November 7, 2003
EAT YOUR HEART OUT, SENATOR LIEBERMAN:
Tories Choose Longtime Lawmaker as New Leader (WARREN HOGE, November 7, 2003, NY Times)
Born in Wales and educated at Cambridge, he is the son of Romanian-born immigrants. He is the first Jew to lead the Tories since Benjamin Disraeli (who was of Jewish stock but was baptized in the Church of England) in the 19th century. While Mr. Howard's experience in government has gained him respect as a political heavyweight, it has also earned him a reputation for being steely and distant as a policy maker.He is known as a combative and feisty politician who was the equal of Mr. Blair in parliamentary debate when he was home secretary and Mr. Blair was his opponent, or shadow, as it is known in British politics.
The chosen person: By their election of Michael Howard as their leader, have the Tories suddenly learned to love the Jews? Not quite. (Melanie Phillips, Ha'aretz)
The British Conservative party has elected Michael Howard as its first Jewish leader - and potential prime minister - since Benjamin Disraeli led the Tories in the 19th century.This has occurred when much of the Jewish community in Britain feels besieged by an upsurge of anti-Jewish hatred. So how can a country whose deep vein of prejudice is once again open and flowing be sanguine about the possibility of a Jewish prime minister? [...]
The Conservatives are in the grip of a protracted nervous breakdown, because they've been out of power for six years and the country regards them as a hopeless joke. So lacking are they in talent, and so bad is their disarray, they would have elected a Martian if they thought he might win the general election.
Howard is by far the most successful politician they've got. He has authority and experience, and through his forensic approach does serious damage to the Labor government in House of Commons debates. He is therefore the Conservatives' only reliable weapon. And the Tories will do anything to win power.
Crucially, moreover, Howard's Jewish profile has always been low. True, in his leadership bid he drew attention to the fact that he was the child of immigrants. True, he says Jewish values are still "an important guide and influence on my life," and he attends a (Liberal) synagogue on the High Holy Days. But he has never made much of his Jewishness.
It's always seemed similarly likely that the first woman, Jewish, or black president of the United States will be Republican. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 7, 2003 11:52 AM
"It's always seemed similarly likely that the first woman, Jewish, or black president of the United States will be Republican."
Two words: Condoleeza Rice.
Posted by: Mike Morley at November 7, 2003 12:48 PMPerhaps. But that kind of logic would also have dictated that the first Catholic President would have been Republican too.
Prominent minorities in the GOP will be an initial boost to the Republicans, but the long term effect is likely to sideline the radical nutcase multiculturalists in the Democratic Party and allow the center to regain control which will greatly enhance their electoral viability.
When prominent Republicans and Democrats are members of all races, then the race issue is neutralized. Radicals will no longer justify their prominence in the Democrats because they need to be there to counter the "racist" Republicans. Their rhetoric will have no advantage whatsoever and they'll be jettisoned. Blacks will feel comfortable with less strident leaders and such people will be far more acceptable to whites. The Dems will return to their pre-1968 composition with perhaps the same chance of success in the voting booths.
The only question is how long the learning curve will be.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at November 7, 2003 5:13 PMChris:
Though JFK had to run well to Nixon's Right to get elected.
Posted by: oj at November 7, 2003 5:51 PMIMO, it's more likely to be a Dem.
Discounting any blacks or females now known to be possible Presidents, Democrats have FAR more females and blacks in the political pipeline.
To the extent that any future success can be judged by the number of recruits, the Dems have the edge.
Michael:
Yes, but the folks most resistant to such candidates are white men, who are Republicans.
Posted by: oj at November 10, 2003 10:25 AM