QUESTION FROM SILVIO - AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  It's a pleasure for me to appear periodically on Silvio Canto's Blogtalkradio show, originating in Dallas.  I appeared last week.  Should you wish, you can hear it here.  Just go to the Blogtalkradio box on the left of the site.

Now Silvio passes on to me a question from one of his listeners in Colombia:  How can Barack Obama get 78% of the so-called "Jewish vote"?

The question is undoubtedly prompted by what many perceive to be Obama's less-than-enthusiastic support for Israel and his association, in the past, with some religious and academic figures widely regarded as hostile to Israel, or even anti-Semitic.

The question goes right to the heart of American ethnic politics, now more commonly called identity politics.  Different ethnic groups, at various times in their history, do have an affinity for one party or the other.  At one time the "Catholic vote," especially in large cities, was reliably Democratic.  Not so much any more.  And the "black vote," before the 1930s, was actually Republican, a reflection of the affinity of blacks for "the party of Lincoln."

The Jewish vote is more heavily Democratic than that of any other ethnic group except blacks.  That may be changing slowly among younger Jews, but the statistic remains valid.  The affinity is based on these things:  1) All American Jews came from immigrant populations.  In the "old countries" it was the liberals, the leftists, who were more likely to protect Jews or at least leave them alone.  That is not true today, but beliefs die hard;  2) American Jews are among the most educated groups in the world, and the general liberalism of universities has its effect, if, in our view here, a pernicious one;  3) Jews associate the Democratic Party with the founding of Israel.  If it weren't for Harry Truman's recognition of Israel, against the advice of the State Department crowd, Israel might never have survived.  Again, that is the past.  Today, the Republican Party is more supportive of Israel than is the Democratic Party, but those old traditions are stubborn; 4)  Jews tend to be wary of evangelical Christians, even though they are fierce defenders of Israel.  Historically, evangelical Christians sought to convert Jews.  I think the Jewish fear is foolish and behind-the-times, and is far from universal, but it persists in some Jewish circles.  Many Jews see evangelicals as part of the GOP base.  5) All Jews in the Senate are Democrats, and all Jews but one in the House are Democrats.  This has its effect; 6)  Historically, Republicans were awkward, slow, or indifferent in their outreach to Jews and other minorities;  7)  Even though the civil-rights movement has a strong anti-Semitic element, Jews still identify with it, recalling their own period of being discriminated against.  So voting for Obama fit in with their history;  8) Culturally, Jews tend to be urban or suburban, and that's where the Dems are.

There are, of course, prominent Jewish Republicans, and Joe Lieberman is almost there.  And the Jewish vote can be switched, which would have a great effect on the overall vote in some of our largest states.  Forty percent of the Jewish vote went for Eisenhower in 1952, but Republicans failed to exploit it.  And 39% of the Jewish vote went for Reagan in 1980.  Again, Republicans failed to exploit it.  Reagan, unfortunately, was followed by Bush 41, who was antagonistic to Israel.  In 1992 Bush got 11% of the Jewish vote.

People ask how Jewish voters could reject George W. Bush, possibly the greatest friend Israel, and the Jewish community, ever had in the White House.  It's baffling, and was wrongheaded in my view.  It was equally wrongheaded for Jews to reject John McCain, a true friend, in favor of Obama, whose record on Israel was vague.  (In fairness, though, Obama has always had a close relationship with the Jewish community of Chicago.)

As I said, voting habits die hard, especially when they're reinforced by universities and by the Republican Party's often awkward outreach.  But habits, I'm firmly convinced, can be changed.  If Obama persists in his current foreign-policy course, we may see some change we truly can believe in.

June 8, 2009