United States electoral politics can be a crass and unprincipled business. A reminder of this fact came last month with the release of a strategy report by Frank Luntz, a leading Republican pollster. Luntz, who designed Speaker Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" campaign that helped Republicans win control of the Congress in 1994, is now advising Republicans that they can make inroads into the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote.
Luntz's report, prepared for a national Republican Jewish organisation, was based on a study of Jewish voters interviewed in southern California. While those interviewed were critical of Republican attitudes on social issues, notably abortion and the separation of church and state, when the discussion shifted to Israel the tone of their comments shifted as well.
The principal concerns of the Jewish voters interviewed by Luntz were Hillary Clinton's recent comments in favour of a Palestinian state and President Clinton's refusal to support the construction of a US embassy in Jerusalem. When asked what was the more important issue, abortion or Israel, the answer was resoundingly, "Israel".
Luntz's conclusions were that Republican candidates can win large numbers of Jewish votes in the 1998 and 2000 elections, if they are "vocally and unconditionally pro-Israel" in their campaigns, and if they use "less divisive social language" and do not use "overtly religious language" when they discuss "issues of values and morality".
Apparently picking up on this strategy, Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has been addressing Jewish contributors, blasting the Clinton administration for being "anti-Israel". Gingrich was cited telling a group of donors that there are "terrorists roaming freely in territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority", while the Clinton administration pressures Israel for more concessions. Gingrich has also criticised Mrs Clinton's reference to a Palestinian state.
A prominent national Jewish newspaper has also carried quotes from Israel's minister of industry and trade, Natan Sharanksy, criticising what he called the "Presidential Jews" in the Clinton administration. According to Sharansky, these Jewish advisers share the philosophy of Peace Now and are preventing the president from understanding Jewish attitudes and Israel's needs. All this may seem strange to an Arab audience, but it reflects the kind of pressure that is being brought to bear on the Clinton administration.
Before evaluating the validity of Luntz's observations, it is important to note their unprincipled cynicism. Luntz recently participated in a US delegation of young political leaders who travelled to the Middle East to participate in a discussion between US, Likud and Fatah representatives. Participants have reported that Luntz was so impressed by what he learned from the Palestinians that he has since changed his personal attitudes and adopted a more balanced view.
Even Gingrich, who recently completed Washington meetings with a delegation of Palestinian Legislative Council members, headed by Palestinian Speaker Abu Alaa, was quite balanced and supportive in his discussions with the PLC members.
Unfortunately, though, all that this reveals is that when money, votes and elections are at stake, principles and understanding take a back seat to politics. The question remains, however: what are we to make of Luntz's observations and conclusions?
We can begin by noting several facts. Historically, Jewish voters are decidedly Democratic at the national level, where they have consistently supported the Democratic candidate with 75 to 80 per cent of their votes. The one exception was during the Reagan campaign of 1980. In that year, Reagan won more than 30 per cent of the Jewish vote in his race against Jimmy Carter.
In local elections, the politics are very different. Jewish voters in New York and California (which together are home to more than 50 per cent of America's Jewish community) have frequently supported Republican candidates in state and local elections. In New York, Jewish voters have backed Republican candidates such as Senator D'Amato, Governor Pataki and Mayor Guliani.
In New York, there is a strong and growing conservative Jewish vote bloc comprised of Orthodox Jews, who are conservative in their beliefs and are now registering to vote and participating in increasing numbers in US politics; and wealthier suburban Jews who, like many other ethnic groups, are shifting towards the Republican camp. These same trends exist in areas of Southern California among both Orthodox and newly transformed, ideologically Republican Jews.
In the rest of the US, where Jewish voters make up less than one per cent of the total electorate (even though they tend to turn out in higher numbers and their impact is therefore slightly increased), the impact of the Jewish vote is largely negligible.
Jewish contributions to political campaigns and political parties, however, are a factor. Jewish Americans account for more than half of major donors to the Democratic Party and, in recent years, between 20 to 30 per cent of major donors to the Republican Party.
American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) contributions are also an issue. These contributions are based on a single issue and traditionally favour the party in power. This year, for example, pro-Israeli contributions to Democrats and Republicans are almost even.
Polls continue to show that over two-thirds of Jewish Americans support the Middle East peace process and, surprisingly, a large percentage even support a Palestinian state.
It is equally clear from recent polls that the overwhelming majority of Jewish Americans are repelled by the Christian fundamentalist agenda that has been adopted by the Republican majority in Congress.
Jewish voters, therefore, will support a Republican candidate who is liberal on social issues and pro-Israel. It doesn't necessarily follow that they will reject a Democratic candidate who is balanced on the Middle East if that Democrat is facing a conservative Republican, simply because the Republican candidate is "unconditionally pro-Israel".
It appears that the Luntz strategy and that of his Republican Jewish patrons has two overall purposes. One is cynically to manipulate the fears of certain sections of the Jewish community about the peace process, in an attempt to make Israel and Hillary Clinton into wedge issues that can be exploited for partisan advantage. The other would appear to be to create pressure on the Democrats, and in particular on the president, that might help block any pressure they might bring to bear on the Netanyahu government.
At the end of the day, however, I believe that if the White House were to take a clear, decisive and positive stand against the intransigent anti-peace policies of the Likud government, the Democrats would lose neither a single dollar nor a single vote. The money would continue to go where the money has always traditionally gone, and Jewish voters would continue, at the national level, to support the candidates they have supported in the past.
*The writer is the president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.
