Fox News reports that the rift between black voters and Jewish voters within the Democratic Party is widening. Frankly, however, I'm skeptical that all this will amount to much this November.
It has long been known--poll after poll has shown it--that the most conservative voters in America are black. On welfare, guns, drugs, crime, abortion, family values, religion, you name it, no one's more conservative than black voters. (As a group, that is. Your mileage may vary.). You can even see it in the culture--pick up Chris Rock's hilarious Bigger and Blacker video some time. Look past the four-letter words and the frank sexual references, and you'll have a hard time not noticing this: the man is more conservative than Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich put together. So's his mostly-black audience.
Yet if you listen to Rock address politics directly, he generally seems to think that Republicans are the source of all evil in America. So, in fact, do most black people I know. This is hardly surprising; the same polls often show that a majority of black voters believe the government created the AIDS and crack epidemics to hurt the black community, and that Republicans are by and large responsible (primarily Reagan and those who came after him). Black voters who don't believe that still tend to believe that most of the bad things in America spring from the Republican Party. Democrats benefit from this as a party on election day, although it leads to a schizoid problem for them, since a huge swath of their party's base is far more conservative than the elites at the top.
Similarly, as Howard Fienberg notes over at Kesher Talk, George W. Bush's approval ratings have gone up 30 percentage points among Jews since his election. Despite this, even after the explosion of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic outbursts by Democrats, the almost complete failure of any Democratic leaders of national stature to condemn it, and even after the staunch, unwavering support for Israel we've seen over the last few years by the much-reviled "Christian Right," Jewish voters have gone from an anemic 17% self-identifying as Republican to a staggering...18%.
Now, there is a hidden problem in this statistic, which Fienberg and others don't address--the phenomenon of "Have To Register As A Democrat." In many large cities, such as New York and Chicago, it is widely assumed that whoever wins the Democratic nomination (for any office: mayor, city council, district attorney, whatever) will likely win the general election. Even Republican-leaning voters will very frequently register as Democratic simply so they can select which Democrat will win the general election. Such people quite frequently vote Republican in the general elections, which is one of several reasons why Republicans can sometimes win in areas where Democrats appear to have them outnumbered 2 to 1 or more.
Furthermore, as I've written before, Jewish voters have a strange habit of supporting people who don't support them, or who even treat them with contempt. I don't claim to understand it. But I'm not the first to notice it.
Beyond all that, history shows that, despite what anyone may think, party identification for most people seems to be largely a matter of inertia. Most voters are Democrats because they've always been Democrats, as have their parents and grandparents (with maybe an apostate in the family here and there). Republicans tend to pick up some upwardly-mobile or disillusioned voters (like myself), but as historian Kevin Phillips has observed, the vast majority of people vote party first, issues second, and will tend to support the same party they've always supported. As astounding as this sounds, with the exception of the startling shift toward Republicans in America's rural areas over the last 30 years, voting patterns in most areas of the country have barely changed since Lincoln was President.
That's right, I said Lincoln.
Want some even more startling proof? Historian Stephen F. Hayward recently pointed this one out: in the 1960s, in some congressional districts, Democratic House and Senate candidates who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 often got as much as 90% of the black vote. George H.W. Bush, a lifelong NAACP supporter and the son of the most reliably pro-civil-rights member of the Senate, lost his 1968 bid for the Senate to a Democratic opponent who had voted against the Civil Rights Act--and 90% of the black vote went to the segregationist, not Bush. As it happened, in Texas, 90% of black voters at that time were registered Democrats--and still are.
In short, then: despite the infighting between Jews and blacks, and the weird, schizoid effect all this has on the Democratic Party, don't expect much to happen. A sea change in black or Jewish voting habits is unlikely. It might contribute to low voter turnout in some congressional districts, but not much else is likely.
(Thanks to DC Thornton for the news article link.)
* Update * This article has been published by Blogcritics.
I think that they have Battered Voter Syndrome. It's like women who won't leave an abusive relationship. Same exact thing.
Democrats push for legislation that keeps African-Americans isolated and weak. We all know that welfare started out to be a helping hand but has turned into a crippling blow to the black community. Affirative action is the same way - started for the right reason but turned into a horrible mistake.
Black America is being "physically" abused by the ones they think love them - the Democratic Party.
Jews are being "mentally" abused. Anti-semitism emanates from the Democratic Party and the Jewish voters are just taking it and behaving like they "deserve" it.
Just like battered women...
It's just my opinion - I could be wrong.
Ara - that's your cue...
Dean,.
I saw one Jewish gentleman speaking on CSPAN-1 this past summer. He said the reason he voted Democratic is a rather self-serving cricular argument. He stated the reason he voted Democrat is because he always has. He further stated he just feels at home in the Democratic Party, too.
I wondered if the narrow-mindedness of certain group in the Republican Party has anything to do with it, too. This group, which I will not name publicly, waxes rather intolerantly about unconventional people.
They also therein wage political battles against people unneccessarily. One important principle in successful politicians is to choose your fights smartly. This not smart.
They also wax loudly about America being a Christian nation. I can think of nothing more narrow-minded that will repel Jews than that. They know full well they are not Christians and have not interest in becoming Christians. I see this as one more stupid thing some Republicans do to repel average people.
George W. Bush's approval ratings have gone up 30 percentage points among Jews since his election.
That seems to match my observation among my friends and family.
Yet you mention this:
the explosion of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic outbursts by Democrats...
Hm. I think you are shading the truth here, a bit. If you are referring to the the McKinney family and that guy in Alabama, I would agree that was anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
But most of what the liberal Democrats are spouting is just tired talk of tolerance for both sides. You know, the moral equivalency thing.
Is this anti-Semitism? I don't think most Jews feel that way.
That's "just how Democrats are." Tolerant. Open-minded. That's fine in most cases.
Except when it comes to the war on terror and its most visible front in Israel. That's the basis of my disagreement with most liberal Democrats. And anyone else who goes wobbly on this issue.
YOu point out, correctly I might add:
[T]he staunch, unwavering support for Israel we've seen over the last few years by the much-reviled "Christian Right,"
This is interesting but doesn't mean much to Jewish voters when it comes time to vote. I'm not sure it means much anymore to conservatives for that matter.
Jewish voters have gone from an anemic 17% self-identifying as Republican to a staggering...18%.
Also matches my personal observations.
Maybe Jewish voters are not single-issue voters, not even on Israel.
And for those who are, maybe Jewish voters are taking a "wait-and-see" attitude; can you blame us? Talk is cheap. Deeds matter. The war on terror has only just begun. Israel's fate hangs by a thread. One mistake and she's gone. GONE. It's easy for us in the Diaspora to remember that. Even easier for those who are not Jewish at all.
I'm still waiting to see if POTUS follows through. Every so often he says the right thing. Then it is worked over by Colin Powell. It is nerve-wracking, to say the least.
You mention the "Have To Register As A Democrat" syndrome. Honestly, I've never run into that personally, which is not to say it doesn't happen.
Jewish voters have a strange habit of supporting people who don't support them, or who even treat them with contempt.
Hm. That IS something I have personally observed.
For example, how many Jews voted for Jimmy Carter? And still support him today? Haven't they read his account of the Camp David negotiations? THERE's one Christian Evangelist who doesn't support Israel.
Makes me wonder about the TRUE feelings and motivations of all the rest.
On the other hand, how many Jews detest Richard Nixon? He WAS an anti-Semite (just read the Watergate transcripts).
Yet it was Nixon who backed up the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War.
It's very complicated.
You are correct about party inertia.
You are NOT correct about "nothing much will happen."
The gap between Gore and Bush was so narrow that even a small shift to Bush by Jews and/or blacks could put him back in the White House for a second term.
Kevin,
Your comments are well-spoken.
I'd say it this way:
When you get married, you marry the entire family, not just your spouse.
Choose wisely.
Rosemary summed my feelings quite nicely.
Well-noted post, and thanks for the mention.
Kevin: Your points are well-taken. And yet, I think it's easy to exaggerate that influence. Maybe we can get more into that later.
Ara: "That's just how liberal Democrats are" -- a common hubris. It's not particularly true in my experience. But anyway...
Besides the two you mentioned, there have been a number of reports of rumblings all through the Congressional Black Caucus--it is mostly blacks I'm afraid. There was also an outburst by the Dallas head of the NAACP in 2000. There've also been some terrible apolgists for Arafat. I don't have a list, but I could start compiling them. They deserve as much attention as David Duke got 10 years ago (even though he never got elected to anything as a Republican--he did as a Democrat a few times, but never made national attention when he did... hmm, wonder why?).
As for "Have to register as a Democrat"--you'd never see it in Michigan. You would definitely see it in Chicago, where the only Republican to get elected there in my lifetime was a one-term Congressman who lucked into two factors: it was the Gingrich Revolution year (1994), and, Dan Rostenkowski was the incumbent Democrat and the scandals that wound up with his imprisonment were just reaching boil. Two years later the Republican who unseated Rosty was replaced by a Democratic Party flunky, which is pretty much what everyone expected to happen.
Republicans do not win in Chicago. For anything. Period. The organization is too strong, and they actually do all kinds of very nasty things to people who are involved in Republican politics in the city--your garbage might not be collected for weeks at a time, for example. (NO I am not making that up.) In Chicago, you register as a Democrat if you want a say in who will be Mayor, who will be your Alderman, etc. That's just how it is. Ask anyone who lives there and votes.
The Democratic party flunkies in Chicago are so cynical about this that on election day, they'll even tell people, "Remember, we don't care who you vote for at the top of the ticket, just remember to keep supporting our guys here in the city." No, I'm not making that up either.
New York is similar but not as bad. There the Republicans have enough clout that they can occasionally elect a mayor. But still, for city council and other positions, it's about 85% likely that the Democrat will win. So crossover registrations are common in places like that.
Back to Michigan: probably the worst thing to happen to Detroit was when they decided to have "non-partisan" elections. This in effect gives the city one-party rule. Like Democrats or hate them, the fact is that without a second party to keep them honest, the single party (whichever it is) can become hopelessly corrupt and nothing will ever change.
"common hubris"...?
Common hubris is basically a common presumption.
I guess Dean is suggesting that the comment you made: "That's just how liberal Democrats are" is an arrogant thing to say on your part.
And not true in his experience.
That's just my opinion though...
Heres my question. We know that its wrong. and the only people who dispute that are those who recieve the unequal benefits (blacks, hispanics and women. My question is what do we do to stop it. Normal law abiding citizens of the country don't riot or get up in arms, this is whats wrong. The silent majority has no voice in this country or means to protect itself. What do you want us to do riot and burn our homes and stores, maim and/or kill innocent passers by. That would make no sense. There are more under privleged poor whites in this country than all the other groups combined. So if a white obeys the laws works and studies hard. He's punished. For what. Its ok to have racial pride except if your white? Unbelievable. What do we do to stop the madness?