winning the Battle and Losing the War with a Clinton Presidency is not a viable option
Under the current Democratic Administration, our foreign policy has been decimated along with our standing as a world leader. Our allies cannot trust us and our enemies do not fear us. Roosevelt said “speak softly but carry a big stick” and Reagan put these words into action. I disagree with you on Putin, who as the ex KGB chief, is akin to the USSR militarily aggressive and potential expansionistic leaders that Presidents Carter and Reagan faced during a time that any Russian ground attack from the East was expected to reach the English Channel in 30 days. Reagan recognized this threat and his Defense Department, along with our Allies, planned for this contingency.
This is in contrast to Chamberlain in the 1930’s who placated Hitler in spite of his many signs of aggression. Chamberlain “pulled back” into his national borders and reduced support to his Country’s allies. His weakness and naïvity emboldened Hitler (who initially had his East covered by his pact with Stalin), and the rest is History.
Under the Obama Administration, similar actions of weakness as a world leader have been occurring as he reduces or withdraws U.S. leadership from the world stage, reduces the size of our military to pre- WWII levels in some cases, and seemingly abandons our allies while reaching out to their enemies. Such perceived weakness in our President does not go unnoticed by our potential enemies or adversaries (Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Islamic Terrorists, etal) who no longer fear us and exert their own territorial or hegemonic expansions.
The U.S. and the rest of the world is not a safer place under a weak President who withdraws from the World Stage and abandons our allies. I believe that any Presidential Candidate who may espouse differently would be supported only by a minority.
“Winning the Battle and Losing the War with a Clinton Presidency is not a viable option.” –Larry L.
This kind of thinking has crippled any meaningful reform in American politics, because it assumes that the GOP (especially at the national level) represents the means to restore a constitutional republic. The last 25 years have shown us a different picture.
In the last decade when the GOP achieved the goal cherished by those of us in the Reagan revolution – majorities in the federal legislature, a Republican president, and a majorities of Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court – was there a great move to restore our liberties and halt the socialistic/fascistic momentum? What does the GOP have to show for their efforts? To me this is prime facie evidence that to continue to prop up the current GOP is to guarantee the continued dissolution of the American Republic. The GOP rails on and on about “repeal and replacing” Obamacare. The GOP could have starved Obamacare to death by refusing to fund every aspect of it in every appropriation that the House of Representatives approved. Name me one instance where Boehner lead the charge to do so. Perhaps he was protecting his benefactors that benefited from it. Show me one “repeal and replace” strategy that the GOP leadership nationally and in the states that does just that instead of “replace Democratic socialist/fascistic control with Republican fascistic/socialist control”. My friends, that war has been lost.
Nor do I think that the GOP can capture the Black vote. Note that this bloc’s vote in California in 2008 was 98% for Obama… and an overwhelming majority of this bloc voted for Proposition 8. The GOP national and state leadership’s capitulation on the marriage issue (with very few exceptions) — our own state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act being a good example — shows that the “bread alone” politics that rejects Christian morality and ethics (yet will use them as talking points to gain votes) results in losing battles and the war, and thus is not a viable option.