Why no Jewish US President?

[astorian]

The Confederate States of America had a Jewish Secretary of State- Judah Benjamin. Even Southern racists didn’t have a problem with that.

[Northern_Piper]

@Zebman

Historically, the USA is the only country, other than Israel, that Jews would even be allowed to hold office.

Léon Blum, Prime Minister of France, 1936-37, 1938; President of the Provisional Government of the French Republic and Prime Minister, 1946-47.

Rt. Hon. Herb Gray, Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, 1997-2002

Rt. Hon. Bora Laskin, Chief Justice of Canada, 1973-1984

Sir George Jessell, Master of the Rolls, 1873-1883

etc. Zebman, welcome to the Boards, but you may want to brush up on your history and awareness of public events before making broad-brush, false statements.

[skdo23]

@Der_Trihs

Him being Mormon didn’t help; I recall right wing Christians before the election talking about not voting or voting for Obama because even a Democrat was better than a Mormon. A Mormon Democrat would probably have a better chance given the Christian-conservative portion of the Republican base.

This. To expand on Der Trih’s post, the Romney campaign devoted what seemed to me to be a relatively inordinate amount of time and money trying to convince the GOP base of his conservative credentials, which included downplaying many aspects of his record from when he served as Governor of Massachusetts, such as health care reform, while appearing to be outright dismissive of the moderate and/or independent voters who decided the election.

If Romney was a Protestant, he likely could have taken the conservative vote for granted and instead focused on winning over independent and moderate voters by instead touting that same record to emphasize his bipartisan credentials.

To tie this in to the OP, I doubt that there are a lot of voters in either party that would flat out refuse to support a Jewish candidate, but it would create issues for this candidate that the campaign would be forced to devote significant resources to address, and this would put him/her at a disadvantage when facing an opponent who does not bear a similar burden.

[John_Mace]

@skdo23

This. To expand on Der Trih’s post, the Romney campaign devoted what seemed to me to be a relatively inordinate amount of time and money trying to convince the GOP base of his conservative credentials, which included downplaying many aspects of his record from when he served as Governor of Massachusetts, such as health care reform, while appearing to be outright dismissive of the moderate and/or independent voters who decided the election.

If Romney was a Protestant, he likely could have taken the conservative vote for granted and instead focused on winning over independent and moderate voters by instead touting that same record to emphasize his bipartisan credentials.

No. He was seen as not really a conservative because he had endorsed many non-conservative stances in the not so distant past. That had nothing to do with him being a Mormon. He would have had the same problem if he had been an Episcopalian. Plus, he was a real stiff on the campaign trail, and he was ridiculously wealthy and made a whole bunch of gaffes.

But the fact of the matter is, he came pretty damn close to winning. Had he been a Mormon with a solidly conservative past, who was engaging on the campaign trail, and who didn’t belong in the 0.01% club and sounded like it, he could very well have won.

But we stray into GD territory here…

[AGuy]

@alphaboi867

An atheist on the other hand is even less likely than a Muslim or LGBT person; baring some scenario where a VP or Speaker has to take over the Presidency.

I agree that an atheist has little chance of being elected President in the US, but I’d still like their chances quite a bit over a Muslim’s, and at least the “T” in LGBT.

[alphaboi867]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Welcome to the boards, but please don’t make things up in GQ. Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish, although he professed an Anglican faith for more or less his entire life.

It’s worth pointing out that Disraeli wouldn’t have had a political career if he hadn’t been baptized. IIRC Jews (& other non-Christians) weren’t allowed in Parliament until the 1860s.

[appleciders]

@Zebman

Historically, the USA is the only country, other than Israel, that Jews would even be allowed to hold office. Maybe this has changed over the last few decades. Over the centuries, Jews have learned that it is better for them to have influence behind the scenes via financial power and friendships.

Veiled racism aside, I wouldn’t bother to post this, except that I’ve heard it put very neatly: Disraeli became prime minister in a time and place where “Jew” was a verb.

[carnivorousplant]

@alphaboi867

It’s worth pointing out that Disraeli wouldn’t have had a political career if he hadn’t been baptized. IIRC Jews (& other non-Christians) weren’t allowed in Parliament until the 1860s.

Hell, from 1290 to 1657, we weren’t allowed in the country.

[sjc]

@Zebman

As to Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt: This is a Dutch name and I have read that this family has some Dutch Jewish ancestory mixed in.

Presidents are elected by voting of the general population. Jews, considered by some to be a ethinic/racial group of sorts, have been a minority in this country, and like most minority groups, have been discriminated against. So far after 200 years: One catholic president that barely carried the vote; one half-black president after 200 years. Zero Latino/Mexican, Chinese, etc, etc. USA was settled by white Anglos originally, and they have held the power for 200 years. This is starting to change because white Anglos have been having small families relative to other ethnic groups.

Historically, the USA is the only country, other than Israel, that Jews would even be allowed to hold office. Maybe this has changed over the last few decades. Over the centuries, Jews have learned that it is better for them to have influence behind the scenes via financial power and friendships.

I don’t know the specifics of the Roosevelt’s distant ancestors, but that sort of sounds like the type of thing their political enemies might have liked to say about them to discredit them (particularly FDR, who they also accused of being a socialist or communist).

[tim314]

@Chronos

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.

I imagine this becomes less surprising when one factors in the fact that Jewish Americans are, on average, more affluent and more educated than many other minority groups in this country.

[DrDeth]

@sisu

The real question could be “why no non-Christians as president?”

John Adams- Unitarian.
Thomas Jefferson- no professed faith, likely Deism .
Madison- Deism
Monroe- Deism
JQ Adams- Unitarian.
Fillmore- Unitarian
Pierce- unknown, none?
Lincoln-no professed faith, likely Deism
Johnson- unknown, none?
Grant-unknown, none?
Hayes- non denominational
Taft- Unitarian

[Leo_Bloom]

@pool

It seems to me a large quantity of people are culturally Jewish but atheist in their actual religious beliefs. I wonder if a rather large portion of the voting public wouldn’t just assume that a self-professed Jewish candidate was in fact a closet atheist. Another factor could be Israel, we already give Israel billions in aid and military supplies some might think that a Jewish President would have a conflict of interest and help Israel at the expense of the United States of course in a lot of ways that already happens. Somewhat similar to the whole Kennedy and Catholicism controversy with regards to the Pope, of course Kennedy was still elected.

Might? :dubious:

A candidate combination of the Lubavitcher Rebbe/Moses Mendelsohn/Felix Frankfurter/Abby Hoffman/Irving Kristol/Moshe Dayan and Joe Lieberman would lose the Jewish vote. Culturally, Jews have never forgotten that the personal gets group when an individual Jew is involved. For Blacks apparently, from all I’ve read, it never came up. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen–of course I’ve seen it read it heard it. But Blacks don’t fear it and it has no cultural legs here now. As opposed to the oddest chart-topper of them all.

Can you imagine a single, solitary decision on MidEast policy not causing trouble? Fears of “Papist” power shifts are more or less fringe now, but rank-anti Semitism is constantly beneath the surface for shit like this. Just look at Iran, when “blood and treasure” are on the line. Americans should die for Israelis is a proposal far more wretched than dying for A-rabs in Kuwait or Saudi–and of course to so many USA has mo other reason to fight Iran nuclearization than “just” protecting an ally. And already today lawmakers are so often considered robots in thrall to AIPAC–or as Defense Secratary Hegel called it simply and honestly for most people who think of it, “the Jewish Lobby.”

Poli Sci joke Kissinger wrote (no cite): Golda Meir asked him for something or other, saying “you’re a Jew, a National Security Advisor, and an American.” Kissinger replied, “yes, but like you I read right to left.” There’s a reason Kissinger felt moved to right that (undoubtedly untrue) anecdote.

And then a Jewish president, as many a Jew in power has had to do, might bend over backwards to be cold as possible to any questions dealing with the Jews. In my opinion the triumph of the Civil Rights movement in the voting for Obama would not be repeated.

[smiling_bandit]

@DrDeth

John Adams- Unitarian.
Thomas Jefferson- no professed faith, likely Deism .
Madison- Deism
Monroe- Deism
JQ Adams- Unitarian.
Fillmore- Unitarian
Pierce- unknown, none?
Lincoln-no professed faith, likely Deism
Johnson- unknown, none?
Grant-unknown, none?
Hayes- non denominational
Taft- Unitarian

Non-denominitional or Unknown does not mean “None.” Lincoln, for example, seems to have believed in a much more active and involved God than any Deist, let alone Atheist. Additionally, Unitarians were once much more specific and mainstream in their beliefs, whereas modern Uni-Uni’s are borderline atheists. They are no longer a Christian church even by their own definition.

[Chronos]

Unitarians were never a Christian church. The movement is a cultural offshoot from Christianity, but belief in the Trinity is a fundamental tenet of Christianity.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Also, note that none of the Presidents on that list are later than Taft. Note also that some of the ones listed as Deists were nominally from specific Protestant denominations. Back then, it was more accepted that one’s denomination was more like one’s ethnic group, just what church you attended or nominally belonged to without forcing you to be specific about your beliefs. There is a common assumption that Americans are less religious these days than in, say, 1776. This is not quite true. It was more common to nominally belong to a religious organization then. It is probably less common to attend church on any given week though.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Well, yes and no, Chronos. From a viewpoint of belief, Unitarians are not and have never been Christians and often don’t even believe in God. From a viewpoint of being accepted by mainstream Protestants, mainstream Protestants have always been less hostile towards Unitarians than towards Catholics, Jews, or Moslems.

[smiling_bandit]

@Chronos

Unitarians were never a Christian church. The movement is a cultural offshoot from Christianity, but belief in the Trinity is a fundamental tenet of Christianity.

Not so. While Unitarians are certainly an unusual movement, they ere once Christian. Trinitarians isn’t required for Christianity, per se, although groups which don’[t hold it are usually viewed as a distinct heretical minority. While nearly all Christians would not agree with Arianism, it’s not specifically anti-Christian.

[Monty]

@Chronos

Unitarians were never a Christian church. The movement is a cultural offshoot from Christianity, but belief in the Trinity is a fundamental tenet of Christianity.

No. Belief in the Trinity is a fundamental tenet of Trinitarian Christianity. There are Christian denominations which are not Trinitarian.

[DrDeth]

@smiling_bandit

Non-denominitional or Unknown does not mean “None.” Lincoln, for example, seems to have believed in a much more active and involved God than any Deist, let alone Atheist. Additionally, Unitarians were once much more specific and mainstream in their beliefs, whereas modern Uni-Uni’s are borderline atheists. They are no longer a Christian church even by their own definition.

Lincoln’s faith remains elusive. Certainly he had respect for the teachings, but he did not attend church or give outward signs of worship or belief.

Unitarians also respect the teaching of Jesus. More so back then, but their beliefs did not include Jesus being the Son of God. Even the Muslim faith considers Jesus a “Messenger of God” but no one calls them a “Christian” faith. Thus Unitarians are not “Christians” either.

Still, that list includes quite a few well known Presidents who were not Christian. Wendell does make a point that some attended meetings without professing that faith. Hell, I was part of the Methodist Youth. (The had quite a few cute girls, and the girls outnumbered the guys by 3-1).

I also have great respect for the teachings of Jesus- and the Buddha, and Mohammed,…great men all.

That doesn’t make me a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist.

[Leo_Bloom]

Hey, Reconstructionists don’t believe in God. Not a “supernatural God” at least.