Why no Jewish US President?

[Wendell_Wagner]

Let me clarify what I said before when I wrote:

> 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.

Here’s a book on this subject:

The Churching of America, 1776-2005

It’s somewhat controversial whether the claims of this book are true. It’s clear that various Christian denominations have risen and fell in membership over the history of the U.S. It’s clear that there have been various national movements over the years which supposedly were national movements towards a religious revival. They seem to have a cycle of about ninety years. It’s hard to compare the church membership in 1776 with that today. Some think that average church attendance has increased since then. In any case, no one knows very well what the actual beliefs of U.S. Presidents have been. Trying to classify the Presidents according to their nominal church memberships is pretty hopeless.

[johnspartan]

@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.

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.

Fair point. To further…

[ul]
[li]take the relatively small overall percentage of US population that’s Jewish.[/li][li]Remove from the potential pool those that are under 35.[/li][li]Then remove those not born in the US (which is a fair amount). [/li][li]Then at least until recently you could remove women from serious consideration.[/li][/ul]

You’re already left with a relatively small pool, without getting into anything like anti-Semitism.

[Chronos]

Fair point. To further…

* take the relatively small overall percentage of US population that's Jewish.
* Remove from the potential pool those that are under 35.
* Then remove those not born in the US (which is a fair amount).
* Then at least until recently you could remove women from serious consideration.

You’re already left with a relatively small pool, without getting into anything like anti-Semitism

On the other hand, those same filters will also apply to non-Jewish candidates. Unless you have some reason to expect that Jews are more likely than the general population to be young, immigrant, or female, that wouldn’t do anything to the proportion of Jewish presidents.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The point is just that the “filtered” Jewish population is a tiny, tiny number of people (and the number of people elected President is a tiny sample size anyway), so it’s not weird that we’ve had no Jewish presidents.

[Chronos]

The point is just that the “filtered” Jewish population is a tiny, tiny number of people (and the number of people elected President is a tiny sample size anyway), so it’s not weird that we’ve had no Jewish presidents.

Except that the “filtered” population is no smaller than it is unfiltered. Jews are about 2% of the US population. Native-born male Jews over 35 are about 2% of the native-born male over 35 population. The fact that it’s a smaller absolute number is irrelevant, since only the proportion matters.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Shinna_Minna_Ma

I just received an email this week, claiming that Lyndon Johnson was actually Jewish because his mother, maternal grandmother, and his great-grandmother were all Jewish. I’ve not had time to research this yet; Snopes has nothing about this.

His mother, grandmother, etc, that whole side of the family were all Baptists.

[pravnik]

I believe that the United States will have a Jewish president within the next twenty years.

But for you, ten!

[adaher]

I think there are a few factors:

1. It’s just hard for non-Protestants to get elected. Kennedy is the only one so far, and he was like super handsome and charismatic.
2. There aren’t very many charismatic Jewish politicians. You don’t have to be anti-semetic to find it hard to imagine Al Franken, Joe LIeberman, Chuck Schumer, or Carl Levin exciting anyone.
3. Jews tend to be more liberal than the overall population, often very liberal. Presidents get elected primarily from the center. And the few Jews who aren’t liberal tend to be archconservatives(Eric Cantor) who are also unelectable.

[Leo_Bloom]

This is the one I remembered.

The first Jewish President calls his mom.

–Mom, we’re having the Seder here. I’ll send over a limo, the Air Force will pick you up at the airport, just pack a bag.

Big limo, police escort rolls up. Neighbor looks out, impressed, asks her what’s up.

–You know my sons the doctor and the lawyer and the professor? I’m going to their brother’s house.

[DrDeth]

@adaher

I think there are a few factors:

1. It’s just hard for non-Protestants to get elected. Kennedy is the only one so far, and he was like super handsome and charismatic.

In the early days there were quite a few, about a dozen. None since Taft, true.

[Wendell_Wagner]

Again, DrDeth, you’re counting those deists and Unitarians on your list as non-Protestants. That ignores how people in the first century or so of the United States actually thought about the religious affiliations of the Presidents. They considered Jews and Catholics, regardless of how faithful they were to their religious beliefs, as being non-Protestants. They considered anyone else as being some type of Protestant (well, assuming that they weren’t Eastern Orthodox or Moslem or other even rarer religions in the U.S. of that time). With the exception of Kennedy, most people would have considered all the Presidents to be Protestants. The fact that they hadn’t attended church since being baptized was considered irrelevant:

Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States

[Captain_Amazing]

How on earth were Unitarians “non-protestants”? They had split off the Congregationalists and came out of the Calvinist/Reformed tradition.

And for all that they might personally have been deists, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were all institutionally Episcopalian. (Jefferson was a vestryman). Pierce was originally a Congregationalist and then later an Episcopalian, and Grant was a Methodist.

[carnivorousplant]

@Captain_Amazing

His mother, grandmother, etc, that whole side of the family were all Baptists.

Jewish folks define a Jew as someone who’s Mother was a Jew. So, if you can trace female descent back to a Jewish woman who converted, they will consider you Jewish.

[adaher]

I think your actual mother has to be Jewish, and conversions are only recognized by all Jews if they are orthodox conversions. Most conversions are at Reform synagogues and orthodox Jews don’t recognize those as valid and some conservative congregations won’t either.

[Captain_Amazing]

@carnivorousplant

Jewish folks define a Jew as someone who’s Mother was a Jew. So, if you can trace female descent back to a Jewish woman who converted, they will consider you Jewish.

Yes, I know. But her family wasn’t Jewish.

[carnivorousplant]

@adaher

I think your actual mother has to be Jewish,

I meant that if your Mama’s Mama’s Mama was Jewish, and Mama and her Mama were Baptists, you are considered Jewish by Jews.

[The_Second_Stone]

Sometimes the President is required to personally participate in the Friday evening news dump where the the potentially humiliating news is casually put before reporters anxious to get away for the weekend so it will hopefully be ignored. An observant Jewish President would always have to send out a special goy to do this, and couldn’t casually toss off a few lines as meaningless and hope it passes. The Shabbos goy (I hope I got that right) would be an instant alert that it was in fact juicy gossip and the Republic would crumble.

[carnivorousplant]

@The_Second_Stone

Sometimes the President is required to personally participate in the Friday evening news dump where the the potentially humiliating news is casually put before reporters anxious to get away for the weekend so it will hopefully be ignored. An observant Jewish President would always have to send out a special goy to do this, and couldn’t casually toss off a few lines as meaningless and hope it passes. The Shabbos goy (I hope I got that right) would be an instant alert that it was in fact juicy gossip and the Republic would crumble.

Just as long as it is before sunset.

[Leo_Bloom]

@adaher

… Most conversions are at Reform synagogues…

Cite?

[DrDeth]

@Wendell_Wagner

Again, DrDeth, you’re counting those deists and Unitarians on your list as non-Protestants. That ignores how people in the first century or so of the United States actually thought about the religious affiliations of the Presidents. They considered Jews and Catholics, regardless of how faithful they were to their religious beliefs, as being non-Protestants. ]

Deist is certainly not “protestant” (not even Christian) and few would consider Unitarian to be Protestant either. Nor would “no faith” be Protestant.