I would think s/he would have to be pretty white-bread. What anti-Semitism there is these days seems mostly to be visceral and reactive, so the candidate would have to already have some distance between hi/rself and the common stereotypes of Jews. It might be hard, because there are so many of those stereotypes.
On the D side, Russ Feingold, Wisconsin-born, -raised and -educated, impresses me as someone with real potential mass appeal. Yes, he did get to go to Oxford and Harvard Law and interned with Mayor Lindsay in (shudder!) New York, but he could probably parry accusations of cultural elitism pretty well.
There have even been some odd “The expediter of my lunacy is my friend” alliances between Fundamentalist Christians and Fundamentalist Jews. One case (there have been several) involved Clyde Lott, a Mississippi farmer and Pentecostal lay minister (also a cousin, though not a close one, of Trent Lott) who was assisting a group of fanatical Israeli rabbis intent on hastening the Messiah by trying to breed the perfect red heifer. One of the organizations Eric Rudolph was involved with raised money for similar endeavors in Israel.
True. There are about the same number of Muslims in the United States as there are Jews and compare their presense in American politics or other fields.
Definitely, but they probably need to be moderately religious Reform or Conservative - not so secular as to turn off religious-oriented voters of all faiths, but not so religious as to where their level of observance might seem them alien to mainstream America (wear a kippah, shomer shabbat, eats strictly kosher, etc) and make others question how effective they would be as president (relations with Middle Eastern nations, diplomatic dinners with tref, national emergencies on Shabbat, and so on).
Not any time soon. Because no one could get on the ballot who wasn’t a Zionist, and a Zionist has divided loyalties to another nation. You cannot have a President who has divided loyalties to another nation.
No, it’s not the same thing at all. The Vatican does not keep a standing army and is not causing anyone to fear the start of a World War at their doorstep, every moment of every day. Vatican City is little more than a district of Rome, that happens to be sovereign.
The question that I think should be asked of the President, is, “If the United States had to fight a war with that country, which side would the President favor?”, not that I foresee a war with Israel any time soon, but a direct conflict is not the only source of conflict of interest.
The President should be loyal to America, and not beholden to a foreign nation.
No one who is particularly electable more so. Lieberman? Be real man. Bloomberg? Doesn’t have the mass appeal. Feingold is too liberal. So on.
A candidate succeeds by being someone who most Americans can identify with. A different religion is not an impossible obstacle to overcome in that regard but it is a major one.
I’m not sure I’m following you here. Why would a Jewish candidate have to be a Zionist? For that matter, what do you mean by Zionist? I’m assuming you aren’t using the literal meaning of somebody who wants a Jewish homeland established because the last President who had to deal with that issue was Truman.
This makes no sense at all. As a result of Zionism, the state of Israel was formed 60 years ago, and the existence of Israel has been the major political issue with all of its neighbours in the Middle East ever since – and every president since Truman has had to cope with that.
This is just about what I’d say, too. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a black, female or Jewish president in my lifetime (although not simultaneously). Any Jewish candidate would probably have to give a JFK- or Mitt-style speech emphasizing that his or her faith, and sympathy/support for Israel, would not get in the way of fundamental loyalty to the United States or commitment to our national interests.
As it happens, just this morning I heard an excerpt from Vaughn Meader’s comedy routine about JFK on the radio. It was a fake press conference. A reporter with a stereotypically Jewish/New Yorker voice asked, “Do you think the U.S. will ever have a Jewish president?” Meader, as JFK, said, “I see no reason why the U.S. couldn’t have a Jewish president. Of course I, as a Catholic, could never vote for him…”
Nicely spoofed the prejudiced attitudes of nearly a half-century ago. Of course there’s still room for improvement, but I think we’ve mostly outgrown them.
Exactly. Zionism as an issue is history. It’s like British politicians in 2008 debating the American Revolution and whether the Stamp Act was a good idea.
Israel exists. Have you heard any American politician, of any political orientation, suggest that Israel shouldn’t exist? It’s a non-issue in American politics.
So, as I said, the last President who had to deal with the issue of Israel’s existence was Truman.
Certainly both race and gender have been issues in this race, often in bad ways. But Unintentionally Blank said “relative non-issue”, and I think that’s right. This is the first time that a woman has been a serious contender for president, and the first time that a black person has been a serious contender too. And one of those two will almost certainly win, in spite of racism and in spite of sexism, because for most voters in the US, being in the “wrong” race and/or gender are not reasons to vote against candidates – and may even be reasons to vote for candidates belong to groups that have been discriminated against. So they are issues, but not the kind of issue they would have been a few years ago.
Personally, I long for the day when nobody gives a rat’s left buttock whether the candidate is Jewish, black, female, gay, blonde, heterochromic, et cetera and the focus is on the candidate’s statements, credibility, and record. It won’t happen, of course, as long as governments are elected by glabrous hypercranial monkeys with delusions of rationality, but there you go.
Well it’s a matter of how the election process would work. The Conservatives would want a Jew who was hawkish on Israel. They’d push him to make some extreme statements. The left would push him to show sympathy for the Palestinian cause. If he did show sympathy for the Palestinian cause, the right would come out with the ‘self-hating Jew’, epithet. If he was too gung ho for Israel, the left would protest him vigorously.
Also, Jews tend to be shorter. I can’t think of a prominent Jew in politics who is tall. We tend to not nominate short men for the Presidency.
I’m of the feeling that a reform Jew who looks kind of gentile could be elected president within the next 20 years or so. He’d probably have to attend a synagogue on a semi-regular basis, in order to convince the religious right that he believes in God. He’d still be Judeo-Christian, right? In any case, it’ll still happen sooner than getting an avowed atheist elected president.
