[update below] [2nd update below]
As the now old saying has it. A Gallup poll just out has Obama beating Romney 68% to 25% among Jewish voters. The folks at The Weekly Standard and Commentary—who have been diligently portraying Obama as hostile to Israel—must be throwing up their arms in dismay. In the 1984 election pro-Reagan neoconservatives promised to deliver the Jewish vote to the GOP but it didn’t happen. Nor did it in 2004, despite Bush’s indefatigable support of Israel during the second Intifida. And it doesn’t look like it will finally happen this time, and despite Obama’s chilly relationship with Bibi Netanyahu. What is interesting about Jewish voters is how they have become more Democratic over the past two decades, and during which time the Republican party has adopted a virulent pro-Israel rhetoric. From 1968 through 1988, Jews voted two-to-one for the Democratic presidential candidate (except in 1980, when Jimmy Carter got around half the Jewish vote, but with the shortfall going to John Anderson, not Reagan). Republican candidates could count on a third of Jewish voters, even though the GOP did not go out of its way to cultivate them. But from the 1992 election onward Jews have voted for the Dem candidate on the order of 75-80% and despite Republicans falling over themselves in professing eternal love for Israel (not that Democrats haven’t done likewise or that Jewish voters are primarily driven by this issue). I have not investigated in depth the reasons as to why this has happened, as they seem sort of obvious. The drop in the Jewish vote for the GOP correlates almost precisely with the increasing dominance of evangelicals in the party, and on the American right more generally. Political extremism aside, American Jews in their majority—who are urban, educated, and live in deep blue states—do not relate to this segment of American society (and that lives in what really is “flyover country” for most Jews). The cultural chasm is wide. And end time Christian Zionists in Texas and elsewhere down that way are not going to narrow it. So William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer & Co. will just have to continue pulling their hair out after this election.
But even if Jews did shift in significant numbers to the GOP it wouldn’t have an effect on the election—expect maybe in Florida—, as the states where they are concentrated will still vote Obama.
UPDATE: Steve Kornacki at Salon has a piece on Romney’s play for Jewish voters, though says that his Israel trip and hard-line pro-Israel position is also aimed at evangelicals. But Walter Russell Mead, in his blog at The American Interest, argues that evangelicals are the main audience for Romney’s rhetoric on Israel, that “In American politics, taking a strong pro-Israel stand is a way of communicating your commitment to American exceptionalism and to American global leadership.”
2nd UPDATE: Peter Beinhart has a piece in The Daily Beast on how “Romney lost the American Jewish vote by picking Paul Ryan,” in which he makes some of the same arguments as I do above. He cites a study released July 10th by The Solomon Project—that I hadn’t seen—entitled “Jewish-American Voting Behavior 1972-2008: Just the Facts.” (August 14)
Arun,
Overall a good analysis, and as a card-carrying neo-con who subscribes to both of the magazines you mention, I thought the image of Kristol (and Podhoretz Jr.) pulling their hair out is a good one. Since I care about Israeli security, I’m actually glad that both parties consider themselves friends of Israel and play up their ties to the Jewish state, so I can’t get too worked up about what I consider misguided Jewish support for the Dems.
My one quibble would be with your analysis of the potential impact of a shift on the election — remember that Jews come out and vote in large numbers (although from a very small base) and those numbers can help shift a close race in a number of different swing states that have decent urban populations. Specifically I’m thinking of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (the northern part of the state near D.C.)
Fake Herzog, it is indeed the case that every vote counts in a cliff-hanger election and VA, PA, and OH could be cling-hangers on November 6th. But I doubt that Jewish voters in those places will make the difference. Jewish voters who accord primordial importance to Israel in American elections – and who may be upset with Obama on this score (though why I cannot imagine) – tend to be politically to the right and likely GOP voters in any case. One is more likely to find such voters in NY and FL than in northern VA or the Philadelphia Main Line.
So are you a neo-con or just a “con” (pronounced the American way, not French)? The term “neo-conservative” has been greatly abused over the past decade, mainly by liberals and lefties. The original neo-cons – Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick etc – were all liberals – or even social-democrats/moderate socialists – in their youth through mid-adulthood but moved to right in the 1970s, initially on foreign policy and selected domestic policy issues (they only moved right on the economy in the ’80s). They were Truman/Humphrey Democrats who felt that the Democratic party had lurched to the left. Thus the “neo” in the conservative. But whereas Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were/are neo-cons their sons, who have always been on the right, are not, at least not in my book. They are conservatives, period. One can only be a neo-conservative if one started out in the Democratic party. I should do a blog post on this.
I like to call myself a neo-con for a couple of reasons, but the basic one is the one you detail in your response to me — I was once a Democratic-leaning voter (more of an independent, but as an example I did vote for Clinton twice and for Gore in 2000) who was “mugged by reality” as I think Norman once put it. 9/11 was kind of my wake up call, although I soon moved right on economic policy and then finally on social policy (when I came back to the Catholic church).
Good response to me about Jews in this election — I’m afraid you are probably more right than I am. FWIW, you have become one of my favorite liberal bloggers, partly because I think your election analysis can be very dispassionate and fair.
I’m gratified you appreciate my blog… As for being a neo-con, given the way you describe the evolution of your views, you sound more like a neo-neo-con 😉 The real neo-cons – those of the 1970s – were 100% Democrats before drifting right. And a certain number were members of SDUSA (Social Democrats USA).
On Jews and the election, there’s this piece today on Florida http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4259765,00.html
And on swing states more generally, there’s this http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/polls-swing-state-obama-leads-romney.php