I've been pointing out that much of the Establishment dismay over Sen. Lieberman's loss in the Connecticut primary is worry that they too might someday lose their jobs due to screwing up royally over Iraq.
The other subtext among the chattering class is fear and loathing of the supposed emergence of an American Left that is not very Jewish, which you can see in all the Jewish pundits who have ranted about how dare Connecticut voters throw out Lieberman after only 18 years. (Harold Meyerson has been an honorable exception.) This is basically an elite obsession. Among the public, Lamont won 39% of the Jewish vote (compared to 58% of the Protestant vote), so actual Jewish voters weren't as ethnocentric as the Jewish pundits. Still, it's odd for the more leftwing candidate to do much better among Protestants than among Jews, so some voters were thinking like the pundits.
This trend toward a less-Jewish left has been slowly growing for a long time, and was visible in the Arab-American Ralph Nader's fairly good showing in 2000, when he took 2.7% nationally but supposedly only 2 percent of the Jewish vote according to the exit poll. Compare that to 1948 when Henry Wallace, with Communist backing for his Progressive ticket, got skunked most places except his native northern Plains and New York, where he took 9%, much of it, I presume, Jewish. Henry Wallace's share of the Jewish vote is estimated at 15%.
I think this new new left is not particularly anti-Semitic. I'm sure Lamont supporters would have liked their man to get 58% of the Jewish vote as well. But a not-unimportant fraction of Jews have turned much more militaristic in recent years, which has led to growing alienation between Jews and the left.
The other subtext among the chattering class is fear and loathing of the supposed emergence of an American Left that is not very Jewish, which you can see in all the Jewish pundits who have ranted about how dare Connecticut voters throw out Lieberman after only 18 years. (Harold Meyerson has been an honorable exception.) This is basically an elite obsession. Among the public, Lamont won 39% of the Jewish vote (compared to 58% of the Protestant vote), so actual Jewish voters weren't as ethnocentric as the Jewish pundits. Still, it's odd for the more leftwing candidate to do much better among Protestants than among Jews, so some voters were thinking like the pundits.
This trend toward a less-Jewish left has been slowly growing for a long time, and was visible in the Arab-American Ralph Nader's fairly good showing in 2000, when he took 2.7% nationally but supposedly only 2 percent of the Jewish vote according to the exit poll. Compare that to 1948 when Henry Wallace, with Communist backing for his Progressive ticket, got skunked most places except his native northern Plains and New York, where he took 9%, much of it, I presume, Jewish. Henry Wallace's share of the Jewish vote is estimated at 15%.
I think this new new left is not particularly anti-Semitic. I'm sure Lamont supporters would have liked their man to get 58% of the Jewish vote as well. But a not-unimportant fraction of Jews have turned much more militaristic in recent years, which has led to growing alienation between Jews and the left.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated, at whim.