Wanted to ask whether or not there was one but googling the answer was easy enough: none. So now I’d ask why? Lots of senators, representatives and mayors (notably Bloomberg) so Abraham’s kids aren’t exactly shy of public office. How about those who had at least one Jewish parent?
And just to keep this in GQ, here’s a complete list (factual I hope) of US presidents and their known affiliations (or the lack of it):
Baptist
Warren Harding
Harry Truman (Southern Baptist)
Jimmy Carter (Former Southern Baptist)
Bill Clinton (Former Southern Baptist)
Congregationalist
Calvin Coolidge
John Adams (later Unitarian)
Disciples of Christ
James Garfield
Lyndon Johnson
Ronald Reagan (also Presbyterian)
Dutch Reformed
Martin Van Buren
Theodore Roosevelt
Episcopalian
George Washington
James Madison
James Monroe
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gerald Ford
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush (later Methodist)
Methodist
James Polk (originally Presbyterian)
Ulysses Grant (allegedly; his theology is unknown)
William McKinley
George W. Bush (originally Episcopalian)
Presbyterian
Andrew Jackson
James Polk (later Methodist)
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan (also Disciples of Christ)
Quaker
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon
Roman Catholic
John F. Kennedy
Unitarian
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
United Church of Christ
Barack Obama (later no affiliation)
Note that the 1957 merger which formed the U.C.C. included the Congregational Christian Churches.
No denominational affiliation
Thomas Jefferson (Rosicrucian? the_diego's query)
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
Barack Obama (previously United Church of Christ)
Look at the backlash against a Christian who was running in the last presidential election. The problem was that he, being a Mormon, was “the wrong kind of Christian”; i.e., not a Christian at all in many people’s minds. There’s no way someone who actually states he’s not a Christian is going to get elected President in the US.
Romney’s loss was due to lots of things, but not to being Mormon.
Anyway, there are 13 Jewish Senstors.
Now if such goyish states as Wiscooncin and Minnesota can produce multiple Jewish Senators I have no reason to believe that a Jewish version of Barack Obama couldn’t get elected.
I don’t know if I’d go that far, but there has certainly been a streak of anti-Semitism, or even a streak of anti-wrong type of Christianity, running through American politics. Look at the list, only one Roman Catholic.
On the other hand, Joe Lieberman was the vice-presidential nominee in 2000 and I’ll bet his religion had absolutely nothing to do with the ticket’s defeat.
Keep in mind that Monty is the board’s resident Mormon apologist/persecutionist, so take his thoughts with a grain of salt. Mitt Romney didn’t lose because he was Mormon, he lost because he was Mitt Romney.
Joe Lieberman lost because he was next to Al Gore, quite possibly the second most boring human after Joe Lieberman.
I don’t personally believe that it’s politically impossible for a Jew to be elected anymore. But for most of U.S. history, I think it was. And given that there are only presidential elections every four years, there haven’t been that many opportunities for a Jew to be elected, or a woman for that matter. Hell, it’s somewhat amazing that we already have an African American president, just a few decades removed from the civil rights movement.
For most of U.S. history, even electing a non-Protestant would have been politically impossible. JFK is still the only one we’ve had.
Self-identifying Christians outnumber Jews by around 40-1 in the US. 44 Christian presidents (or whatever you think about Jefferson or whoever) and zero Jewish presidents isn’t really a huge departure from that.
The number of Jewish senators is what’s surprising, not the number of Jewish presidents. Jews are about 2% of the country’s population, and if we extrapolate that number through all of American history, then out of 43 Presidents, we’d expect to have somewhere between 0 and 2 Jews, and zero is hardly a surprise. But 13 senators when you’d expect only two is remarkable.
The low number of Catholic presidents (only one thus far) is even more remarkable, given that Catholics are the single largest religious sect in the country, and make up approximately a quarter of the population.
Lieberman on the ticket probably helped
Gore win Florida. Sortof.
To the OP, anti-semitism only became socially unacceptable after WWII, really in the 50s. IMO we have a way to go before a Jewish candidate is considered to have as much chance to win as a similar Protestant candidate. Like the Romney example questions about the candidate’s religion dogged the campaign, but he lost for other reasons.
I think the anti-Semitic canards (Jews have too much power and influence for their numbers, are clannish, and are more loyal to Israel than to America) have greater sway across more of a swath of this country than do many other canards. Senator is one thing. Trusted advisor, mayor, sure … but the one who the buck stops with, the Big Kahuna, Commander in Chief? Not currently.
And let’s face it, none of the current prominant Jewish politicos has the right chops … they’d lose for lots of *other *reasons.
You’re forgetting one Jewish politician with Congressional experience, fabulous name recognition, and the right…uh…well maybe “chops” isn’t the word I’m looking for.
He’s on the comeback trail - ladies (especially ladies) and gentlemen - Anthony Weiner!!!
Well alright, so probably we’ll see a satanist lesbian elected before a Jew - but it could happen.
Generally speaking, prejudice in elected officials has been a one-way street. While white people might not vote for a non-white candidate, non-white voters have been willing to vote for a white candidate. Men might not vote for a female candidate but women will vote for a male candidate. Christians might not vote for a non-Christian candidate but non-Christians will vote for a Christian candidate. Straights might not vote for a gay candidate but gays will vote for a straight candidate.
So political parties have followed the trends and generally play it safe. If there are two possible candidates and one will be controversial and the other one won’t, the party favors the non-controversial one. So pick a straight white Christian man who won’t offend anyone.
There wasn’t even a Catholic President before 1960. There was a lot of anti-Catholic feeling (mostly in private, but some in public) against Kennedy in that election. Given that anti-Semitism has generally been more common in the U.S. than anti-Catholicism, it’s hardly surprising that it would take longer to elect a Jewish President than a Catholic one. We’ve already had a Jewish Vice-Presidential candidate, so it probably won’t be too long before we have a Jewish President. We’ve already had two women Vice-Presidential candidate, so we’ll probably have a women President even sooner.
This is bad statistical reasoning in any case. Given enough categories and a limited number of objects to put into those categories, some of the categories will be unfilled. Why hasn’t there been a single President from Oklahoma, or Washington State, or Minnesota, or Alabama, or New Mexico, and so on? Why haven’t we had a single President of Polish ancestry, or Greek ancestry, or Russian ancestry, or Argentinian ancestry, or Japanese ancestry, and so on? Why haven’t we had a single President who attended MIT, or UC Berkeley, or the University of Chicago, or Ohio State University, or Tulane University, and so on? Why haven’t we had a single President who was a doctor, or a CPA, or an author of mystery novels, or a race car driver, or an archeologist, and so on? Yes, some of these are unlikely for various reasons, but there’s simply no way that every such category could be filled by the limited list of Presidents.