I think this is a combination of things

Submitted by Jay (United States), Jun 21, 2009 at 15:15

If we look back, Democratic Presidential candidates have generally be pro-Israel. Clinton and Gore were seen as being very pro-Israel, to the point where Bob Dole was considered to be "pro-Palestinian" and Clinton not so, Gore was seen by Arabs to be in the pocket of the "Israel lobby." Arabs/Muslims actually voted for Bush in 2000. Pro-Israel support was once very bipartisan, as just as Clinton/Gore were pro-I, so were leaders like Reagan/Nixon.

So what happened? I am a Democrat, maybe in the mold of Scoop Jackson. I hate communism and was glad we fought and won the Cold War, and I hate Islam as well. I think the reason Democrat's support for Israel has declined is that Bush's reckless actions in Iraq caused a knee-jerk reaction among liberals to hate anything Bush liked, including Israel, and to sympathize with what "the Empire" hated, ie Islam.

Also, I think that the ultra-leftist wing of the party, the same wing which thought Clinton was a "conservative" awoke thru the anti-war movement. The problem is while some of the anti-Iraq war movement was principled, many saw it as US "imperialism" and lumped that with US support for Israel.

I also think the far-left has white guilt complex, that non-whites can do no wrong, of course with the false idea all Israeli-Jews are white, and Palestinians are Arab. Some even have an American-guilt complex, who see all the bad things that may have happened during our hegemony, but not the amazingly good things we did. The wing which likes to "rage against the machine" has made itself more heard thru the blogs, and Daily Kos and Huffington Post are destroying the Democratic Party. They've awakened the leftists from a formerly moderate party, and took position opposite Bush for political purposes, even when Bush was right, which while not common, did happen from time to time.

This wing is blanket anti-war, and radical pacifist. Everyone should be "anti-war," but what that doesn't mean is that one should be a "radical pacifist," because anti-war means you simply don't want war. No one wants war. The thing is radical pacifism is basically trying to avoid war when someone is bringing it on you, because you think they'll just stop, even tho they won't. Iraq was pointless. But Israel's struggle against Islamism isn't.

I'd also make a bet that race has something to do with the fall of Democratic support. Blacks, in bad economic times, are increasingly likely to hate their potentially Jewish landlords in big cities, and some may also see the Palestinians as "people of color" too being oppressed by whites. These views are similar to the things Wright, Jackson, and Sharpton say, especially given their hate. And Obama brought these voters out not just by being black, but overall, to ultra-liberals and anti-semite blacks (not that they all are), pandering to the Palestine uber alles crowd. I voted for him in the general thinking he was just doing that. And was I taken for a ride.

The Democratic Party I once knew of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton has no because the party of Barack Hussein Obama. I'm gonna wait it out, see what he does. But if I continue to see him listening to Daily Kos and HuffPo, and not take Islam seriously and force the hand of the Palestinians instead of just the Israelis, I don't know where I'm headed.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".