Death of A Nation DVD Advertisement

“Too Christian GOP” vs. “Diverse Democrats”?

email Email

Liberals regularly attack the Republican Party as too white, too rich, too male and too old. But the New York Times recently slammed Congressional Republicans as much too Christian. Of 293 Republicans in the House and Senate, 291 identify as Christians, with the two others saying they’re Jewish.

Meanwhile, the Times praised Democrats as “significantly more diverse,” though fully 80.2% of the supposedly “diverse” Democrats also said they were Christian, with two thirds of the rest identifying as Jewish. This heavy representation of Jews among Democrats in Congress reflects the heavy Democratic tilt of Jews in the electorate.

Republicans have made significant efforts to attract more Jewish Americans to the conservative cause – and I’ve been proud to take a personal role in those efforts for 30 years. But family traditions, and the long-standing Democratic identification as the party of the underdog, have kept most Jewish voters as die-hard Dems, despite much stronger GOP support for America’s crucial alliance with Israel.

email Email

Comments (6)

Leave a comment
  1. Henry  •  Jan 5, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    Michael, you are driving me crazy with both your opening line here and your show a day or few ago—I forget. … It irks me, and I am not alone in this, that you use the word ‘liberal’ to refer to the modern American left. The word ‘liberal’ has been stolen by the left because they knew it had a more attractive ring to our youth than the word ‘conservative.’ But ‘liberal’ is more in line with the ideals of Locke, the Enlightenment, the Founders, and Reagan than those of Marx, Castro, and Bernie Sanders. Whatever ‘liberal’ element rested within the Democratic Party at the time of JFK has long been lost in these modern Democrats. It’s unfortunate the political divide in the US has been designated liberal-conservative. It should be socialists-liberals, and we probably ought to settle for left-right until such time as the word ‘liberal’ could be returned to its rightful place (no pun intended). … I hope you will give some serious thought to the folly of identifying the word ‘liberal’ with the side of propaganda, anger, and hatred. Even when not angry and hating they are certainly socialists. ‘Progressives’ is better than they deserve. Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave. … Ich bin ein liberal! : )

  2. Ricky Williamson  •  Jan 10, 2017 at 1:37 pm

    And adding to the previous comment – Michael, you need to quit calling leftists "progressives" because there is nothing progressive about them or their preferred policies. Why do you use a word with a very strong positive connotation for an evil ideology that is the opposite of what the word progressive means? That makes no sense.

    Also, quit using the term "people of color." This is an anti-white term coined to frame every political issue as a fight between non-white people and white people. That makes no sense and does not correspond to reality. In many areas, Asians have more in common with white people than black people. For instance Asians are generally better educated and make more money than even white people. Asians generally also have more intact families and are incarcerated at much lower rates than black people. So for issues involving education, income, family structure, and criminal justice, how does it make sense to lump Asians with blacks? And there are many important issues where Hispanics would be more legitimately lumped with white people. Also, look at the rates that white people are intermarrying with Hispanic and Asian people. If their interests are so different, in a way that justifies framing issues as white people versus "people of color," why do whites intermarry with Asians and Hispanics at such high rates? It makes no sense to frame issues as white people against "people of color." And Michael, you even use the term "people of color" in ways that makes no sense. I remember you had a guy on your show talking about how we should restrict voting to certain groups like the educated or the informed. I think he had just written a book. You talked with the guest about how Asians are generally one of the most educated groups in the country and then a few minutes later you said that a voting qualification based on education would hurt "people of color." That is an excellent example of why you should not be using the anti-white term "people of color." Also, "white" people are generally pink or beige. Please quit using terms that are inaccurate and charged with left-wing assumptions.

  3. Ty  •  Jan 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    Alliance with Israel =/= support from Jews. I'm generally supportive of Israel, even if I detest the right wing bent of their electorate (more understandable there with the hostile neighbors causing a sense of a siege mentality), but that does not mean I jump to conservatism because Bibi comes to the US aligning himself and his policies with republicans against things like the Iran deal.

    I'm a liberal, not a conservative, and when I saw Bibi go in front of congress and DELIBERATELY and openly work to undermine the policy of our President, I became and remain hostile to that man. We did not elect you Bibi, we elected Obama. Did you think that because you have some disagreement that jews and liberals are just supposed to jump on board?

    You have done NOTHING but hammer a wedge in the support base of your policies. I'm not jewish, but if I was I would not have some ethno/religious solidarity with any Israeli policy under the sun just because Bibi and those to his right favor it.

    I am AGAINST ethno/religious nationalist sentiment. That is a guttural way to think and live. IDEAS first and foremost. Now again, it makes sense that Israel is more that way because it needs to be to survive with the arab/muslim neighbors being so hostile (persian too with Iran, but that is such a waste, the land once ruled by Cyrus the great, a tolerant Zoroastrian of his time later conquered and diminished by the conquest of Islam, the persians should be allies of jews and minority religions based on their history…).

    • Bill Jackson  •  Jan 12, 2017 at 5:08 pm

      You could have used fewer words by saying "I h@te you Bibi."

      I think you misunderstand why Netanyahu came to USA. It was not to undermine Obama. It was to help Israel and make the case for what Netanyahu thinks is best for Israel. His goal is to help Israel, not to hurt Obama. It just so happens that Obama's policies are horrible for Israel. Unlike Obama, Netanyahu is not driven by petty things like personal hatred for his political adversaries. Netanyahu is the leader YOU think Obama is. Obama is just overrated style and failed ideology.

      And I notice you didn't mention the Obama administration's activities to defeat Netanyahu in the elections in Israel.

      And do you not understand that religions are based on ideas? So you are for ideas as long as the are not religious ideas?

      You also seem to fail to understand that Israel is a refuge for Jews who are mistreated pretty much everywhere. Even here in USA, which is generally friendly to Jewish people, the biggest group of religious hate crimes is against Jewish people. I live here in a peaceful city in the midwest and the Jewish Synagogue near my home is pretty much unmarked with cameras everywhere. Even here the Jewish people can't feel safe. If Israel does not have "ethno/religious" sentiment and is just based on the ideas that you think are so important, it might eventually fail to be that refuge for Jewish people and they will again be left in a situation where they will have no place to flee from antisemitism that will surely arise again in the future.

      • Ty  •  Jan 13, 2017 at 4:57 am

        I think in hindsight, if the original founders of Israel, or their progenitors knew how their neighbors would react, they might have reconsidered the location of the state. Frankly I sometimes wonder if we should have just cut out a section of Montana or Wyoming and offered a state there, not like much else is going on in those states anyway. But like I said, I get the rationale for a jewish state based on history, but I still think the founding rationale and what makes an Israeli an Israeli is an inherently inferior concept compared to a place like the US.

        What do you need to be to be an American? Do we give a damn what your ethnicity is? You religion is? No. It's based on birthright or in the case of immigrants, buying into the American IDEA. There is no preferential treatment for ethnicity. The fact that that is a portion of preferential immigration to Israel strikes me as an inferior standard to our own. I've heard reports that the number 1 group target for hate crimes in the US is Jews, but even so the numbers are small and the US is fairly tolerant and open towards jews.

  4. Tom  •  Jan 14, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Sadly few who have ever been to Israel understand what it is to what it means to be the only democratic society in the Middle East !

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn