Jewish Opposition to Jackson Less Than Total in California

Jewish supporters of the Rev. Jesse Jackson have hailed the results of the California primary as a sign that Jewish opposition to their candidate is less solid than had been assumed.

However, results of other primaries show there is still a formidable opposition by Jewish voters to Jackson’s candidacy.

According to Los Angeles Times exit polls, 20 percent of the Jewish voters on Tuesday cast their ballots for Jackson, 73 percent for Gov. Michael Dukakis, and the remainder for Sens. Albert Gore (D.-Tenn.) and Paul Simon (D.-Ill.), who were listed on the ballot although they are no longer active candidates.

The New York Times/CBS News poll, based on questionnaires filled out by 1,947 voters throughout California, shows only 14 percent of the Jewish vote going to Jackson, and 81 percent going to Dukakis.

In New Jersey, the opposition to Jackson’s candidacy was even stronger. Only 4 percent of the Jewish voters cast ballots for Jackson, against 94 percent who voted for Dukakis, according to the New York Times/CBS poll.

In primary elections earlier this spring, the Jewish vote continued to reflect the strong anti-Jackson sentiment first exhibited in 1984.

In New York’s election April 19, a New York Times/CBS News poll showed Jackson receiving 7 percent of the Jewish vote. The television networks’ exit polls had Jackson receiving between three and 10 percent of the Jewish vote, depending on the poll.

In Pennsylvania’s primary April 26, Jackson received 7 percent of the Jewish vote, according to the Times/CBS poll.

IMPROVEMENT OVER 1984

While Jackson failed to exhibit a substantial showing of support among Jews, his California tally represents an improvement over 1984, when Jackson received only 8 percent of the Jewish vote.

“What the primary results show is that the official voices of the Jewish community do not represent all Jews,” commented Sabina Virgo, chairwoman of the Jewish Voters for Jackson division in his national campaign organization.

“Leaders of Jewish institutions represent the more conservative viewpoint of the community,” Virgo said, predicting that in any future campaigns, Jackson would try to take his case directly to the average American Jew.

An example of this approach was evident by the prominent pre-primary ads placed in the Jewish press in Los Angeles and San Francisco by the Jackson organization.

Howard B. Miller, chairman of the Community Relations Committee of the L.A. Jewish Federation Council, noted that while many Jews distrust Jackson as a person and most oppose his stand on Israel, a considerable segment of the Jewish electorate could identify with the black leader’s social philosophy.

Miller predicted that “despite the Jewish community’s drift to the right, its voting pattern will remain overwhelmingly democratic” — but with a large “if,” he said.

“If the Middle East plank of the Democratic platform is perceived as antagonistic toward Israel,” then traditional Jewish support for the Democratic party could change, Miller said.

Rabbi Allen Freehling, who had earlier arranged a meeting between Jackson and a group of liberal Los Angeles Jews, agreed with parts of Miller’s assessment.

“Many Jews are torn between Jackson’s personality and the philosophy he represents,” Freehling said. Many more Jews “might have voted for another person who espoused the same philosophy as Jackson.”

Dean Leonard Schneiderman of the UCLA School of Social Welfare, long concerned with Jewish-black relations, went further.

“The idea that Jackson is an enemy of the Jewish people because of his Middle East stand strikes me as a massive disinformation campaign,” he said. “I don’t believe the Middle East situation should be outside the range of legitimate debate, including the possibility of a Palestinian state.”