ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

How About A Jewish President?

[ Posted Monday, September 21st, 2015 – 17:01 UTC ]

For the past few days, the presidential election has focused on religion -- in specific, the Islamic religion. This started with Donald Trump failing to challenge a questioner's assertion that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, and then shifted to asking Republican candidates whether they could hypothetically support a Muslim to become America's president. This time it was Ben Carson who stumbled, not Trump. Other Republican presidential candidates have -- to their credit -- condemned Carson's remarks, most notably Ted Cruz (on constitutional grounds: "the Constitution specifies there shall be no religious test for public office and I am a constitutionalist") and Lindsey Graham (on historical grounds: "America is an idea, not owned by a particular religion"). Bobby Jindal tried to win the gotcha battle in his own unique way:

If you can find me a Muslim candidate who is a Republican, who will fight hard to protect religious liberty, who will respect the Judeo-Christian heritage of America, who will be committed to destroying ISIS and radical Islam, who will condemn cultures that treat women as second-class citizens and who will place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution, then yes, I will be happy to consider voting for him or her.

This ignores the fact that, as Ted Cruz pointed out, there is no requirement a president "place their hand on the Bible" while being sworn in (the words "so help me God" don't even appear in the official oath of office), and also brushes aside how today's Republican Party could be described by many as a "culture that treats women as second-class citizens," but Jindal's always been known to unintentionally utter some rather ironic statements.

But all of this media attention over a hypothetical Muslim presidential candidate (not one of the major party candidates is, in actual fact, a Muslim) completely ignores a truly pertinent question -- one that I am personally astonished that nobody's really even noticed yet. The question: Could America elect the first Jewish president in 2016?

You may not be aware of it, but Bernie Sanders is Jewish. You are probably not aware of it mostly because the subject has yet to be raised in any meaningful way in the media surrounding the presidential campaign. We all know that Hillary Clinton (or Carly Fiorina, perhaps) could become the first woman president in American history. Those aware of modern history know that John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic president. So why has nobody noticed that Sanders could be the first Jewish president?

Kennedy, of course, had to answer some very tough questions about his faith when he ran. Would he be nothing more than an agent of the Pope and do whatever the Vatican told him to do? This may sound astonishing these days, but back then it was a serious concern of many American voters. Change is always difficult. Kennedy gave a brilliant speech about the subject, which largely put it to rest on the campaign trail. Barack Obama had to follow in Kennedy's footsteps when he gave his own speech about the Reverend Wright, during his 2008 campaign. When Joe Lieberman became a candidate for vice president, the issue of his religion came up as well.

A Jew is currently in second place in the 2016 Democratic field, and yet the issue hasn't even really arisen. Now, I realize this may be due to other factors. In the first place, the media doesn't treat Bernie's campaign very seriously at all (they'd rather make jokes about his hair, or socialism). So perhaps it's just part of the media's sneering contempt for a man they have deemed an "unserious" candidate. Or perhaps it's due to the fact that Bernie himself admits he's "not particularly religious." Religion is always examined more closely for a candidate who triumphantly wears his religion on his sleeve, after all. Perhaps it's because Bernie's not some sort of uber-hawk on Israel, the way Lieberman has always been. Perhaps it's because America has become much more tolerant towards Jews over the past few decades in general (it wasn't so long ago Jews weren't allowed to do things like join country clubs, to insert a historical note).

But at the very least, the possibility that Bernie Sanders could become America's first Jewish president should be a valid topic for conversation in the midst of this campaign. A Jewish president would be seen with delight by some -- the same sort of delight many Americans felt after electing the first African-American candidate. Bernie as first Jewish president might be seen as horrible by the anti-Semitic and otherwise bigoted. It may also be seen as horrific by Zionist Jews, who would likely see Bernie as insufficiently supportive of Israel. But whatever the reaction, it should at least be a subject for discussion in the electorate. So far, it hasn't been to any noticeable extent.

In the midst of an extensive interview by Ezra Klein of Vox, the subject of Zionism did come up briefly. Here is Sanders's response to being asked if he was a Zionist:

A Zionist? What does that mean? Want to define what the word is? Do I think Israel has the right to exist? Yeah, I do. Do I believe that the United States should be playing an even-handed role in terms of its dealings with the Palestinian community in Israel? Absolutely I do.

Again, I think that you have volatile regions in the world, the Middle East is one of them, and the United States has got to work with other countries around the world to fight for Israel's security and existence at the same time as we fight for a Palestinian state where the people in that country can enjoy a decent standard of living, which is certainly not the case right now. My long-term hope is that instead of pouring so much military aid into Israel, into Egypt, we can provide more economic aid to help improve the standard of living of the people in that area.

That does sound pretty even-handed -- much more even-handed than most American politicians, in fact. Republicans in particular have become big supporters of anything Israel wants to do, and routinely pander to this issue to woo Christian fundamentalist voters (this is a complicated subject worthy of its own article, but I'm just going to touch upon it here). Just one quick example of this: Carly Fiorina has a line from her stump speech about how the first thing she'd do upon entering the Oval Office as president would be to place a call to her good friend Bibi Netanyahu.

The only time Bernie's religion tangentially came up in the media in a noticeable way was when an NPR host falsely accused him of holding dual citizenship in both America and Israel. Somebody in the fact-checking department really blew it, to put it mildly. Bernie was interviewed just after this happened by the Christian Science Monitor, where he told a compelling personal story. Here's the whole segment:

"I'm proud to be Jewish," the Independent from Vermont -- and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination -- responded Thursday at a press breakfast hosted by the Monitor. Though, he added, "I'm not particularly religious."

As a child, Sanders said, being Jewish taught him "in a very deep way what politics is about."

"A guy named Adolf Hitler won an election in 1932," the senator said. "He won an election, and 50 million people died as a result of that election in World War II, including 6 million Jews. So what I learned as a little kid is that politics is, in fact, very important."

Chances are, Sanders's religion would not have come up at the Monitor breakfast, except for a controversy the day before. During an interview broadcast by NPR, host Diane Rehm had asserted, mistakenly, that Sanders was a dual US-Israeli citizen.

He immediately corrected her, calling it "nonsense that goes on in the Internet." But Ms. Rehm pressed on and asked about other members of Congress. Sanders took offense.

"I honestly don't know but I have read that on the Internet. You know, my dad came to this country from Poland at the age of 17 without a nickel in his pocket. He loved this country. I am, you know, I got offended a little bit by that comment, and I know it's been on the Internet. I am obviously an American citizen, and I do not have any dual citizenship."

That is a deeply moving piece of Sanders's own personal history. Any other candidate would have put it front and center of their first "introduce the candidate" television ad. So far, Bernie hasn't made any political hay out of his own life story. This may be the biggest reason why the media hasn't picked up on the subject, in fact. Bernie has said from the start that his campaign is not about him personally -- it's about his ideas, first and foremost.

Even so, the fact remains that one of the frontrunners in the Democratic race is Jewish. So while the media is currently having lots of fun asking their hypothetical "gotcha" question over a non-existent Muslim presidential candidate, it would seem a natural progression to also start asking whether a Jewish candidate would be acceptable as president. Because this is not a theoretical or hypothetical "gotcha" question at all. There actually is a Jewish candidate running, and he's doing pretty well in the polls right now. If things broke his way, it is entirely possible Bernie Sanders could become our nation's first Jewish president. Personally, I think this would be just as big a milestone as the first African-American or the first woman (I should plainly state that I am not Jewish, I just think it'd be a milestone of tolerance worth celebrating). But then, I'm not running for president. So after the media has had their fun asking about a Muslim candidate, I'm hoping that they'll return for a second round of the religious-tolerance questioning, and ask everyone running for president whether they could support a Jewish president -- whether Bernie Sanders or some future Jewish candidate manages to achieve this goal. I think that's a much more relevant question, at this point, and I'd like to see the candidates' answers.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

32 Comments on “How About A Jewish President?”

  1. [1] 
    John M wrote:

    On another political note, Scott Walker just became the second Republican candidate to drop out of the race.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Bernie Sanders is 100% American, 100% Jewish and pretty irreligious. There is not a shred of inconsistency between any of those statements according to
    Judaic or US law. It would be miraculous if he is elected President, but miracles have been known to happen.

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Edit needed-

    "Barack Obama had to follow in Kennedy's footsteps when he gave his own speech about the Reverend Wright, during his 2008 campaign"

    Remove the "the" or add "controversy" or something like that after Wright.

    A

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    This started with Donald Trump failing to challenge a questioner's assertion that President Barack Obama is a Muslim,

    Why should Trump have to???

    Do ya'all correct each other when someone spouts off BS about Trump or any other Republican???

    and also brushes aside how today's Republican Party could be described by many as a "culture that treats women as second-class citizens,

    {cough} Anthony Weiner {cough, cough} Eliot Spitzer {cough, cough, cough} Bill Clinton...

    'nuff said...

    A Jew is currently in second place in the 2016 Democratic field, and yet the issue hasn't even really arisen.

    And THAT is where we exactly want to be, right??

    I mean, isn't that the goal?? To make religion or race so completely and so utterly irrelevant that the issue is not even brought up??

    "Good God, you're a woman! I honestly, I couldn't have called that. I mean, I would apologize, but isn't that what we're going for here? I thought of you as a soldier first."
    -Tony Stark, IRONMAN

    :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, isn't that the goal?? To make religion or race so completely and so utterly irrelevant that the issue is not even brought up??

    Edit that to read:

    I mean, isn't that the goal?? To make religion or race or gender so completely and so utterly irrelevant that the issue is not even brought up??

    My bust....

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    "It may also be seen as horrific by Zionist Jews, who would likely see Bernie as insufficiently supportive of Israel"

    I think this aspect would make an interesting column in and of itself.

    The rich Jewish donors pouring gobs of money into the Clinton and Republican campaigns could end up being responsible for preventing the election of the first Jewish president.

    And it may be that Zionism is not the main factor, but rather self interest... preventing changes to the tax code, environmental regulation, Wall Street regulation and our warmongering foreign policy that defense contractors crave. Interests that Bernie's campaign may threaten. Future profits and income are at risk.

    In other words, the neolibcon (neoliberal/neocon) policies that have been dragging down this country for thirty years may arguably be more sacred to these donors than Israel.

    The fact that these neolibcons are also Zionists and that many neolibcon policies undoubtedly benefit Israel can't be ignored. And of course, true motivations are impossible to determine.

    But it seems to me there is a great assimilation story in there... into the horrible anti-social club that has a long history in America among the wealthy.
    Not Israel firsters.
    Not America firsters.
    But me firsters.

    Another interesting aspect is that this dynamic is also in play in Israeli politics, where right wing ideologues have been attacking socialist policies causing increasing inequality and discontent with the ruling elites.

    A

  7. [7] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "This started with Donald Trump failing to challenge a questioner's assertion that President Barack Obama is a Muslim"

    As usual, the media and politicians are obsessing about this birther from White Plains insulting Obama rather than his call for ethnic cleansing that Trump did not address. The fact that Trump didn't challenge him on the birther nonsense is unsurprising since Trump is the birther king. Now we know that Trump is Milosevic as well.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    As usual, the media and politicians are obsessing about this birther from White Plains insulting Obama rather than his call for ethnic cleansing that Trump did not address. The fact that Trump didn't challenge him on the birther nonsense is unsurprising since Trump is the birther king. Now we know that Trump is Milosevic as well.

    Links, or it didn't happen...

    "Pics or it didn't happen, eh?"
    -Charlie Bradbury, SUPERNATURAL, The Girl With The Dungeons And Dragons Tattoo

    :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Links, or it didn't happen..."

    Link please or your rule is just a troll making shit up.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Link please or your rule is just a troll making shit up.

    I am NOT a troll!! I am a chatbot!! :D heh

    Irregardless of that, I guess I am the only one here who must provide links to every claim, eh??

    If ya can't prove it, it didn't happen..

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kibbutzgate is about to burst wide open. Nobody is able to confirm WHICH kibbutz Bernie Sanders worked on in the early'60s!!!! The kibbutz collective experience is an essential part of the standard Sanders political bio, right before the Vermont years. (I think it's Vermont, I tend to get Vermont and New Hampshire mixed up). Serious inquiries have been made! By Jewish Journalists....possibly religious...that's still unclear. Nothing has turned up! Zilch!!!! Bernie declines to comment! Why? What is he hiding? What is his British MP brother hiding? Why Fox and Fiends has not picked up on this story is beyond me.

    OM-! (I'm pretty sure that is how orthodox Jewish kids text. I'll ask the kid down the street for confirmation.)

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Link please or your rule is just a troll making shit up.

    Ask and ye shall receive... :D

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/12/13/ftp285/

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-

    How is the foot doing? Are you walking on it? My exercise physiology guru says the heart doesn't have quite enough ooomph to get all the blood back from the feet and calves. Feet tend to swell. You need to work your heel pumps to prevent that. The guru says walk a bit at least once an hour. Sitting is the worst. Standing not much better, and only if you flex your calves parade ground fashion. Your profession is probably hazardous to your health, but starving is probably worse. All in all, walking to the fridge once an hr. to get a beer might be an acceptable compromise. I'll ask. :-)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    All in all, walking to the fridge once an hr. to get a beer might be an acceptable compromise. I'll ask. :-)

    You have been looking at my surveillance cams, haven't you?? :D

    heh

    Seriously, though.. Foot's good.. Thanx for asking. The Antibiotic cocktail they have me on seems to be doing the trick. I can actually wear a shoe...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    All in all, walking to the fridge once an hr. to get a beer might be an acceptable compromise. I'll ask. :-)

    That would be once every 30 mins... :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Cellulitis? Idiopathic, let's play it safe?

    Antibiotics for an idiopathic let's play it safe put me on my back for 4 days last month.

    "Nausea during several weeks of antibiotic treatment is a warning sign that you are likely to have severe allergic/toxic reactions."

    "You know I always complain I feel sick on antibiotics. Why are you telling me this now?"

    Doctors play the odds. Even with good odds, you sometimes lose.

  17. [17] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Jindal is precisely the sort of dope who uses the intellectually dishonest term Judeo-Christian. That cladistic is designed to create a false affinity between Jews and Christians at the expense of Muslims. Christians tend use the term, few Jews do.

    A more honest term would be Judeo (fork) Christian prong, Muslim prong.

    A lot of the Christian and Muslim faiths is derived from Judaism, with rather less flow in the opposite directions. Truth is, lots of religious concepts get traded around, and lines tend to be a bit blurry. Greek influences are underplayed in the understanding of Judaism. In many key respects, Islam is closer to modern Judaism than Christianity. That's obscured by post 1948 unpleasantness.

    If you mean American-Israeli, use that.

  18. [18] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    My second comment appeared to have posted normally, but is now gone.

    ???

    I don't believe it came anywhere near any comment policy issues...

    Thanks
    A

  19. [19] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Dear Spambot,

    "I am NOT a troll!! I am a chatbot!"

    FYI - they're not mutually exclusive.

    "Ask and ye shall receive"

    Haha. I don't think so. You're going to have a very difficult time linking to anything that proves your ridiculous assertion. It's just shocking that you would post something that is objectively false and then try to bluff. Shocking.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    FYI - they're not mutually exclusive.

    Not in JFC-World I am sure.. :D

    Haha. I don't think so. You're going to have a very difficult time linking to anything that proves your ridiculous assertion. It's just shocking that you would post something that is objectively false and then try to bluff. Shocking.

    Tell ya what, sonny... When you start linking your so-called "facts" then you earn the right to cap on others that don't..

    Not until then, jackass... :D

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I hate to cast gloom on a politician I admire, but Bernie is still in a serious slump over at the Betfair markets. It's a three candidate zero sum game over at Democrat Land, with Clinton finally leveling out, and just maybe even gaining a bit of upward trend. Biden has a nice little zoom going.

    Nothing really new in the Republican side of the park. Trump in slump. Bush flat, Rubio sustaining a healthy upward trend, Fiorina as well. Carson and Kasich trending down. Some of the zombies are still shuffling about (coin it "Cruz control?) others are simply looking very natural (Jindal, Graham). Rand Paul is still cheerfully going about as usual, like one of those characters in an Italian movie that doesn't realize they've been dead for a few days, or Willis in 6th Sense.

    M - Willis has been in two of my fav time travel movies, 12 Monkeys and Looper.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    M - Willis has been in two of my fav time travel movies, 12 Monkeys and Looper.

    You catch the 12 Monkeys series??? It's actually pretty good.. My wife even likes it which is surprising.. She's like Geordi LaForge.. Time travel gives her nosebleeds.. :D

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I am still scratching my head, trying to figure out where the Willis/Time Travel comment came from???

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-23

    I was referencing your comment over at the reboot of the vintage Smoot column.

    "Especially because of the title of the obscure movie TIME QUEST..

    Downloaded it and watched it."

    Bruce Willis starred in 12 Monkeys and Looper, my personal top two favorites among time travel movies. Rand Paul reminds me of Bruce Willis in another brilliant movie, 6th Sense...Rand doesn't realize he is politically dead as far a the nomination is concerned. He is still trying to interact with the politically quick, who don't notice him any more.

  25. [25] 
    TheStig wrote:

    For the record, post 24 took about 45 second to register on the CW blog....which is still very, very slow these days...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I was referencing your comment over at the reboot of the vintage Smoot column.

    Ahhhh I see.. OK, that makes sense...

    Have you seen Timequest?? It's got a hokey title and the production is vintage 80s (especially the time travelers shield). But the acting is decent and the story line is mind-blowing...

    I can make it available to you to download if you want it. It's so obscure that I doubt NETFLIX has it..

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-26

    I had to view a trailer to make sure, but I saw it around 2006 ....my son screened it as part of a school project on time travel in books and film (he's not great at math). There were a bunch of teens making comments - so the event had an MST3000 feel to it. More of an alternate history movie than a time travel film, sort of along the lines of Guns of The South, which was big in the South, where I happened to be living in the early 2000s. That was a fun read, but a bit long.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, an alternate-reality.. True enough..

    I was really moved at how well things turned out with the Kennedy-lived timeline... It was a great movie..

    Then I read Stephen King's November 22, 1963 which was also (partly) about an alternate Kennedy-lived timeline..

    Equally moving....

    Not so cheery..

    The polar opposite of cheery..

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the record, post 24 took about 45 second to register on the CW blog....which is still very, very slow these days...

    Someone's in a hurry.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My second comment appeared to have posted normally, but is now gone.??? I don't believe it came anywhere near any comment policy issues...

    Did your comment make any sense? That's one of the comment policies, you know.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Did your comment make any sense? That's one of the comment policies, you know.

    Heh

  32. [32] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    The comment miraculously reappeared, so you can pass judgment now if you find some time... and scroll up a ways.

    I was commenting about the filter though.
    If past performance is a reliable indicator, comments caught in the filter do not appear and then disappear... they just don't appear.

    That is what led to my speculation.

    A

Comments for this article are closed.