A Curious Jewish Question

[Guidedbymonkeys]

Is this just me or has anyone else noticed a far greater percentage of Jews as opposed to other ethnic classes(dutch, irish,english, african, whatever) employed in key political seats within the government?.. I was surprised to find how many Secretary's and Assistant Secretary of Defenses we have had here in America over the past 30yrs. Doesn't it seem odd that a ethnic group that is really quite small in overall United States population, have such key political and media positions? It also seems there is a extremely high amount of Jews on TV. I don't think Jews are out to control the world, or too control American policy, yet I find their range of influence in America somewhat disturbing, considering our current state of affairs.

I consider myself American before any other ethnic background or religous background I may come from. I keep asking myself this.

Do Jewish/Americans consider themselves Jews first or Americans first?

Call me crazy, call me a illogical uneducated semite, just give me honest and informed opinions on this matter. I know this sort of discussion just scares the hell outta jewish people, but this needs to be discussed.

forgive my mispellings and what some will undoubtedly proclaim as anti-Semitism.

[kickinitlive]

i myself am jewish in some respects, so i'll start off by saying no offense taken. however, i think you answered your own question within the text of your message. because jewish folks are such a small part of the population, presidents feel the politically correct need to fill cabinet positions with a jew or 2 (of course, competent ones, because they don't have to substitute quality for jews). i think the reason is that the president wants to appeal to every community, black/white, christian/jewish/muslim, and so on. therefore, if the president covers all the bases with the ethnic groups, there will be no particular beefs among them on choice of cabinet. unless it's people like me bitching about the fact that bush appointed that pole smoking nazi john ashcroft. ok so that may be a contradiction in terms there, but hey...i'm just trying to insult the guy, not trying to engage in semantic discussions of insults to call assholes

[kickinitlive]

and to answer the other question...my opinion would be that jews consider themselves jewish members of american society, flat out. not americans who happen to be jewish. also, i think the range of influence has nothing to do with the religion...they're not in positions ALL the time simple because they're jewish. the fact is, there are certain traditions and understandings within the jewish faith that allow for amazing leadership skills. i have obtained them in my upbringing as well. that fact means that there are going to be a lot of jewish people in leadership positions. it's a matter of who can run things most efficiently, and it just so happens that the people who can are jewish sometimes

[Guidedbymonkeys]

I guess my ultimate question is this then. Is having too many representitives of one minority class within in any society, a fair and reasonable proposition for the basis for a democratic society? Is it possible for any democracy to limit any one class or religious group, (insert) , from gaining to much influence?

[Nemetona]

I'll say outright that I don't want to get *too* involved in this discussion because I don't think I'm as informed as I'd like to be.
However, based on your restated question, it appears you're wondering if it's possible for a democracy to limit the influence of one group or another so that one group or another doesn't seize more control than another.
I think the answer would be yes, it is possible to control the level of influence, simply by ensuring governmental placements are made using a fixed percentage of representatives from the majority, while tempering it with a greater number of minority reps.

Now don't get your panties in a bunch. Let me explain. As I understand it, equal representation implies representation by a proportionate number within a given group, not a percentage of the whole. One could easily say that because there are more whites, White needs should be met more frequently, but then where does that leave minorities? Their needs may be greater, but with fewer voices, those needs could be met less frequently. And that sure doesn't sound democratic to me. So it can't be proportionate.
For example: a given minority may have discrete needs compared to the majority. Policies viewed as successful in inner cities can be irrelevant in the 'burbs, so if you just hire 'burb people to represent everyone, inner-city groups' needs might not be met, and vice-versa.

Really, I don't think we should look at representation in terms of a sort of 'electoral college' mentality of black/white, Christian/Jew, but in terms of rich/poor, which is the real problem. Say what you will about representation being out of balance, you must admit that most policies favor big business, and that usually means upper-class whites, an overprivileged few of the majority.
Of course, rich folks will continue to rule as long as soft money remains legal in campaign financing.

[bwingrave]

Disclaimer: I'm not a Jew, so far as I know. I am interested in Judaism and its history in the world and in the US. And I'm also interested in statistics and patterns.

Cabinet posts in the US always (to my knowledge) go to educated, successful people. Part of the reason that Jews are overrepresented in the cabinet could be a tendency to be better educated and more successful than non-Jews.

I have heard that one reason for the success of many Jewish people in business and various professions is cooperation. It is said (and maybe Kick can shed some light on whether this is true) that a social group of Jews (those that attend a particular synagogue, or live in a particular neighborhood, for example) will support the education of each other's young people in a sacrificial manner: Most or all of the adults will donate a portion of their salaries to a family that has a son or daughter interested in going to school for a particular profession. That child goes to a good school, studies hard and succeeds, with the support of his entire community. In addition, he may graduate without any (or perhaps merely greatly reduced) debts. He can now begin life in his profession, and he is naturally very motivated to help young people in his community to have the same sort of positive educational experience.

I would venture to guess that the close connection between ethnicity and religion has made a contribution to keeping the Jewish community together. Church/synagogue can be a way for people to network with each other -- not the sole reason for a religious community's existence, but perhaps a happy side effect.

Hmmmm....I'll just end with this: I haven't seen any empirical evidence of there being overly many Jews in the cabinet. It's just an impression I have. This might be an example of my mind (and many others') focusing on a perceived pattern and ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit. A few very visible examples can make something appear to be a pattern. I would venture to guess that people with English heritage would make up the greatest percentage of cabinet members, because they make up such a large portion of the population. But it can be more difficult to recognize names as English (vs. as Jewish).

I would be interested in the following (and the sources thereof) : numbers of people in the cabinet, since formation of government in the late 1700s, since 1900, since 1950; people in the cabinet who identify themselves as members of various ethnic & religious groups in each of the above time periods; people in the cabinet at particularly powerful posts (Secs of State and Defense/War, for example), by time periods and ethnic & religious groups, above.

I think it's a mistake (easy to make -- see paragraphs 2 thru 4 above) to focus on an assertion for which there may not be convincing empirical evidence.

b

[Nemetona]

Hey again,
It's funny we're talking about this today, because in today's Washington Post, an article states that 24% of American Jews have graduate degrees, as compared to 5% of the rest of the population. I would give more details, but we (the hub and I) can't seem to find the link back to where we read it.

Nonetheless, right there we have a very good reason that more Jews possess a predominance of prestigious positions...
please forgive my alliterative state, it's a beautiful sunny Sunday morn...

[postfeminist]

I'm just resurrecting this thread... since i'm the one GBM attacked today, i thought it would be fun to bring this one back to life...since i'm a JEW!!! :)

[Guidedbymonkeys]

PostFeminist I over reacted by flaming you the last few days. Something you posted in another thread sent me off.. I apologize.
Anyone who likes Hot Hot Heat can't be all that bad :)

GuidedByMonkeys:rolleyes:

[postfeminist]

yes, i love hot hot heat. and i like GBV's music--i said that, i just don't like bob pollard's on stage persona.

the original question, Do Jewish/Americans consider themselves Jews first or Americans first? is something i find interesting.

the points made by the original posters on this thread were good. my undergraduate degree is in Judaic Studies & Women's Studies, and having taken a plethora of courses about women, american jews, jewish women, i wanted to weigh in on this one.

i don' t think there is an answer to whether Jewish Americans consider themselves Jews or Americans first-- I think there are some of both. I think that some Jews think they are Jews first, and some think they are Americans first--just as there are probably African Americans who see themselves as a race first or a group within Americans first.

The emphasis in the Jewish community on education, a tradition as long as Jews have been around, is the key to this question. the strong value of being as educated as possible is a value that i think more groups should hold; i'm not saying there is nothing wrong with being an auto mechanic or a welder--i'm just saying that i wish all people were supported as much as possible in the endeavors they choose.

i also think that Jews feel a certain amount of pressure to make their Jewishness public--when you have a long history of oppression there comes a certain amount of need to overcompensate.. Successful African Americans don't need to come out as such--you can see it when you look at them...not all Jews are obviously Jewish. (for instance, my last name is from my Dad, whose posterity is british...but my first and middle name are extremely Jewish, and my married last name will be an Ellis Island butchering of an Irish name.) Much like gay celebs are pressured to "come out" to be role models, i think successful Jews are treated the same by the Jewish community.

The fact that we have never had a Jewish vice-prez or president of this country shows me that their is a political glass ceiling for Jews, and many people still believe that Jews are sneaky or money hungry, or insert stereotype here, but we have not had a woman or African American in these jobs either. White male protestants still rule the school in this country, and that's why Gore/Lieberman's loss was such a disappointment to me. I don't agree with Lieberman's politics much-- I think for a democrat he's VERY conservative, but it would have been a point of pride to have a Jew in the white house...just as i would have been enthusiastic for a woman or an African American to be there.

I don't know if i've really answered the question, but i did just wake up.