pageok
pageok
pageok
Presidential Candidates With Jewish Roots:

The grandaddy of them all, of course, was Barry Goldwater, who had a Jewish father. He was raised as a Christian by his mother, though it doesn't appear that he was especially religious. Goldwater was, by all accounts, proud of his Jewish heritage, but this aspect of his background played what seems today like a strange role in the 1964 campaign. From what I can tell, his handlers sought to play down his Jewish background, referring to his grandfather as a "Polish immigrant" (including in the speech given to nominate him.) Given that "Poland" didn't exist when the Goldwaters came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century, and that they were ethnically Jewish, not Polish, this was a bit misleading. If his family had been German-speaking residents of the Russian empire, instead of Yiddish-speaking, do you think they would have been referred to the Goldwaters as Polish immigrants?

Meanwhile, the Jewish community, near as I can tell, was equally eager to downplay Goldwater's Jewish background. Neither of my parents, for example, was even aware that Goldwater was ethnically half-Jewish, until I mentioned it to them. Rather than being proud that a grandson of Jewish immigrants was running for president, Jewish leaders were appalled at Goldwater's strong conservatism, and perhaps afraid that his background could stir anti-Semitism; I've read that Goldwater received only 10% of the Jewish vote. Of course, the fact that he was nominally Christian didn't help, but Jews had previously embraced New York Mayor LaGuardia, who had an analogous background, so I'm guessing his reception had much more to do with his political views.

Anderson (mail) (www):
Given that "Poland" didn't exist when the Goldwaters came to the U.S. in the mid-19th century

That's assuming that you can flip a nationality on and off like a light switch, depending on whether it retains political power.

"Poland" certainly existed geographically and culturally, and it's a little odd to say otherwise. Was there no Ukraine until 1991?
9.20.2006 10:54am
DavidBernstein (mail):
The Goldwaters could have been "Polish" in two ways: They could have come from a place called "Poland," or been ethnically "Polish." Neither is true. At least in my experience in my youth, if you would ask elderly Jews from Eastern Europe who came to the U.S. before WWI, where they immigrated from, they would say "Russia". If you asked where in "Russia", they would say Poland, Ukraine, Beolorussia, etc.
9.20.2006 10:58am
DavidBernstein (mail):
OTOH, the reason I said "A BIT" misleading is that the Goldwaters did come from an area that was predominately Polish, and that had once been "Poland."
9.20.2006 11:00am
Nobody (mail):
In my experience, a lot of Jewish immigrants who came from the area now known as Poland didn't like to say they were from Poland. My grandfather, who was born in a shtetl in what is now Poland in 1901, would say, if asked where he was from, "near Vienna." This was true in the same sense that I, who was born in Manhattan, am from "near Montreal." Grandpa's town is MUCH closer to, say, Warsaw or Krakow than it is to Vienna.

I remember when Goldwater died and (for some reason) I watched his funeral on CNN. I was surprised to learn his father was Jewish when one of the speakers (a Rabbi?) referred to him as "Baruch Goldwater."
9.20.2006 11:19am
Steve:
I think it should be obvious why Goldwater would have described himself as a descendant of "Polish immigrants" rather than "Russian immigrants," at least at the height of the Cold War. It doesn't mean the words were chosen in order to deny his Jewish heritage.
9.20.2006 11:19am
Eric Muller (www):
David, I think that what appalled Jewish leaders about Barry Goldwater was not what you call his "conservatism," but rather his paired lack of interest in the civil rights of minorities (especially blacks) and wholeharted support for "states' rights," which in the language of 1964 politics quite clearly meant "helping southern states continue to resist racial integration."
9.20.2006 11:19am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Of course, John Kerry is another such candidate.
9.20.2006 11:23am
GSC:
I was watching the HBO documentary on Goldwater last night and was struck by a piece of footage from (what seemed to be) the '64 campaign. Goldwater was talking about who wouldn't vote for him, and he started with the lazy and those soft on Communism, but he then turned to the bigots and either the fascists or nazis (not sure which term he used). He said they wouldn't vote for him because his grandfather was a Polish Jew. (I tried to google the actual quote and where it was made, but I could not find it.) I had never seen anything from the '64 campaign (which took place 7 years before me birth) where Goldwater addressed this aspect of his heritage. And his use of it (as opposed to Allen's) just reinforced how much George Allen is not ready for prime time.
9.20.2006 11:37am
Eric Muller (www):
I missed the documentary b/c I don't get HBO, but Goldwater was certainly wrong when he said that bigots wouldn't vote for him. Indeed, a major part of his electoral strategy was to break the South away from LBJ over "states' rights" (which was to say, race). This doesn't mean that every Southern voter who supported Goldwater was a bigot. But it does mean that Goldwater was undoubtedly dissembling if he was arguing that his campaign themes would not appeal to (among others) the most pronounced bigots of his day.
9.20.2006 11:51am
GSC:
My point was simply that Goldwater stressed his Jewish heritage to make this point--something I had never previously been aware of. While claiming that bigots won't vote for you is obviously good politics, stressing one's Jewish background as the reason they would not--particularly in 1964--would not seem to be.
9.20.2006 11:57am
Helen (mail):
I agree with Eric Muller -- and I'm old enough to remember the 1964 campaign. The Republican party's nomination of a Presidential candidate who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 drove minority voters away from the party for at least two generations, and there is little evidence that they are coming back yet. No matter how much he tried to explain the nuances of his doubts about the act's constitutionality, voters were more interested in the awful legacy of slavery and segregation that that law attempted to address -- and the Republican party's apparent endorsement of that legacy. Today, white voters in the Old South are mostly Republican, and black voters are Democrats. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of the situation before 1964. The Republican Party attempts to say that it's not about race. But, the coincidence of the timing of the change, the Senate vote, and the presidential nomination is hard to deny.
9.20.2006 12:00pm
Nom (mail):
I think Eric is wrong about Barry Goldwater's lack of concern for minorities or civil rights. Goldwater had a prominent role in integrating the national guard of Arizona before the integration of the U.S. military. He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants. He was also a supporter of the Arizona NAACP. He voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960. Does voting against one particular law (Civil RIghts Act of 1964 - on constitutional and libertarian grounds, not racuial ones) justify saying one is against civil rights?

I understand that Eric may have focused on the perception that Goldwater was anti-civil rights, but any such perception was wholly unjustified and says more about the perceivers than about Goldwater.
9.20.2006 12:07pm
volokh watcher (mail):
I am told by someone who saw the HBO special on Goldwater that he supported a woman's right to choose, apparently under the rubric of "keep the government out of my life", and that his daughter had an abortion. Again, I'm relating what somenoe told me. Can anyone who saw the entire HBO show confirm?
9.20.2006 12:22pm
Steve Rosenbach (www):
I remember as a 14-year-old Jewish kid in 1964 being rather repulsed and afraid of Goldwater. I went door-to-door handing out literature for LBJ. I also remember as a 30-year-old being appalled when Reagan was elected.

As I got older, I came to realize that my earlier views of both of these men were highly distorted.
9.20.2006 12:23pm
Hank:
It is stupid to be proud of one's religious, ethnic, or national heritage. To be proud of one's heritage is to try to take credit for what others have accomplished. It Thus, it makes no sense to be proud to be an American -- or to be ashamed to be an American. You just happened to have been born here.
9.20.2006 12:26pm
Hank:

As I got older, I came to realize that my earlier views of both of these men [Goldwater and Reagan] were highly distorted.

Perhaps your view wasn't distorted then, but is distorted now because the current president makes Goldwater and Reagan seem better than they were.
9.20.2006 12:33pm
GSC:
Volohk watcher--you are correct that Goldwater supported a woman's right to choose and on the very basis you mention. Moreover, as the documentary discusses, his daughter had an abortion in, I believe, the 1950s, and he was very supportive of her. (Goldwater's views on gay rights are also discussed. I've always loved his comment about gays in the military--"I only care if they shoot straight." He has a gay grandson who is HIV positive.)
9.20.2006 12:35pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
Eric, Goldwater's campaign did ultimately rely on a "southern strategy," (primarily because he had alienated everyone else, and they were desperate to get votes) but I think it's clear that (a) Goldwater was personally not a bigot, though his views on the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Right Act overlapped with the substantive views of racist southerners; and (b) the Jewish establishment was hostile at the time to anyone who was remotely conservative. I have somewhere in storage a few books sponsored by the ADL about conservatives (lumping, e.g., Buckley and American Nazi Party together), that would put 1950s red-baiters to shame in their guilt-by-association and insinuation-without evidence.

Also, FWIW, despite romantic notions of Jews' commitment to the cause of black civil rights, which was indeed much greater than other groups', I seriously doubt most Jews as of 1964 had that as their key issue; my sense is that Goldwater's opposition to Social Security and his "warmonger" reputation were much more important.
9.20.2006 12:37pm
Steve:
By the way, as a Jew, I don't take my marching orders from any sort of "Jewish establishment." In fact, I'm not even sure I receive any such marching orders in the first place. Am I unusual in this regard?
9.20.2006 12:40pm
Jeek:
I remember as a 14-year-old Jewish kid in 1964 being rather repulsed and afraid of Goldwater. I went door-to-door handing out literature for LBJ.

Good thing you supported the "moderate" candidate who kept America out of any senseless military adventures. =)
9.20.2006 12:42pm
volokh watcher (mail):
Also, FWIW, despite romantic notions of Jews' commitment to the cause of black civil rights, which was indeed much greater than other groups', I seriously doubt most Jews as of 1964 had that as their key issue; my sense is that Goldwater's opposition to Social Security and his "warmonger" reputation were much more important.

David:

Regarding the italicized portion of your statement, how does Goldwater stack up to the current WH occupant on those issues vis-a-vis Jewish voters?
9.20.2006 12:44pm
lpdbw:
Jeek,

My favorite political story my father told me:

"Friends told me not to vote for that hawk Goldwater, or we'd be involved in awful foreign military adventures. I voted for him anyway, and sure enough, we had a war on our hands."
9.20.2006 12:51pm
steve lubet (mail):
i believe that goldwater's statement, "my grandfather was a polish jew," was delivered at the republican convention in 1964. i recall watching it with my mother (an immigrant, i suppose a "ukrainian jew") who shouted at the television -- "it was your father!"

a joke at the time was, "barry goldwater and i have one thing in common, we're both embarrassed that he's jewish."

that was unfair to goldwater, but might it be accurate re senator allen?
9.20.2006 12:52pm
jimbino (mail):
David Bernstein is one confused Jew who obsesses about Jewishness. He refers to Goldwater as a "nominal Christian." Was Einstein a "nominal" Jew? What did he become when, at age 15, he told his parents that he considered himself no longer either Jew or German?

In my view, a person is properly judged by his character and beliefs as reflected in his practices, not by his ethnic heritage. A person born to Jewish parents, like all of Jesus' disciples and St Paul, can be Christian without converting, in the same way that a child born to Muslim parents can be a Christian without converting from anything else.

Being born to Democrat Jewish parents no more makes you a Jew, in any sense that matters, than it makes you a Democrat! In my mind Jews are indistinguishable from Nazis and classical Amerikan racists in the way they obsess about the effect a drop of inherited blood has on the person's character, beliefs or practices.

Enough of Bernstein's obsessions! Can't Jews confine their Jewishness talk to their genital mutilation ceremonies?
9.20.2006 1:09pm
Helen (mail):
I don't think Barry Goldwater was a bigot. I DO think that the timing of his nomination -- right on the heels of the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- made him appear that way to large numbers of voters, and gave the appearance that the Republican Party endorsed such views. The congressional debate on the Civil Rights Act was huge news. It went on for months, and was reported every day by the TV network news programs. It was on the front page of major newpapers daily, week after week. I have not seen any Congressional debate covered in such detail or at such length any time since then. Obviously, a few voters listened to what the candidate actually had to say about his vote, but, to paraphrase Adlai Stevenson, a candidate needs more votes than those of thinking people.
9.20.2006 1:10pm
Eric Muller (www):
David, the question you raised for discussion was not whether Goldwater was personally a bigot, but why Jewish voters in 1964 might have been repulsed by his candidacy rather than proud of the success of a member of the tribe.

My point is that Goldwater ran a campaign that repulsed them by appealing to those segments of American society that were likely to be quite hostile and threatening to Jews (and other minorities). Goldwater may have been an utter racial progressive in his personal life -- not having read a biography of him, I really couldn't say for sure -- but he made his deal with the proponents of racial segregation, and that was plenty of reason (though there were surely others) for a Jew to oppose him in 1964.
9.20.2006 1:16pm
DavidBernstein (mail):
I'm sorry, Jimbino, but your entire rant bespeaks ignorance of what being "Jewish" means. If you're actually interesting in understanding why "Jews" are not defined as "followers of the Jewish religion", I'd be glad to explain it, but if you are just interested in snarky rants, I won't bother. "Nominal Christian," meanwhile, did not refer to Goldwater "really being a Jew", but to the fact that as far as I know, he was not an active, believing Christian.
9.20.2006 1:17pm
GSC:
For what it's worth--and this seems right based upon the clip from the HBO documentary--one web site claims that the Goldwater quote I referenced above was from his October '64 speech at Madison Square Garden, and he said: "The Nazi and the Fascist types -- the bigots -- they're not going to vote for me because my grandfather was a Polish Jew."

FYI, his grandfather was born in (what had been) Poland, but his grandmother was English (and Jewish). Goldwater's father converted when he married Barry's mother. One could argue that by discussing only his grandfather in the speech, he was trying to reduce his "Jewish blood" to 25%, but I think be adding the Polish part, it added to his "foreigness," and his father did convert. (I can't imagine many anti-semites having a problem with someone 1/2 jewish but not 1/4, so I don't think that the reference to his grandfather was very calculating.)

The HBO documentary also had Robert MacNeil (I believe) of MacNeil Lehrer fame tell one of Goldwater's favorite stories of going to play golf and being told jews can't play. Goldwater responds with, "But I'm only half Jewish, can I play 9 holes?" I have always loved that story and had just told it to my wife shortly before it was on the documentary.
9.20.2006 1:17pm
Nick-asp (mail) (www):
It's more than a bit misleading to say that Goldwater's grandfather was a 'Polish' immigrant.

Poles, at least Poles before World War II, don't consider Jews to be Poles, and the Jews didn't consider themselves Poles either. 'Polish' was an ethnic description, not based on citizenship. The millions of Jews living inside the borders of pre-1939 Poland were just Jews who happened to be living in Poland. (I'm going by my grandparents and their friends who emigrated in the 1940s, things have probably changed now.)

For instance, I remembered being corrected when I said that "6 million Poles were killed in World War II".

"No, 3 million Poles were killed by the Germans, and 3 million Jews living in Poland. Jews are NOT Poles, period."

This attitude seemed to be universal, from the ultra, ultra, ultra anti-semites to the Jew-friendly ones. If you consider that pre-WWII Jews often spoke only Yiddish and lived apart from the larger Polish population this attitude makes sense. It wasn't just anti-semitism; Pilsudski's Poland contained a great many Ruthenians, Ukranians, Germans, Belorussians, et al. and they were'nt considered, and didn't consider themselves 'Poles' either.

I understand that this was true for all Eastern countries, as it was in Western Europe until the 19th century.

I think that Goldwater would have been aware of this, so the most likely explanation is that he didn't want to give his Jewish background any more publicity than he absolutely had to.
9.20.2006 1:21pm
Adam (mail):
By the way, as a Jew, I don't take my marching orders from any sort of "Jewish establishment." In fact, I'm not even sure I receive any such marching orders in the first place. Am I unusual in this regard?

Yes, you are. You know those little one-line ads buried throughout the front section of the NYT? Properly deciphered, they tell where the weekly meeting is, and, man, is that good matzoh.
9.20.2006 1:23pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
I was 13 in 1964 and a big Goldwater supporter. I knew that Barry Morris Goldwater (Geldwasser) was of Jewish heritage. A lot of Jewish shopkeepers went West to run businesses and lost their faith (lack of a minyan, intermarriage, etc.). I had such ancestors myself.

Right wingers have always tended to use the full names of public people they talk about; particularly presidents and presidential candidates (James Earl Carter, Jr., William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Gerald Rudolph Ford, etc.). I'm guessing that a lot of Republicans knew of his heritage.
9.20.2006 1:34pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
he made his deal with the proponents of racial segregation,

I hate to break it to you, but all the libertarians in the country oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a major human rights violation (our human right to deal with those we -- not you totalitarians -- choose.

Barry voted his conscience in the Civil Rights Act vote.
9.20.2006 1:39pm
PersonFromPorlock:
I'm surprised nobody's yet quoted then-Atlanta Constitution columnist Harry Golden on Goldwater's ethnicity: "I always knew that if a Jew ever got into the White House, he'd be an Episcopalian."
9.20.2006 2:27pm
Steve:
"Genital mutilation." What an asshole.
9.20.2006 2:58pm
jimbino (mail):
Steve,

Is it not "genital?" Is it not "mutilation?" Does the fact of the Rabbi's putting the pecker in his mouth make it OK?

The Swedes are a bit more sensible:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Sweden.html

Father gaoled for circumcision of son
June 14, 2001

A divorced father took his six-year old son to a doctor in Borås and had the boy circumcised without the mother's knowledge. Today the father was sentenced to three months in prison for assault, inciting assault, uttering illegal threats and child abuse.
9.20.2006 3:14pm
MDJD2B (mail):
Being born to Democrat Jewish parents no more makes you a Jew, in any sense that matters, than it makes you a Democrat! In my mind Jews are indistinguishable from Nazis and classical Amerikan racists in the way they obsess about the effect a drop of inherited blood has on the person's character, beliefs or practices.

Enough of Bernstein's obsessions! Can't Jews confine their Jewishness talk to their genital mutilation ceremonies?


Jimbino,

1. Judaism is not analogous to Christianity as a religion. Being Jewish is not primarily a function of one's personal choice, but of one's birth. Being born Jewish commits one to membership in a community which has certain obligations that include, but that are not limited to, religious beliefs analogous to Christianity. (A Jew can reject this thesis, but this is normative Judaism.)For YOU to define what Jews should or should not believe, or hor Jews should or should not define themselves reeks of arrogance.

2. Why are you preoccupied with what Jews may or may not be preoccupied with? (BTW, if you lived in a country whose demographics were such that whatever you think is a very important part of your identification comprises 3% of the population, you would pay more attention to who was or wasn't what you are as well. Ethnic Swedes in Swedem or Minnesota oar not as concerned with who is Swedish as ethnic Jews in those places, but they might be more preoccupied wit this in Finland or in Pomerania.

3. Your comments about drops of inherited blood and genital mutilation say more about you than about Jews. They confirm your own obsessions, and your desire to attribute to Jews beliefs about their preoccupations that are, at best, caricatures.

4. You spoke about how people of good character can be Christian without converting. Do you think those people will find that complementary? Do your obsessions with Jewish self-identification and with circumcision reflect your good character? Do they make you more or less of a Christian?
9.20.2006 3:18pm
Medis:
"Why is it that Jews obsess about Jewishness in ways that no Irishman would obsess about Irishness?"

I found this quite funny. From my experience with Irish people, Irish history, and Irish culture, choosing the Irish for this comparison was particularly unsuitable.
9.20.2006 3:34pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Helen:
But, the coincidence of the timing of the change, the Senate vote, and the presidential nomination is hard to deny.
The problem with that argument is that it relies upon a single data point. With the singular exception of the 1964 election, the most bigoted areas of the South were the slowest to move from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

People talk about the so-called "Southern Strategy" of Nixon (note: after the 1964 election), but look at it empirically. Nixon didn't win the South in 1968; he did in 1972, but that was really more of a 49-state strategy than a southern one. In 1976, Carter won the South; in 1980 and 1984, Reagan pretty much won everywhere; same with Bush I in 1988. Clinton split it with Bush I in 1992; Dole made further inroads in 1996. It wasn't until 2000 that the South became fully a GOP lock in the electoral column. It seems pretty odd, if a backlash against the civil rights movement is one's primary explanatory factor for electoral voting, that it took decades for that to play such a role. Doesn't it seem, rather, that the civil rights era took race OFF the table, allowing the South to vote just like everywhere else in the country, instead of the Democrats having a stranglehold on that region?
9.20.2006 4:18pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Jimbino,

To give you the benefit of the doubt, you simply don't understand Judaism. It is not analogous to Christianity (or Democrats) as a belief system. Judaism is not defined by "character, beliefs, practices." You're trying to fit it into an inapplicable mold. The fact that Christianity is defined by the holding of certain supernatural beliefs does not mean that Judaism is defined the same way.

"Being born to Democrat[ic] Jewish parents" may not make you a Democrat (although it likely will, if I remember my sociology reading) but it does make you Jewish, just as being born to Democratic Chinese-American parents may not make you a Democrat but does makes you Chinese-American. (And being born to Democratic Jewish Chinese-American parents makes you Jewish Chinese-American.)
9.20.2006 5:00pm
Porkchop (mail):

(And being born to Democratic Jewish Chinese-American parents makes you Jewish Chinese-American.)

I actually know at least three Jewish Chinese-Americans; one of them is eligible for membership in the DAR. Her father lives for the day that "a little Chinese girl named Friedman sends in her DAR membership application." "What a country!" :-)
9.20.2006 5:23pm
dearieme:
"It's more than a bit misleading to say that Goldwater's grandfather was a 'Polish' immigrant......the most likely explanation is that he didn't want to give his Jewish background any more publicity than he absolutely had to."
That's surely far-fetched? "my grandfather was a Polish Jew" is surely a simple, direct way of explaining to a mass audience that his grandfather was a Jew from northern Central Europe. A disquisition on Poland-Lithuania, the Russian Pale and so forth would have been unsuitable. Goldwater was clearly a better man than LBJ: whether he'd have been a better president we'll never know.
9.20.2006 5:26pm
Steve:
Her father lives for the day that "a little Chinese girl named Friedman sends in her DAR membership application."

I wouldn't get too excited about that day. The DAR excludes Jews, although obviously not as a matter of stated policy in this day and age.
9.20.2006 5:59pm
dick thompson (mail):
dearime,

How could he have been a worse president than LBJ????

What I find interesting is that in 1964 the only reason the Civil Rights Act passed was because of the support the republicans. In fact a higher percentage of republican congress critters and senators voted for the act than did the democrats. Those republicans who voted against it all did so for the reason that they felt it was not constitutional. How about the democrats who voted against it?
9.20.2006 6:02pm
plunge (mail):
Totally offtopic, but after hearing from my wife about how circumcisions are performed in hospitals with some sort of super elaborate torture device (she is fast getting to the point where she is deciding to professionally refuse to perform it as a matter of conscience), having a rabbi perform the proceedure sounds way preferable to a doctor. Give me the rabbinical genital mutilation any day over modern medicine!


Still, Allen was a total goof. If he had any brains as a policitian, he would have answered "yes, that's part of my heritage, and like all of it, imporant to me. And while I may be a Christian, I'm a far better friend to Israel than my opponent.... etc." Instead, we got a sort of what how dare you insult me! sort of reaction. Totally classless, that guy.
9.20.2006 6:51pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Virtually all of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act later became Republicans. (Probably the lone exception of which I am aware is Robert Byrd).

David's view that the Civil Rights era "took race off the table" is a bit fanciful. Probably a more accurate description is that white social conservatives in the South, who had been Democrats for historic reasons dating from the Civil War and before, left that party after that party's leadership began to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other measures supportive of African American community.

Indeed, if you analyze who supported the Dixiecrats, and opposed the Civil Rights Act (I am not talking about the less than 1 or 2 percent libertarian types), almost all of them became Republicans within two decades of the 1964 Civil Rights Act's passage. The list of former southern Democrats who joined the Republican party is legion. This list grew as these politicians began to realize that being a Republican in the South was no longer the liability that it used to be, because their base of white social conservatives were not as pissed about Yankees and the Civil War as it was about blacks, the civil rights movement, and other social conservative issues (prayer in school, outlawing abortion) important to them.

That is why Nixon began espousing opposition to busing, "states rights" and other positions viewed as anti-Civil rights, during the 1960s and 1970s.

That is also why Reagan enjoyed such widespread support in the South among white voters and almost no support among African American voters. His position on affirmative action, for example, conveniently fit well with these white voters' views, but was seen almost universally within the African American community as a sign that he was hostile to their interests.

That is why many white politicians in the South, to this day, still pretend that the Confederate Flag is a symbol of "regional pride and heritage" rather than a symbol of racism, and voted against making Martin Luther King's birthday a national holiday.

Of course, regional traditions over a century old, such as the white southerns' allegiance to the Democratic party, did not change overnight. So, some southern Democrats did pick up support in the south in national elections (e.g., Jimmy Carter in 1976). However,but you can clearly see the Republican party's Southern Strategy in effect since
Nixon's first campaign, in 1968, through George W. Bush's campaign in 2004. I would venture a guess that you will see this "code" at work today, in Senatorial campaigns this year.

Goldwater's personal opposition to the Civil Rights Act may have been based on non-racial or libertarian considerations, as I don't think he was a racist, and certainly not by the standards of his time (probably, he was quite progressive on issues of racial equality). While he did poorly in general election, he did win 5 Southern States that had not voted Republican since 1876. (The Civil Rights Act was passed in July 1964, before the Presidential election).
9.20.2006 7:37pm
David Maquera (mail) (www):
Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona while it was still a territory of the US -- not a state. After it became a state, Goldwater noted throughout his political career that the largest landowner out west was not any one private individual but the federal government. Goldwater was passionate against big government. The fact that Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was not because he was a bigot but because he thought the Act's constitutional authority premised on Article I, Section 8 was tenuous at best. People fail to appreciate that Goldwater came of age at a time when the federal government greatly expanded its powers under the assertion of the commerce clause of Article I, Section 8. Goldwater's greatest fear was that the federal government was becoming so strong that it would undermine the mechanism of federalism that the Founding Fathers wove throughout the US Constitution and eventually go down the same path that the communist government did in the USSR.
9.20.2006 7:59pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Goldwater also said, in explaining his opposition, that "you can't legislate morality." I suppose, he meant something more like, "passing these laws won't change peoples' attitudes," because our laws do reflect and attempt to enforce society's view of what is moral.
9.20.2006 8:05pm
Charles Oliver (mail):
FWIW,

Rick Perlstein's book cites this line from a 1963 speech by Goldwater:

I don't like segregation. But I don't like the Constitution kicked around, either.
9.20.2006 9:40pm
Can't find a good name:
Duncan: You sometimes hear Democrats use their opponents' full names with contemptuous intent as well. Examples I can think of are "George Felix Allen" for George Allen, and "J. Danforth Quayle" for Dan Quayle (technically, that should be James Danforth Quayle, but I never heard it that way), as well as "George Herbert Walker Bush" before it was necessary to distinguish between him and the current president.
9.20.2006 11:03pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
I don't see how ensuring equality is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment. In fact, it strikes me that the Civil Rights Act was precisely the type of measure that the 14th Amendment authorized Congress to enact (See Section 5 of the 14th Amendment).
9.21.2006 12:24am
Lev:
Christopher Cooke (mail):

Virtually all of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act later became Republicans. (Probably the lone exception of which I am aware is Robert Byrd).


Horse manure. I'll give you Sperm Thurmond. Who else?
9.21.2006 1:18am
Lev:
I think Allen should have asked back:


What are you asking? Are you asking if I am now or ever have been Jewish?
9.21.2006 1:19am
Christopher Cooke (mail):
Lev:

You are right, my sentence was inartfully worded. Not many of the Southern Democratic Senators and Representatives who voted on the Civil Rights Act switched parties. However, their electoral base did switch parties. Here is a relevant passage from Wikipedia:

"Senator Strom Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican as a result of his support for the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964. Former Democrat Jesse Helms also switched his party registration to Republican in 1970 and won a Senate seat in North Carolina in 1972. Phil Gramm of Texas, at the time a member of the House of Representatives, switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in 1983. Several other Southern senators, such as Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi remained in the Democratic Party and went on to become prominent senators who served multiple terms in the service of their respective states. These long careers in the Senate elevated their seniority and put them in positions of power and prestige.

Into the twenty-first century, the South has changed from a Democratic monolith to a majority Republican sector of the country with GOP gains in state legislatures. This change, which became quite evident in 1972 with the electoral success of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", peaked with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and was consolidated in 1994 when Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives under the leadership of Newt Gingrich."

As for Allen, the more I read about him, the more I am inclined to believe that he didn't want to admit his Jewish heritage/ancestory because he thought it might alienate his good ol'boy supporters, or his support among some born again Christians.
9.21.2006 1:48am
Milhouse (www):
Jews had previously embraced New York Mayor LaGuardia, who had an analogous background,
Not quite analogous. The difference is which parent was Jewish. From the Jewish POV, La Guardia was a Jew with an Italian surname, while Goldwater was a gentile with a Jewish surname.

Also, La Guardia, campaigning to an electorate heavy with Jews, made a point of letting it be known that he spoke Yiddish, and even offered to debate an opponent in that language, which would have endeared him to many NY Jews at the time. Goldwater, OTOH, campaigning to an electorate where his being Jewish was probably more of a negative than a positive, did nothing to draw attention to that fact, to say the least. That may have enhanced his general vote, but it would have tended to depress his Jewish vote.
9.21.2006 2:59am
A. Zarkov (mail):
I voted against Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election. I read his book “Conscious of a Conservative” and found it superficial. I did not consider him a bigot, and there was no evidence to that effect. At the time I thought his foreign policy would have been excessively aggressive and risky. Remember we had a very close call in 1962 with the Cuban Missile Crisis. LBJ of course doubled crossed those who voted for him. As to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the southern criticism turn out to be correct, it did provide a blueprint for system of racial preferences despite the vehement denials by the bill’s sponsors at the time.

In retrospect, I still think Goldwater had a superficial philosophy. However LBJ did lasting damage to the country. The guns-and-butter fiscal policy caused terrible inflation in the 1970s, and the Great Society Program turned out to have a poor cost-benefit ratio. But worst of all was the Vietnam War, which he ran incompetently. From time to time I listen to tape recordings of LBJ telephone conversations and meeting. They sound like a Mafia conference. Moreover I only voted for LBJ very reluctantly as I considered him a crook at the time. While extremely intelligent (more intelligent than JFK), he was no intellectual. He was also boorish, arrogant, and very poor at foreign policy. His forte was lining up support for his legislative proposals. It’s too bad they were such bad proposals.

He lost the Jewish vote because he was a Republican, a westerner, and an anti-communist. Republicans always lose the Jewish vote. But he compounded the felony by running against the “elites” of the Northeast, and Jews are concentrated in the Northeast at that time in New York and Philadelphia. They were also afraid he would start a nuclear war with the USSR.
9.21.2006 9:28am
Seamus (mail):

Virtually all of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act later became Republicans. (Probably the lone exception of which I am aware is Robert Byrd).



When did Al Gore, Sr., become a Republican?
9.21.2006 12:54pm
Robert Schwartz (mail):
In the 16th Century, the Kingdom of Poland, which occupied a territory that included most of modern Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania and bits of Russia, became a republic. It was multi-ethnic and multi-confessional. It included Poles, Lithuanians, Germans, Jews, and Ukrainians, who were Catholic, Orthodox, Uniate, Lutheran, Calvinist, and Jewish.

In the 18th century it was carved up by Russia, Prussia and Austria. The portion of Poland that was grabbed by the Russians, was the only place within the Russian Empire where Jews were permitted to live. It was called the Pale of Settlement.

Anyone who came from the area occupied by the Kingdom/Republic of Poland can reasonably say he was from Poland, regardless of ethnicity or religion.
9.21.2006 5:58pm
markm (mail):
I wouldn't think a man who went by the name of "Goldwater" was trying very hard to conceal his Jewish ancestry.
9.21.2006 5:58pm
Rich Rostrom (mail):
When did James Eastland (D-MS), John Stennis (D-MS), Russell Long (D-LA), John Sparkman (D-AL), John McClellan (D-AR), J. William Fulbright (D-AR), Herman Talmadge (D-GA), or Sam Ervin (D-NC) become Republicans? All of these Senators served well into the 1970s, and had plenty of opportunity to change parties if they wanted to. There were also many more who died or retired in the next few years, without having changed parties.

About 20 Democrat Senators voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The only one of them to change to the Republicans was Strom Thurmond.
9.21.2006 6:11pm
jimbino (mail):
Volokh tried to censor this response:

For the record, I am an Irish Atheist, but I never obsess with my Irish friends or relatives about our Irishness and we don't celebrate making our kids eat potatoes. As an atheist, I am a member of a tiny minority persecuted equally by Jews, Muslims and Christians. Hell, we don't even get to have our own chaplains in prisons or the military and we are constantly subjected to idiot prayers of others to the same/different god.

Jews and Muslims are to be pitied to the extent that genetics determines so much of their destiny and attitudes. That "Being born Jewish commits one to membership in a community which has certain obligations...." is lamentable and so pre-enlightenment. No wonder Einstein ("the world's most famous Jew.") repudiated Judaism, as he did patriotism, nationalism and Germanism.

And the idea of "normative" Judaism is a joke--like there's some Jewish pope who decides these things? To the extent that God has spoken on this matter, it appears he did it through the Jew Jesus, or maybe Mohammed, or Joseph Smith. So maybe this "normative" Judaism is Christianity? Jesus was "arrogant" all right, and he paid the price the Jews exacted, just as arrogant Giordano Bruno paid the price of his arrogance that the Pope exacted. Religious folk are nothing if not barbarians. It's great that Muslims, Jews and Catholics are now going after each other's throats.

Would someone out there explain this casual use of the term "conversion?" Did Jesus, Einstein or Giordano Bruno convert? Repudiating superstition handed down through your ancestors is called "enlightenment" not "conversion." At the least, conversion ought to imply a radical change of opinion about something, as in the way Einstein, a convinced Newtonian, "converted" to Relativity Theory but never quite "converted" to Quantum Theory. As far as belief is involved, there is no evidence that he ever was a Jew!


Fake libertarian Eugene Volokh will try to censor what you publish if he disagrees with what you say or how you say it. He's a helicopter parent or thinks he's China. As they say at Peacefire.org, "You'll understand when your're younger."

Of course his censorship doesn't work. If you are ever censored by China or Volokh, check out this tutorial that covers methods for circumventing internet filters and protection/blocking services. There are several excellent methods to do this.

1. Use peacefire.org’s circumventor software

Peacefire.org is a site that is dedicated to free speech on the internet. To help them with their goals the have created the circumventor software. The circumventor can be placed on a friend’s computer, allowing you access to restricted websites. The following URL contains detailed instructions for the installation and use of the circumventor.

1. Use peacefire.org’s circumventor software

Peacefire.org is a site that is dedicated to free speech on the internet. To help them with their goals the have created the circumventor software. The circumventor can be placed on a friend’s computer, allowing you access to restricted websites. The following URL contains detailed instructions for the installation and use of the circumventor.

Peacefire

2. Proxy Lists

A proxy is a computer which allows information to be remotely queried. For example, if I can’t get access to alcohol but my friend can, I would ask my friend to get alcohol for me. This is a simplistic explanation of how a proxy works. Getting lists of these allows you to circumvent many internet filtering products. To set up a proxy you will want to find the connection properties of your internet browser.

In Firefox

Click on Tools —> Options
Select the “General” icon
Under Connection click on connection settings
Select “Manual proxy configuration” radio button
Enter in proxy information

Several URLs of Lists
http://www.samair.ru/proxy/
http://www.stayinvisible.com/index.pl/proxy_list
http://www.proxy4free.com/page1.html
http://www.publicproxyservers.com/page1.html

For more information visit http://www.proxy4free.com/index.html

3. Sockschain

Sockschain is a program that uses strings of proxies to hide IP addresses and to prevent blocking software from working. It can be installed and will work with any internet browser. This is an extension of the above. It increases your chances of anonymity and of getting to restricted websites.

It can be found at http://www.ufasoft.com/socks/

4. JAPJAP is a program which uses a combination of encryption and mixes to bypass censorship programs. By using the mixes and encryption, it is difficult to find out where information is coming from and going allowing restricted web sites to be accessed.

It can be found at http://anon.inf.tu-dresden.de/index_en.html

5. Look AroundLastly, searching for methods of circumventing these pieces is a good option. There are many, many ways to circumvent filters and blocking programs.

For a good resource go to:http://nocensor.citizenlab.org/#4.3.5.1
9.21.2006 6:34pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
So, we see that Jimbino (still) doesn't understand

(a) what libertarianism is -- hint: libertarians respect private property. Property owners have no legal or moral obligation to let you speak on their property. So while kicking you out does not make him a "fake" libertarian, you trespassing after being kicked out makes you a jerk.

(b) what Judaism is -- the statement "As far as belief is involved, there's no evidence he was ever a Jew" is gibberish, since "belief" has nothing to do with being a Jew. It's like saying, "As far as belief is involved, there's no evidence he was ever an Italian."
9.21.2006 8:07pm
Anonymous777:
Allen would have been more embarrassed still if it was disclosed that he might really be a Bhuddist. And worse still if a Muslim or an atheist.

If it was discovered that a candidate for Prime Minister of Israel had a non-Jewish mother, don't you think a large plurality, if not a majority, of voters would notice this, and not as a positive feature? Don't you think said candidate would then go out of his way to show that he keeps the Sabbath on Saturday, keep kosher, etc? Similar, with respect to Christianity, goes for non-Christian politicians here. Thus, Allen when asked about a Jewish mother goes out of his way to tell us that he's a Christian and that he eats ham sandwiches. It's too bad that offends some sensitive ninnies, but that's the way it is.
9.25.2006 12:17am