Democracy for the Middle East
March 17, 2004Why Jewish-Americans Should Vote For Bush
With all respect to those who think their decision should be based on Bush's policy toward the caribou, here's Amy Horowitz' lucid articulation of the case for voting Republican this year:
Historically, Jewish voters' primary political concern has been social justice, which has been the key driver of their political affiliations. From the 1850's to the early 20th century, Republicans garnered the majority of the Jewish vote due in no small part to the GOP's role in abolition. Franklin Roosevelt sharply reversed that trend for the Democrats, who ever since have been perceived by Jewish voters as the champions of social justice.
But while social justice is important, today policy towards Israel looms large in the minds of Jewish voters. Ever since the generous Camp David II offer was made--and responded to by the Palestinians with a campaign of unique savagery--Israel has become to many American Jews the most prominent issue in their electoral decisions.
IN 2000, THE JEWISH COMMUNITY viewed George W. Bush with more than a small amount of wariness as he entered office. His father was not considered a friend of Israel and many thought the younger Bush would continue his father's policies towards the Jewish state. Instead, he not only walked away from his father's views, but is perceived by many to be the most ardent supporter of Israel to ever occupy the White House.
How? For starters, Bush moved his administration decisively away from the Clinton doctrine of moral equivalency. His June 24, 2002 speech, in which he placed the blame for the current round of Middle East violence squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian leadership, was a watershed policy statement. Bush has allowed Israel to take measures in self defense and has taken bold steps to reshape the Middle East towards the goal of democratizing the region. He has also surrounded himself with senior policy advisors who share his desire to support the Jewish state.
THE JEWISH FACTOR in 2004 should not be underestimated; there are a number of key states with significant Jewish populations, any of those states might determine the election. In 2000, Bush lost Pennsylvania by five percentage points. While the Jewish population is only 2.5 percent of the state, they make up 5 percent of the electorate. If Bush could match Reagan's capture of 40 percent of the Jewish vote, it would put that state into a statistical dead heat. Jews make up another 5 percent of the electorate in Florida, where hundreds of votes decided the outcome last time.
The Jewish community could also help Republicans with their prolific ability to fundraise. Jewish voters raise tens of millions of dollars for presidential candidates and tens of millions more for congressional candidates each year. In 2000, over 90 percent of the money raised for the presidential campaign went to the Democrats. Bush is positioned to make a strong push for these dollars at a time when campaign finance reform has left Democrats dangerously short of hard money donations.
A STUNNING REMINDER of Jewish political power came in the 2002 midterm elections, with the ousting of two vehemently anti-Israel legislators, Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard. Both were Democrats and both were career antagonists towards Israel. The Jewish community targeted their reelection efforts. Both lost. (Interestingly, much of McKinney and Hilliard's money came from the Arab-American community.)
Now Jews are beginning to scrutinize the Democratic positions on Israel. The most problematic issue for the Democrats is their inability to come to grips with the failure of the Oslo Accords. It is this refusal to let this chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian saga die that has led them to embrace a notion that can be only described as "solutionism." It is the claim that a solution is near, if only Israel would be more flexible, and if not a solution will be forced. In the face of a steady stream of bus bombings and the mass-murder of civilians that Israel has endured for the last three years, this notion is understandably unpopular with many Jewish voters.
John Kerry has been conspicuously silent on many issues that could affect Israel, but what he has said bodes ill: one harbinger could be his statement that he would consider Jimmy Carter and James Baker--two of the most anti-Israel policy makers of the last 30 years--as envoys to the Middle East.
By supporting the Republicans in the coming election, the Jewish community would send a strong message to the Democratic party that their vote and money is in play and that their needs should no longer be taken for granted.
Home . Posted by Editor at March 17, 2004 09:32 PM . DFME's new internet address is www.dfme.org
Comments on this post:
I commend you for this article. Now more than ever, a strong support for President Bush is needed.
Sincerely,
Philip Harris,MD
Maryland, USA
Posted by: philip harris at July 21, 2004 02:27 AM
With all due respect, the future of Israel depends more on this country's energy policy (ie we need to find alternatives to oil; and we need to share these alternatives with China!) than on Bush's maverick-ad hoc foreign policy. He's an oil man and corporate man--and neither sector ultimately maintains any scruples when it comes to making a buck. The crisis of nuclear proliferation and frontier wars is the result of munitions manufacturers and dealers who have no ultimate regard for the fate of nations.
Surely, we need to get rid of all the authoritarian regimes in the middle east and other Islamic countries. (What the heck are we gonna do with Pakistan post-Musharaf?). We need another 75,000 troops in Afghanistan and we need 250,000 in Iran to get rid of the nukes and imanim (sic). But, we need a concerted world effort to do it. Bush has no rhetorical or diplomatic skills (Zilch!) and he has to go!
And an aside: his domestic policies are atrocious. He will bankrupt our government and local public sectors. But I think that is his intention--along with his Norquist cronies. His idea--me thinks--is to have the private sector and lending institutions (like banks, oil companies, insurance companies) run all the "homeland security" and overseas operations. He really has no clue or interest in what democaracy is.
Oh, and can I say here...that he is an idiot?
Signed, the tsionut!
Posted by: Steven Karmi at August 8, 2004 08:32 AM
Steven, great post. It will be fun to respond.
First of all, we're with you on the centrality of oil policy, and the reprehensible lack of scruples on the part of certain individuals, institutions and governments that contributed to the present mess. There couldn't be more than a degree or two of separation between the leaders of the EU corporations and agencies now feeding on the construction of Iran's infrastructure of oppression. Rather than targeting Israel's Freedom Fence, why didn't the "World Court" indict A.Q. Khan and Pakistan?
That said, we wonder if given the chance to reread your analysis of whether Bush should stay or go, you might think it somewhat hyperbolic. Do you really believe that this fellow "has no clue or interest in what democracy is?" Notwithstanding the mass media lense that substitutes snake-oil salesman for religious Christian or Jew, Bush seems like a very idealistic fellow and a shrewd one to boot. The dude that you portray as an inarticulate idiot just did a masterful job of analyzing the strategic challenge posed by extreme Islam and rallying his country to defend its democracy. The reflexive Bush-bashing prevalent among many democrats today reminds us of the shoddy treatment tnat LBJ received in his second term. Do the Democrats re-experience the Kennedy assasination every time a straight-shooting southerner is elected president? Remember - the alternative you have is the professionally ambivalent John Kerry.
We can understand why you would want to see the broadest possible array of international alliances supporting the enormous undertaking that you so well outline, but we think it's a mistake to believe that a president with a greater inclination towards or talent for nuance would be any more effective at altering the perceived interests of France, Germany, and Spain. Euros have traditionally exhibited blazing courage in the face of weaker nations with exploitable resources and blazing saddles in the face of stronger tyrants than themselves. (Check out this Europundits post.) While lamenting the absence of Brussels from the Iraq coalition, do you not agree that absent a century of American leadership, the official language of the EU would be German or Russian? Giuliani was sage to observe that the present threat is a direct outgrowth of the West's appeasement of Arab terror against Israel. Make no mistake - it was sheer cowardice that drove the so-called 'family of nations' to demonize one of the most enlightened and democratic nations in the world. It's the same cowardice that motivates them to demonize America. No amount of nuance will compel this sorry lot to stand together with us against the new threat.
Are we misreading you or do you really believe that our public and private sector leaders are, on the whole, without morals? Also, what value do you find in resurrecting the military-industrial complex conspiracy? Eisenhower may have been correct to warn us about the dangerous conflicts of interest that exist between governmental and private bodies. But singling out this dynamic as the prime motivating force behind American foreign policy seems like a throw back to to the days when casting America as the new imperial villain passed for intelligent commentary. Nor do we find a basis for comparing the repugnant business ethics that permitted debacles like Enron, MCI and HealthSouth and the outright barbarism that informed the actions of IG Farber and The East India Company.
By now it should be obvious that we are either more hopeful or more naive than you about the character of the people who make up this nation - whatever position they happen to be in. Dreadfully imperfect as they are, our corporate and political leaders were raised on the same Judeo-Puritan breakfast cereal as the rest of us. Mis-conflating Bill Gates with James Matheson obfuscates the basic difference between the Old World's history of exploitation and the New World's mission of freedom. The two worlds may share the same human tendency toward corruption and cruelty, but unlike the former - the latter accepts its accountability before a higher authority and agrees to hold itself to that standard.
Posted by: Editor at August 31, 2004 06:16 PM
Send to a friend
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)