Politically, Boris Johnson’s victory over his challenger and former London mayor, Ken Livingstone, in last week’s London mayoral election means two things. First, it is a repudiation of Livingstone, to the point that his mercilessly long career has (if we can rely on his announcement) met its long overdue expiration. To add insult to this injury, embarrassingly, he will now not preside as mayor over the city’s Olympic Games this summer that he championed during his two terms in office. Second, it is an important endorsement of Boris Johnson, who secured a critical victory in the capital despite a tide of Tory defeats nationwide. The talk of Boris eventually leading the Conservative Party itself will now only get louder.
But Boris’ victory was closer than predicted. This was likely because Red Ken was better at getting his supporters to the voting booths. But does the closeness of the call make it possible that London’s Jewish community played a pivotal part in the election, and in Ken’s defeat?
The present paucity of polling data precludes analysis. This has not stopped the speculation, however, and some outlets have showered the Jewish community with blame or praise for the result: the leftist, Livingstone-supporting Guardian put his defeat down to the ‘‘Jewish political establishment,’’ a regrettable choice of phrasing which the newspaper surreptitiously scrubbed. And conservative pundits – as well as journalists in the Jewish community – are apparently happy to give credit to Jewish voters.
Such speculation only goes so far, though, and there are two other noteworthy and more interesting observations to be made.
First, Livingstone’s anti-Semitic comments before the election (for a recap, see here and here) – not to mention throughout his sorry career – courted not only controversy, but by design, the Muslim community. Of course, whether that community (a far larger demographic than London’s Jews) ultimately came to Ken’s support at the ballot box or not, and whether the Jewish community which Boris wooed came to his, is unclear, but the very obviously divergent electoral strategies are a lamentable reflection of London politics, ethnic relations, and the reality and expression of antipathy toward Jews and Israel in areas (and elections) where they should have no place. Moreover, these dynamics are not limited to London (as evidenced by George Galloway’s recent by-election victory), or merely to the UK.
Second, it was interesting to follow the Jewish reaction to events during the campaign. On the one hand — and encouragingly – some Jews apparently did, if not shift support from Labour, at least stay home. For example, take D.D. Guttenplan, the Nation’s London correspondent and a longtime Livingstone supporter, who withheld his support this time around, proclaiming that the Labour candidate’s defeat was the price of Jewish self-respect.
On the other hand, it also turns out that many Jews simply do not care enough about Ken’s attitude toward Israel and his comfort with anti-Semitic tropes to oppose him — and several of the high-profile community leaders involved in the original controversy still decided to support him. In part, this is down to a pathology of Anglo-Jewry, which, in its effort to be more British than the British, forgets it has other concerns as well. But it is also in part a worrying worldview particular to the Jewish Left, and unfortunately extends beyond the Anglo-Jewish community. If Ken Livingstone does not alienate such Jews, one wonders what it would take.
"If Ken Livingstone does not alienate such Jews, one wonders what it would take." n nSome protested that they were Germans, even as their children were taken away from them, their heads shaved, and they were sardined into gas chambers. n nIn the end, I don't think it is a uniquely Jewish flaw. n nIt is likely an aspect of the human psyche, that we want to be taken on our own terms, as we see ourselves, and not identified by a group identity imposed upon us. n nStill, it is a pathetic thing to witness. It is a weakness in that it is an unwillingness to take the world as it is, and fight back.
If you don't think it is a uniquely Jewish flaw to imagine there is a higher good to be served by supporting rather than opposing those bigots whose bigotry is very definitely targeted at your community, please point to other religious or ethnic minorities who do the same in the numbers and with the regularity that Leftist Jews do. n nAnd if one wanted to be taken on their own terms, then would they subordinate their most basic, and far from ignoble self-interests to the far from transcendent campaign promises of Labor or any other political party, especially the more Leftward leaning of them? To do that would seem the very opposite of being taken on one's own terms, unless one's terms do not include the right to identify as who they are.
It is strange enough for Jews to earn like Episcopaleans but vote like Puerto Ricans, as Milton Himmelfarb quipped they do in the US, but for Jews to vote for antisemites like Livingstone, as some London Jews have, is beyond strange, it reflects significant group psychopathology particularly susceptible to the blandishments of the Left. Or would they have to go to even greater extremes, e.g., to vote for a George Galloway or a BNP candidate, before you would stop trying to rationalize it as readily understandable behavior?
I am far from rationalizing it, and British Jews have been the most pathetic in their futile attempts to 'fit in' or not make waves, or, as they prefer to characterize it (paticulalrly their Royal butt-kissing chief Rabbi Sachs), 'working quietly from within'. n nThe point I tried to make, perhaps inartfully, was that individuals will go to great lengths tto avoid being singled out for humiliation or violence. As Jews have been singled out so very much, it is not surprising that the most obvious 'traitors' to their group, at least to us Jews, come from our group. n nAs regards blandishments from the left, for better or worse, Jews are by now conditioned to see threats from the right as more lethal, and the left therefore still promises greater safety, perceived (wrongly of course) as being more protective of minorities (which most Jews see themselves as). n n nThere has not yet been a threat from the left match the history of the Right's violence against Jews (if one includes the European Church as being of the right). n nSo the livingstones and Galloways are not yet taken aeriously by some. Hoepfully, the collusion of these leftish asses with Jew hating muslims will not result in mega violence, but like you, I recognize it is more likely from them than from the 'right', today. Most Jews do not see it, or think themselves immune. Perhaps some of the latter are among those who vote for jerks like Livingstone? n nWhat we see today is probably history repeating, Jews once again viewed as equal opportunity enemies of the left and some elements of the right. All purpose enemies we are. Scapegoats. Again.
WTF? Jews narrowly beat Muslims in London mayorial election.
While one justly can criticize Anglo Jews for the craven cowardice shown the anti-Semitic Livingston, what can be said about the far larger number of American Jews who despite Obama's long record of coddling anti-Semites and scorning Israel not only are preparing to vote for him again but to also open their checkbooks to him? They are certainly not better and perhaps far worse.
mloutbeltway — I'm no fan of President Obama, and having the wrong person as POTUS is certainly more dangerous than having the wrong person as Mayor of London. And yes, President Obama coddles anti-Semites and dictators, hires people who hold bizarre anti-Israel theories in high positions, has gone out of his way to weaken the US alliance with Israel, holds delusional views of how to achieve peace in the middle east, and puts roadblocks in the way of Israel defending itself. But he does not himself make the kinds of bizarre anti-Jewish statements (e.g. Jews make it hard to convert to Judaism because they are racist) or knee jerk statements about imagined Israeli atrocities as Red Ken.
What you say is correct. After all Red Ken unlike President Hussein doesn't organize annual Pessach seders every year, recount how eating pastrami sandwiches and bagels and lox made him think Jewish, nor receive tens of millions in campaign contributions from wealthy Jewish leftists. And Red Ken's London with its million Muslims and assorted other extremists is fortunately still quite different from America. Likewise high-brow British papers like the FT regularly use the anti-Semitic shorthand "Jewish lobby" to discuss Israel; even the virulently anti-Israel NYT still does not do so. So cynically one could say that their remarks reflect the differing national contexts. But I do concede that since far-left, anti-Zionist Jews have played an important role in molding Obama, his attitudes to Jews are much more nuanced than those of foul-mouthed Red Ken's. After all, I only said he "coddled anti-Semites".
<DIV>LM, I had to chuckle over the pastrami sandwiches. Shortly before Passover, the Jewish Democratic committee's web site even featureda foul parody of the four questions, suggesting that Jews should be grateful to President Obama instead of — or at least in addtion to — Gd.</DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>G-d willing that the voters of the USmake the same decision regarding Mr, Obama that the voters of London made concerning Red Ken.</DIV> <DIV>Regards,—
In Ken's mind there's no distinction between 'political career' and having a regular gig on PressTV where he's free to scream his antisemitic obscenities for money. So he's not really going anywhere.
Maybe if I vote Labour the muslims won't hate me so much. That'll work!