Why are So Many Jews Democrats?

Paul Gottfried may have part of the explanation:

Most Jews dislike the Republican Party because they associate it with the idea of a Christian America. And since the 1960s, as Peter Novick exhaustively shows in The Holocaust in American Life, blame for the Nazis’ attempted extermination of the Jews has shifted in both Jewish and non-Jewish accounts from Nazi pagans to white Christians. The Holocaust is now routinely—perhaps most starkly in a book by Daniel Goldhagen—placed at the doorstep of Christian civilization. In my view, this shift is based on reckless generalization and feeds into an unjustified Jewish hostility toward religious Christians. But it’s nonetheless convinced many Jews that even Christians who appear to be effusively philosemitic are really anti-Jewish. Democrats, meanwhile, are supposedly friendlier to Jews because they are cleansing public life of traditional biblical morality, most of which ironically comes from Hebrew Scripture. From 2016 to 2018, while the Trump administration was trying to hammer home that Democrats were unfriendly to Israel and, by implication, to American Jews, Jewish identification with the Democratic Party went from 71 percent to 79 percent.

Related: Paul Gottfried on Propositionalism

Damon Linker on Never-Trumping Neo-Cons

Why do never-trumping neo-con nitwits such as the bootless Max Boot allow Donald Trump to live rent-free in their heads and drive them crazy?  That's my formulation of the question, not Linker's,  but he provides a good answer to it ( emphases added):

More fully than any other faction in the American commentariat, neocon pundits believe axiomatically in the goodness of America — in the nobility of our national aims, and in the capacity of that nobility to sanctify the means we use to achieve them. They believe that all good things go together under the benign rule of the global Pax Americana. What's good for the United States is automatically good for all people of good will everywhere, who with our help get to enjoy ever-greater freedom, democracy, and prosperity. This is the neocons' faith. They believe it as fervently as any adherent of any religion.

But of course not everyone in American politics takes this view, and so there is partisanship, with the neocons working to uphold this pristine, highly idealized, and empirically unfalsifiable vision of the U.S. against various heretics and apostates from the faith. Until the rise of Trump, most of these heretics and apostates were found on the left, with a few (like Pat Buchanan) popping up from time to time on the paleocon right. From their home in the Republican Party, the neocons sometimes won these battles and sometimes lost. But the cause was righteous, so every defeat was admirable in its way and merely temporary — a prelude to the next victory.

Those who described Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 primaries as a hostile takeover of the Republican Party were correct — at least from the standpoint of the party's Washington establishment, which very much included the neocons. But unlike the establishment's other factions — wealthy donors and business interests out for another tax cut; lobbyists hoping to advance the interests of an industry or group of citizens — the neocons couldn't just play along with the changing of the guard. They were much too high-minded to accept the debasement of the presidency and the party. There was thus no place for them in the new order.

The neocons not only lost a policy battle. They also lost their perch, their perks, and their power in the party. That made, and still makes, Trump's victory intensely personal.

When the Trump haters set out to write their umpteenth denunciation of the president, calling him bad for the country, bad for the GOP, and bad for the world, they undoubtedly mean it. But they also have other motives. The rise of Donald Trump has above all been exceedingly bad for them. They're still angry about it, and they're still out for revenge, every single time they sit down to write.

Both leftists and neo-cons are obsessed with Trump the man. If they were really as high-minded as Linker says they are, they wouldn't take it all so personally. Besides being unhealthy, Trump-obsession is vicious and immoral. They should stop slandering him as a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, etc. and stop trying to 'get him' on some trumped-up charges.  The more his enemies vilify him, the more support he will get from the Coalition of the Sane.  What lefties and neo-cons should be discussing are his policy ideas.  See Michael Anton, The Trump Doctrine

We who support Trump do not do so because of his lack of class, his braggadoccio, his orange hair, inarticulate  tweets, exaggerations, and other blemishes, but because he is a patriot* with good ideas and the will to implement them.  He has delivered on his campaign promises despite the nasty obstructionism of the Dems, the media, and members of his own party.   We support him because he is willing to punch back hard against the enemies of America foreign and domestic.  We support him because he is not an ever-losing pussy like Jeb! Bush or a milque-toast maverick like John McCain.

____________

*Unlike Obama. No patriot seeks a fundamental transformation of his country.  What you love you do not seek fundamentally to transform.  Trump: MAGA. Obama, Hillary, and the Left: Destroy America as she was founded to be.

ADDENDUM (5/3). Jacques reacts:

A quick unsolicited thought about Linker's statement that the neocons were "too high minded to accept the debasement of the presidency and the party".  It is utterly absurd to describe these people as "high minded".  These are the same people who have supported futile bloody foreign adventures, for transparently phony reasons.  These are the people who always support Israel and its ethnonationalist policies while denouncing even the slightest hint of ethnic consciousness in white Americans.  Linker claims that they believe in the "goodness" of America.  I doubt that most of them really believe in anything.  They're utterly dishonest.  Calling themselves "conservatives" (of any kind) is dishonest.
 
But more importantly, it's absurd to think that the Republican party was "debased" by Trump.  We are talking here about a racket.  The function of the Republican party for many decades has been to fool its pathetic and deluded but fundamentally decent and patriotic base.  The party pretends to care about the well-being and religion and values of these people, but has never done anything for them.  On the contrary, the party represents crony capitalists, oligarchs, Washington insiders and lobbyists.  The policies of the party have always been designed to benefit the wealthy con artists in the party and the wealthier donors and interests who control it.  
 
Just think of George W. Bush, that semi-literate fool, orchestrating war with Iraq on the basis of absurd lies about Hussein's connection to bin Laden.  Millions died.  Ordinary Americans were killed and maimed for nothing.  At the same time, Bush was spouting leftist horseshit about "no child left behind" and getting teachers fired because they couldn't meet his Soviet-style diktats about the test scores that low IQ students were supposed to achieve.  (Of course the teachers cheated.  What were they supposed to do?)  He also gave us such memorable phrases as "the religion of peace" and celebrated Ramadan at the White House.  And all the while the country was being flooded with immigrants whose presence makes life ever more miserable for the Republican base.  
 
That was the neocon Republican party.  The party of pointless killing and "regime change" with no plan beyond "elections".  The party of leftist lies about race and IQ.  The party of multicultural inclusion and corporate capitalism.  Could that party be "debased"? 
 
From my perspective, Trump's tone is crude but–during his campaign at least–his message was infinitely more noble and high minded than anything these party insiders had ever said.  True, they don't use swear words and they (maybe?) don't bang call girls.  But their "ideas" were never anything more than a thin veneer meant to distract from their psychopathic greed and narcissism.
 
Comments now enabled.

 

Norman Podhoretz on Trump and Never-Trumpers

Via Ace of Spades

Norman Podhoretz praises Trump for being a — yes — fighter, while the soft-handed crew of the S.S. Cuck all counsel surrender.

One disagreement I have: NeverTrumpers are, in fact, willing to fight. They're willing to fight viciously and bitterly — so long as the opponents are conservatives. Then the knives come out, then the eye-gouges and low-blows begin raining, then the shivs start getting sharpened.

But they won't fight this way against their neighbors — physical neighbors — in the leftwing cities and tony suburbs. For them, the seek compromise and understanding.

Have they ever tried to seek compromise with Trump supporters?

No, them they brand as Nazis and Deplorables.

They are among the most tribal people on earth — it's just that their real tribe is, and has always been, the cosmopolitan intellectual class of the left. They share most of their political, cultural, and social DNA with the left.

CRB: Some people say that Trump has a blue collar sensibility. Do you see that?

NP: I do see it and even before Trump–long before Trump–actually going back to when I was in the army in the 1950s, I got to know blue-collar Americans. I'm "blue collar" myself, I suppose. I’m from the working class–my father was a milk man. But in the army I got to know people from all over the country and I fell in love with Americans–they were just great!

. . .

That's one of the things–it may be the main thing–that explains his political success. It doesn't explain his success in general, but his political success, yes. Also–I often explain this to people–when I was a kid, you would rather be beaten up than back away from a fight. The worst thing in the world you could be called was a sissy. And I was beaten up many times. Trump fights back. The people who say: "Oh, he shouldn't lower himself," "He should ignore this," and "Why is he demeaning himself by arguing with some dopey reporter?"

I think on the contrary–if you hit him, he hits back; and he is an equal opportunity counter puncher. It doesn’t matter who you are. And actually Obama, oddly enough, made the same statement: "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun."

Norman Podhoretz

Robert Reich to Cloud Cuckoo Land

The more the Trumpster accomplishes, the more the victims of TDS hate him.

For Robert Reich, impeachment is not enough. Nor would Trump's removal from office be enough. The formerly sane Reich, descending into a delusionality delightful to us of the Coalition of the Sane, proposes the annullment of the entire Trump administration and all of its works.

Enjoy!

Is President Trump Mounting an Assault on the Fourth Estate?

Obviously not. He is merely punching back at the contemptible pseudo-journalists, feculent with crypto-commie bias, who head up the lamestream media outlets. 

When leftists accuse us of something you can be sure that they are doing that very thing. Call it political projection. The greatest threats to free speech at the present time emanate from so-called 'liberals.'

If  'liberal' is used in the classical way, we conservatives are the true liberals.

In the end, hundreds of papers telling us how bad Trump has been for press freedom may make all those involved feel good for a day, but it won't move the needle one bit. It may even have an opposite effect than the one intended. 

Yes, calling the press the "enemy of the people" is way over the top, and obviously wrong. But Trump's rhetoric is nothing compared to Obama's actions in terms of press treatment. 

The Left is deeply destructive and they need to be opposed. No Republican except Trump has the cojones for the job. If he goes too far, well that is what happens in a war. And it is a war. A war for the soul of America. 

Politics for the Leftist

Politics for leftists is an ersatz religion.* This fact helps explain both the all-consuming totalitarian intensity of their political engagement and the towering rage they feel for President Trump. They were on a roll with eight years of Obama and the assured expectation of four to eight more years of "fundamental transformation" under Hillary. But insulated as they were from the mood of the country in their leftist enclaves, it came as a terrible shock to them when Trump threw a spanner in their works. And so they lost their minds to the extent that otherwise astute political operatives such as David Axelrod are saying that Trump is literally Nero. Literally!

The leftist is a secularist for whom there is nothing beyond this world.**  And yet he is not content with this world but seeks a utopia within it no matter the cost. Communists murdered 100 million in the 20th century alone.

Conservative common sense is therefore a dire threat to the very meaning of a leftist's existence. And so he rages like a loon, or like the raging bull of the HollyWeird Left, Robert De Niro. Or is he a raging dinosaur? In any case this is all he can muster by way of a considered opinion on the president's performance: Fuck Trump!

And the HollyWeird hate-America lemmings cheered and gave him a standing ovation.

_________

*'Ersatz' is an alienans adjective. Thus an ersatz X is not an X but a substitute for an X. It is a mistake to call leftism a religion as Dennis Prager and others do. Full refutation here

**This is true with some qualifications even for 'religious' leftists. These are typically leftists first and believers second if at all. Thus Bergoglio the Benighted is pretty obviously a leftist first and a Catholic second.  Is he too a secularist in the end? I cannot peer into his soul.

Living in the Past: Is That Why You Are Still a Democrat?

To understand a person, it helps to consider what the world was like when the person was twenty years old. At twenty, give or take five years, the music of the day, the politics of the day, the language, mores, fashions, economic conditions and whatnot of the day make a very deep impression. It is an impression that lasts through life and functions as a sort of benchmark for the evaluation of what comes after, but also as a distorting lens that makes it difficult for the person to see what is happening now. 

The foregoing insight may help us understand why people remain in the Democrat Party. People born in the 'twenties are many of them still living in the 'forties. For them the Democrat Party is the party of FDR. They haven't noticed the changes, or haven't wanted to notice the changes. They haven't noticed that their interests are no longer served by the party of this name. Or perhaps they are just attached to the label, or in the grip of misplaced piety: they are attached to a family tradition. "My pappy was a Democrat and my grandpappy afore him was a Democrat; we McCoy's have always been Democrats, and we don't see no reason to change now."

The Unbearable Hilarity of Hillary

Her gravitas having given way to levitas, I am half expecting her to begin levitating into Wolkenskukuheim, a word I found in Schopenhauer translatable as Cloud Cuckoo Land.   In plain English, Hillary Clinton is losing her mind in a bid to establish once and for all the psychological reality of TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Her latest sample of brain leakage is her suggestion that President Trump's wise SCOTUS pick, the distinguished and widely-lauded Brett Kavanaugh, is fixing to turn back the clock to 1850 and bring back slavery.

Hillary in 2020!

Before Trump Derangement Syndrome . . .

. . . there was Bush Derangement Syndrome. (The famous 2003 article by the late Charles Krauthammer.)

What is amazing in retrospect is how viciously the Left treated the mild-mannered, civil, only moderately conservative milque-toast. Remember the Buck Fush bumperstickers? Also interesting is that the intensity of the Left's rage is pretty much the same whether the target is a gentlemanly Bush or an obnoxious and crude Trump.

No matter how moderate and conciliatory you are, leftists will hate you and smear you in every conceivable way. Here:

Consider the "civility" shown by Democrats toward the eminently civil "compassionate conservative" President Bush.

Protesters regularly carried signs saying things like "Save Mother Earth, Kill Bush," "Hang Bush for War Crimes," "Bush=Satan," "Bush is the only Dope worth Shooting." They burned Bush and other administration officials in effigy countless times.

Jonathan Chait wrote a 3,600-word word piece for the New Republic in 2003 on "the case for Bush hatred." In it, he admitted that "I have friends who … describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche."

Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams gave a speech at a women's peace conference in Dallas in 2007 declaring that "right now, I could kill George Bush." The audience laughed, and she won praise for her "bravery."

Pollster Geoff Garin told The New York Times that Bush hatred was "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."

The winning film at a 2006 Toronto film festival was a movie — Death of a President — that realistically depicted Bush's assassination.

The left regularly compared Bush to Hitler, just as they are now with Trump.

Playwright Harold Pinter said that "the Bush administration is the most dangerous force that has ever existed. It is more dangerous than Nazi Germany."

Harry Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."

Civility, like truth, is not a leftist value. To understand the Left you must understand that they have no qualms about using our values against us. Thus they accuse Trump of incivility when he punches back at them despite their having no respect for civility in the first place. After all, it is a bourgeois value, and they are radicals and 'transgressives.' They will use civility if if it helps their cause but abandon it when it doesn't. It is the same as with free speech and other values we cherish.

They don't care about these values; what they care about is power. Truth counts for nothing. This is why it does no good to point out to them the absurdity of the Hitler comparisons and the falsehood of rest of their smears. As long as the smears work to mobilize their benighted base, leftists will hurl them. 

If we said, falsely, that Hillary = Stalin to give them a taste of their own medicine it would do no good. They would accuse us of smearing Hillary, again using our values against us when they have no objection to smears that work for them.

This is also why it is a mistake to call leftists hypocrites. They are worse than hypocrites since they have no allegiance whatsoever to the values that their behavior betrays.  And the same goes for accusing them of applying double standards. They don't share our standards. 

You can't shame them either, for they have no shame.

Since for a leftist it is all about power, the only way to defeat them is by overpowering them. This is what Trump, but no other Republican, knows how to do.  He knows how to get under their skin and cause them to adopt ever more extreme positions that lose them credibility with reasonable voters. He knows how to  use power and he has the courage to use it.

The Donald delivers