Pro and con Obama, again

Mark Jaws writes:

as a candidate for NYC mayor, Dinkins received 50 percent of the Jewish vote in 1989. But after the infamously anti-Jewish Crown Heights riots in 1991, less than 25 percent of New York’s Jews supported Mayor Dinkins in 1993.

Knowing how critical Jews are to the American political landscape, we should ask ourselves whose presidency is more likely to turn Jews away from the Left? Clinton’s or Obama’s? No doubt, the latter. If we could reduce the Jewish liberal to conservative ratio, which I believe now stands at least 3 to 1, we can make great progress in bringing about the Auster “majoritarian reconquista.” With his associations to Farrakhan and Farrakhanites, Obama may very well drive younger Jews out of the Democratic Party or at least splinter the party by irrevocably shattering the unholy alliance among blacks and Jews.

Adela Gereth writes:

As horrible a president as the unforgivable McCain would be, I dread the chilling effect on traditionalism that an Obama presidency would have. We would be signaling not only to ourselves but to the rest of the world that the dominant American majority has lost confidence in itself to govern itself. With the preponderance of “hate crimes” being black on white, the lower IQs of blacks generally, their failure as a group to thrive even with massive ongoing governmental support and aid, electing a man to govern us who, though biracial, identifies as a black, could hardly be considered progress from a traditionalist cultural perspective. Indeed, it would be a distinct step backward.

Not only that, but I fear an Obama presidency would be the thin end of the wedge. Blacks (and leftists) would never be content with finally “having their turn” and having a black man as POTUS. If things went well during an Obama tenure in office, they’d point out that just one “black” president in 200+ isn’t enough to compensate for past racial injustice, disenfranchisement, etc., that if one is good, two would be better. And of course, if things went badly for him (and us), they’d point to the inherently racist American system/nation/culture as the culprit. Either way, he’d get the same free pass as president that he’s gotten so far as a candidate.

Frankly, I can’t stand the thought of four (or, God forbid, more) years of seeing little besides high-profile, angry or contemptuous black faces in the national media. The past couple of months have been a clear foreshadowing of what we have to look forward to if Obama is elected.

Mark Jaws writes:

No doubt the average VFR reader commands respect and authority among the typical white persons living in PA, NC, WVA, etc. he or she counts among his acquaintances.

The main issues before us is to determine which of the three dark clouds will provide the longest and thickest silver lining. Having a degree from City College in meteorology, I believe it is the Obamanimbus, for reasons I cited earlier.

In fact, I am working on a little ditty, sung to Irving Berlin’s April Showers.

“Those Obama showers may come and then, Bring right wing flowers in 2010.

So if he’s reigning, Do not dismay, Even if he gets elected, He’ll be sunk by May.

So when you see Wright upon the hills, You’re only seeing more kooks and shrills,

So if you’re looking for a black bird And listening for his song He won’t have that much power for too long.

On the other hand, McClainostratus clouds are likely to produce no silver lining. We are not likely to see Alito and Roberts type judges or a solid conservative as VP. Republicans will get blamed for the illegal immigrant amnesty and that will set the conservative movement back 20 years.

Rocco DiPippo writes:

While Obama and Bill Ayers served on the Woods Fund, it awarded a $6000 grant, in Obama’s name, to Wright’s church.

Adela G. writes:

Mark Jaws writes: “If we could reduce the Jewish liberal to conservative ratio, which I believe now stands at least 3 to 1, we can make great progress in bringing about the Auster “majoritarian reconquista.”

True—but that’s an awfully big “if.” I was sure that the emergence of AIDS would return us to, if not a traditional morality, at least a less licentious one. I was sure that the borders would be secured shortly after 9/11.

I am not at all sure that an Obama presidency would reduce the Jewish liberal to conservative ratio to the extent needed. His campaign survived the revelations that his pastor is anti-white and anti-American, that his wife is a perpetually angry grievance-mongerer and that he himself identifies only with his black ancestry and repeatedly expresses disdain for white people. Yet his campaign was not only not destroyed by any or all of these ongoing revelations; indeed, I’m sure they’ve actually helped him with the leftists and many blacks.

Mark Jaws cites the drop in Jewish support for Dinkins following the anti-Jewish riots but we’re in a very different era from 1991. We’ve become inured to anti-white and anti-Semitic outbursts by blacks. I really can’t think of anything that would provide the impetus we need.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong or even to have someone point out some flaw[s] in my reasoning and cast doubt on my conclusions.

LA writes:

By the way, it seems impossible that Dinkins’s Jewish vote declined from 50 to 25 percent between 1989 and 1993. Jews were something like a quarter of the electorate. A quarter of 25 percent would be six percent of the total. That would be shift of 12 points in Giuliani’s favor over 1989. Nothing like that happened. In fact we recently discussed this. I had thought the switch from ‘89 to ‘93 was very narrow. Then I saw in Wikipedia that I was wrong, that there was a major shift:

In 1993, Mayor Dinkins again faced Rudy Giuliani, decreasing his share of the vote from 51% in 1989 to 46%.

But now I’m looking at the New York Times from the morning after the 1993 election, and it is supporting my original memory, as well as confirming that there was no big or even small shift in the Jewish vote:

In a near-mirror image of his 2 percentage-point loss to Mr. Dinkins four years ago, Mr. Giuliani won in unofficial returns by sweeping the white ethnic neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island that have been his political base, solidifying his hold on Republicans and drawing wisps of new support from crossover Democrats. But he fell short of creating the broad new moderate coalition he had hoped for. A Fragile Alliance

Mr. Dinkins, the old-line liberal Democrat who pieced together a fragile interracial alliance to become New York City’s first black mayor, ran a feisty campaign and held onto most of it, but not enough to avoid becoming the first black mayor of a major American city to be defeated in his first re-election bid.

With 100 percent of election districts reporting in unofficial returns, the vote was:

Giuliani … … 903,114 (50.7%)

Dinkins … … 858,868 (48.3%)

The article goes on to say:

In all but its outcome, the election was a striking replay of the 1989 contest, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls by Voter Research and Surveys, a consortium of four television networks. In virtually all broad demographic and political categories, Mr. Dinkins did about as well as he did four years ago. He won more than 90 percent of the black vote, about one-quarter of the white vote, nearly two-thirds of the Hispanic vote, and nearly 4 in 10 Jewish votes—all comparable to his 1989 tallies. The Mayor held onto 7 in 10 Democrats, and white liberal voters remained evenly split.

Mark A. writes:

From Time:

“Senator Obama would be the first to disagree with that, of course, but the sympathy his candidacy has aroused among many Iranians stems from a variety of factors, including his African heritage, his partly Muslim family ties, and a belief that Obama would move to end Washington’s 30-year Cold War with Tehran—or at least reduce the prospect of a U.S. military attack on the Islamic Republic.”

Even 10,000 miles away, it is largely about Obama’s being black. His election will signify to the world that the white man has surrendered his throne. The emperor truly will have no clothes. After Vietnam, we saw the Soviet Union run wild exporting Communism to at least 10 nations. What will an Obama presidency have in store for us in terms of foreign affairs? Who will run wild when he is on the throne?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 21, 2008 09:23 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):