That’s just, um, amazing.
Really.
Know-It-All. 
Bush supports radical illegal immigration, he supports legal immigration, his cabinet is multiracial and multi-gendered, he panders to Hispanics, and so forth. The Old Right would not support these things. Basically, the point of Neo-Conservatism was to change Conservatism from serving European-American interests to serving Jewish interests. The Neo-Cons greatly support Israel over the Muslims. Also, the Iraqi war was done strictly for the security of Israel, not for any American interests. The Old Right would not support these wars that are in Israel’s interest. Iran, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, and so forth are the enemies of Israel, not America. This is why the White House has deemed them enemies.
Another point is the multiculturalism supported by Neo-Cons. In order to prevent anti-Semitism, multiculturalism must be supported, so this is why the Neo-Cons do it, and not the Old Right, whose goal is to serve European-American interests.
Detailed research are at the links I posted in the first post.
The majority of Jews used to be Liberal, but only because the Democrat Party decided to heavily promote eliminating anti-Semitism and to have a bias towards Israel and against Muslims. But, now with Bush being an extremely strong supporter of Israel and the Jews and completely willing to go to war against every enemy of Israel, Jews are are shifting to Neo-Conservatism. Plus, Jewish voters see how Bush has surrounded himself with Jewish politicians like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Elliott Abrams, David Frum, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis Libby, David Wurmser, Abram Shulsky, not to mention “interlocking media and thinktankdom (Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Stephen Bryen, John Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes), and the academic world (Richard Pipes, Donald Kagan)” (http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm), who are all Jewish.
But even those Jews that vote Democrat, they generally support Bush’s foreign policy since his foreign policy is Jewish foreign policy. They also support Bush’s pro-legal and illegal immigration and similar pro-multiculturalism/feminism stances.
Liberalism is a Jewish movement in that Jewish intellectuals originally formulated the ideas because they believed it would serve Jewish interests. Liberalism includes fighting anti-Semitism and promoting multi-culturalism which would result in more acceptance of Jews. Jews historically and still take the the view that the more diverse a society is, the safer Jews are. The shift from Liberalism to Neo-Conservatism of some Jews only occured after seeing the political Left not being as pro-Israel as the Neo-Cons were. Also, Jews today dominate Wall Street and business and many are seeing the redistribution of their huge amount of wealth as being not in there interest, hence the shift to a more capitalist system. When Jewish intellectuals originally formulated Liberalism/Marxism in the 1800s, Jews were significantly discriminated from economic success, so at that time promoting Communism to redistribute wealth from Gentiles to Jews was considered a good idea for them. But not so much today with Jews now being the most economically and intellectually successful ethnic group in the world.
Just to give one of many examples of Jewish success and influence, here is some data from The Jewish Phenomenon : Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People:
The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past: http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638 This research shows that European Christians banned Jews from holding “bonehead” jobs which were saved for European Christians, so Jews had no choice but to choose the only field Christians could not do: finance/money lending. This job requires high intelligence and lots of math, so this field selected for the brightest of Jews. These Jews, according to historical records, had more children, on average, than the Jews who were not intelligent enough to go into finance. So as a result, the Jewish IQ average was pushed upwards each generation to an average of 117, higher than any other ethnic group.
This is a recent article in the mainstream magazine “The New Yorker” making a case for the Jewish-NeoConservative connection: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050704fa_fact
Jews are very prominent in the Know-It-All movement.
Yeah! Another thing along that line is that lots of Jews are crazy about NASCAR. How come that doesn’t get any press?
Bush does not support “radical” illegal immigration. His “extended registration” (or “second class citizenship” depending on one’s perspective) is one of many proposals to deal with the fact that much of the U.S. economy (as it stands) relies upon undocumented workers and this is one effort to, at least, document them.
Bush hardly “panders” to Hispanics. Comning from Texas, he has more association with the growing Hispanic populace and has picked several of their number for government posts, but this is simply “good ol’ boy” politics of playing to one’s home state’s political base.
The notion that the Neo-Cons wanted to “change Conservatism from serving European-American interests to serving Jewish interests” is silly. The Neo-Con movement began long ago among people interested in economics who wished to swing from socialist to (sometimes radical) capitalist views. The support for Israel is more a byproduct of wishing to secure Mid-East oil for American consumption than any inherent desire to promote Israel over the U.S.
As the result of the Shah, Iran is quite capable of being an enemy of the U.S. with or without Israel.
Syria and Israel have carried on almost a decade of negotiations to resolve their hostility–negotiations that are jeopardized by U.S. sword rattling.
Lebanon (to the extent that it is free of Syrian domination), is not considered an enemy of the U.S.
Bush attempted to ignore the Palestinians (and the Israelis) completely for the first nine months that he was in office, hardly the sign of someone catering to the whims of a foreign nation.
The idea that the current administration provides any serious support for multiculturalism is simply silly. They have embraced non-WASP members in the administration to exactly the level that those persons have embraced good old-fashioned assimilation. (And I am not criticizing people who are not WASPs who have joined the administration; I am only noting that none of them represent “multi-culturalism.”)
The report cited in the Economist (thankfully, you did not cite the less precise NYT article on the same topic) is very interesting. However, it is one study, not yet confirmed by any follow-up studies. In addition, the phrase that I bolded has not been proven (or, at least, the authors have not yet demonstrated that it is proven). It is one assertion for which they have provided limited historical support, but includes a substantial amount of guessing.
(I am not at all sure what relevance it has for the issue of this debate in any event. Israel is not Ashkenazim, it is a mixture of Ashkenazim, Sephardic, and Mizrahim, with a selection of people from Africa, India, and other places. Placing that post in this thread along with your following post on “Just to give one of many examples of Jewish success and influence, here is some data from The Jewish Phenomenon : Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People” might give someone the wrong impression that an argument was being made about those wily, overbright Jews taking over the world–and I am sure that you would not intend to give that mistaken impression.)
A few other misconceptions that need to be cleared up -
Support of the Israeli hard-line right does not equal support of Israel. Many American Jews support Israel but do not support the hard-line right that neocons do. Hell, many Israelis do not support the hard-line right. Neocon support is in percieved American self-interest. And a certain admiration for a tough meet a fist with two fists and before they hit you stylistic.
Sure, a few Jews have been attracted to the neocon POV. But not many. You want to find Jews who voted for Bush look to the Orthodox communities. And for them it is often more of an issue of so-called “moral values” than it is Israel or any other conservative talking point. I won’t even bother asking you for a cite of your claim that Jews are moving away from liberal/Democratic candidates, I’ll provide the evidence that it
isn’t true.
In 2004 Bush received 24% of the Jewish vote, compared to Kerry’s 76%. True that paltry percentage was better than his 19% in 2000 or Dole’s 16% or Bush Sr.'s 1992 11% but before you jump on a trend, Bush Sr. got 35% in 1988 and Reagan got 31 and 39% in his two elections, Nixon got 35%… Bush is not pulling in the Jewish vote as well as did his Dad, or Reagan or Nixon or Eisenhower. Beat out Goldwater though! In short, what shift?
As to those smart achieving Jews … and the relevance to this discussion is? Yes, it is true, Jews have a long tradition of intellectualism, education, and by need, being experts in the commerce and application of ideas across cultures. Find the well educated in a society and within a generation or so you’ll find a group over-represented in the upper half of the socioeconomic stratus. And that has to do with neoconservativism how exactly?
Taking your dubious claims at face value:
You argue on the one hand that Jews are turning away from the Democratic Party because they fear the redistribution of their wealth - and on the other hand that they are fervently promoting multiculturalism, which would tend to redistribute wealth among various minority groups.
Please address this gaping contradiction in your position.
Thanks for saving me the effort of a search.
This is true.
But at the same time, aren’t there potential contradictions or conflicts in how any “people” (i.e. having a common bond either ethnically, religiously, or nationally) arrive at their opinions, especially between principles and security?
I am not Jewish, or an Israeli citizen, but this question is one I wish we were able to debate in that context.
Isn’t the conflict between principles and security the main question from an Israeli perspective?
I don’t know if it is partisan politics (between left and right in Israel), but if I were Jewish, living in the diaspora, this is what would weigh heavily on my mind.
The ideal is a Jewish Democratic State. But until the Palestinian problem is solved, you cannot have both. What to do?
I don’t feel comfortable answering that dilemma, but the question always hangs there for me.
I just wonder if everyone understands how difficult that dilemma is for the Israelis, and the Jewish Diaspora.
But I also think it would be better to allow debate, rather than falling on knee-jerk paranoia, which censors the debate.
I’d like to get an idea of what the Israeli citizens think, but so far I have no idea that isn’t either censored or spun to fit a particular ideology.
I view this somewhat differently - in that an ethnic (or political) group may be willing to sacrifice to a certain extent financially, in order to promote social justice - which in the long term encourages a secure and thriving society.
If you want to marvel at real contradictions, look no further than the ravings of classical anti-Semites, who have promoted the idea that 1) Jews value wealth above everything else, but 2) founded and encouraged Communism, which would destroy the very basis of that wealth.
Interestingly, Jews have historically been the target of bigots for promoting “race-mixing”, supposedly for the sheer evil joy of diluting the allegedly pure Aryan race. The new accusatory buzzword seems to be “multiculturalism”.
New names - same old mindless hate.
Zeeny,
It is an issue, I think, but not in the way that you imagine it.
Security is not, per se, in conflict with principles. Arab Israelis are full citizens and as such are entitled to security as much as any other Israeli. Security is a principle. Justice is a principle. Individuals differ as to what they think is just, and how much they are willing to give up on what they think is just in return security. For many Israelis and American Jews “justice” is not in giving Palestinians everything they want, but they would go part of the way there as a compromise in return for security.
The big conflicting principles in Israel long term is the battle between being a secular democracy with being a Jewish state. Israel is not a theocracy but the religious right has power outside their numbers. How do you maintain a Jewish identity while staying true to secular principles? What happens when the Arab population grows?
FWIW, my take has been that increasing education and opportunities for Arab citizenry will result a reduction of the Arab high birth rate (which tends to correlate with education level in most societies). Avoiding the question for a while at least. But the question avoided is not answered - can you be both a secular pluralistic democracy and Jewish (or Muslim or Christian)? I think the fate of democracy in the MidEast depends on that answer.
Thank you DSeid. I actually agree with all you say here. It is what I imagined - you just said it better than I did.
But your example about the Israeli Arabs doesn’t address the (non-starter right of return) issue of the occupied Palestinians. Would education and opportunities apply there as well? If so, how to enable that, against forces that would keep them in despair and hopelessness? Is this something that (in your opinion) would benefit both sides or not?
Can you imagine, or have you ever heard of, a viable solution to this problem?
The only thing that keeps me, a non-Jew, from being overly critical of the current Israeli government (which I don’t agree with on personal ideology), is that I have never heard a viable solution (for both sides) myself.
I don’t believe in condemning others for a problem I can’t offer a solution for.
But that goes back to my point earlier: If we can’t discuss this problem without heat, or paranoia, or pc hesitation, how can a viable solution ever present itself?
Perhaps there are great minds out there will be discouraged from thinking through a plan because of the personal politics against discussing this subject, or disseminating it in the media.
I don’t believe that the neo-con foreign policy serves the best interests of the Israeli citizens, even in the long term. Maybe this is discussed more freely within Israel, but I have no easy access to those ideas.
This is what frustrates me.
Of course a Palestinian Right of Return is an absolute nonstarter. As is annexation of the West Bank. OTOH, if the Palestinians can get their act together a viable and economically successful Palestine is in Israel’s longterm interest. Such an entity would need to have educational opportunities for its citizens.
Such an entity would serve Israel’s interests in several ways, beyond the obvious security issue. Tourism is big business. Developing that industry to its fullest potential requires partners and peace. Also Israel needs Palestinian workers for industry.
My fantasy, long long term, is that Israel and a Palestine would form a loose federation. But there are some obstacles first, eh?
The big question is, how can Palestinians get their act together without outside pressure from a party who has their best interests in mind?
And not to be naive - who would that party be? They can’t realistically do it on their own now, and they haven’t got a viable patron or partner to help facilitate it. Sadly, they never did, did they?
I share your fantasy.
But I still think it is a major fault in both the right and the left to consider it as nothing more than a long term fantasy or ideal.
Zeeny, it’s even worse than that. There are outside powers at play, but the best interests of the Palestinians is not their interest. Their interests are in maintaining a conflict. For many Arab leaders an Israeli boogeyman helps distract the populus from complaining too much about they are abused by their own leadership, the lack of human rights, the lack of opportunities, etc. For religious radicals it gives an other to rally against and keeps their ball (of a return to the days of Caliphate with them in command of course) still in play. For the old guard PLO it maintains a hold on the feifdom and on the chances for graft that such presents. Maybe if there were not so many outside powers interested some homegrown leadership could realize how pragmatic solutions that focus more on resources, co-investments, and tax revenues than a couple of square miles here or there, is the only way forward. At least the only way that gives the next generation of Palestinians other career choices than squalor, graft, or suicide bomber.
As to what is a fantasy … well I’ve been fortunate enough to see quite a few of my fantasies come true. But realistically there is a generation that needs to live in peace and economic viability before any thought of a federation can even be floated. Being realistic about a timeframe is no fault.
My own humble O on this is that the term ‘Neo-Con’ was started by the Libs to get back at conservatives for making the term Liberal a ‘four letter word’. They (Libs) wanted us to associate Neo-con’s with Neo-nasi.
As a counter measure the conservatives claimed that Neo-con’s were jewish people who converted from liberalism to conservatism, so they could claim that the libs were being anti-semitic.
AGAIN ALL MY HUMBLE O.
I suppose that you are welcome to your humble O, but in the interest of the Straight Dope® it should be pointed out that Irving Kristol, a recognized founder of the movement with the appropriate credentials of having been a left-leaning activist who later shifted (at least on foreign relations issues) to the Conservative camp, called his 1983 autobiography, Reflections of a Neoconservative: Looking Back, Looking Ahead.
Given that the term was coined by one of the movement’s founders, odd claims that it is some Liberal plot seem strained. I suppose that you could pretend that the shortening of neoconservative to neocon was some sort of plot, but I think you’d have to establish which pundit first used it and whether it was used as a deliberate pejorative or as simply a standard magazine/newspaper column shortening of a common phrase of excessive length.