2006 Archives

April 12, 2006

Democrats and Republicans on Israel

One of my frequent commenters (and critics) always asks me why I go easy on the Bush administration when it comes to Israel. It’s true I probably should be more critical of the President Bush when it comes to Israel. That doesn’t change my belief that the Republican party as a whole is more sympathetic to Israel than is the Democratic party and that the actions of those in power will reflect the beliefs of the rank and file.
Daniel Pipes commented on this recently in his blog and stated

It’s hardly news that Republicans view Israel more favorably than do Democrats – I wrote about this pattern in 2000 in “The Friendly Republicans” and have even speculated (in “Arabs and Jews Sorting Themselves Out Politically in the United States?”) that Jews will eventually settle in the Republican party.

 

There are 3 observations I’d make about the charts that Pipes comments on:

1) Two of the leaders of Americans for Peace Now, Debra Delee and Mark Bilsky are very inolved in the Democratic party too. 

2) The category conservative Democrats may be too small to have any statistical significance. (i.e. someone who might be defined as a conservative Democrat might be more likely to define himself as a moderate Democrat.)

3) I believe that if media coverage of the Middle East were less “even handed” and more fair to Israel, the proportion of those sympathizing with Israel over the Palestinians would would be closer to that of conservative Republicans.

 

1) is important because however much the Bush aministration fails to live up to its word or promise regarding Israel, there is no hope for most Democrats to act differently. Peace Now is probably the foremost organization dedicated to the idea that Israel must not win and the involvement of top Democrats in the organization shows the influence of that organization on the party. It is no surprise that Peace Now honored Bill Clinton at the end of his presidency.

2) refers to an anomaly that Pipes noticed. I really don’t think there are enough self described conservative Democrats to be statistically significant.

3) Finally, I really think that if most people got honest reporting out of the Middle East they would favor the society that reaches out around the world over the one where hooded thugs reminiscent of the KKK parade openly by a margin more similar to the Republican margin of 11 to 1.

Technorati tags: , , , , .

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by soccerdad @ 3:23 pm |

3 Comments


  1. You conveniently left out this passage from Pipes’ column:

    Comment: It is surprising – and heartening – to note that liberal Democrats still support Israel by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio. It sure doesn’t seem that way. (March 27, 2006)

    Comment by Laura UNITED STATES — April 12, 2006 @ 5:58 pm



  2. 3) Finally, I really think that if most people got honest reporting out of the Middle East they would favor the society that reaches out around the world over the one where hooded thugs reminiscent of the KKK parade openly by a margin more similar to the Republican margin of 11 to 1.

    I certainly agree with this. There’s no question that liberals tend to be sympathetic to the side they believe to be oppressed.

    Comment by Laura UNITED STATES — April 12, 2006 @ 8:04 pm



  3. To liberals it is always “the opressor” against “the opressed”. No deep explorations of concerning issues, no historical genesis of the conflict or context, no nothing. Just like the marxist theory of history as a struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

    Comment by Witch-king of Angmar SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO — April 13, 2006 @ 3:34 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.