Skip to main content

The Structure of Political Divisions Among American Jews

Abstract

This paper examines the current structural basis of political divisions among American Jews. Theoretically, the paper is situated in the well-established scholarly tradition of understanding political behavior as rooted in social structural location, with accompanying variations in political cohesion and political division across social groups. Empirically, the paper utilizes data from the Pew Research Center’s 2013 Survey of US Jews to measure and analyze how social divisions based on religion, immigrant status, age, education, income, gender, marital status, region and race are translated into political divisions with respect to both US and Israeli politics. The findings show that religious divisions among American Jews yield the most significant and consistent political divisions across the US and Israeli political measures. Other social cleavages among American Jews also produce political divisions, but to a smaller and less consistent extent than religion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    See also Manza and Brooks (1999).

  2. 2.

    The National Jewish Population Survey 1990 was commissioned by the Council of Jewish Federations (now called The Jewish Federations of North America). The study’s principal investigators were Barry A. Kosmin, Sidney Goldstein, Joseph Waksberg, Nava Lerer, Ariela Keysar, and Jeffrey Scheckner. The data file and supporting documentation are available at the Berman Jewish DataBank at http://www.jewishdatabank.org/Studies/details.cfm?StudyID=305.

  3. 3.

    Kotler-Berkowitz (2002) was not limited to an analysis of American Jews; it also included comparative analyses of British and South African Jews, in both those cases also using data from the 1990s and in both cases also finding religion to be the most significant structural source of party divisions.

  4. 4.

    The Pew Research Center (www.pewresearch.org) is a non-partisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world, and as such it does not take policy positions.  The Center bears no responsibility for the analysis, interpretations or conclusions presented in this paper.

  5. 5.

    A multitude of methodological differences between the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey and the 2013 Pew Research Center Survey of US Jews – from sampling to field administration, question wording and order, and estimation and weighting – makes it impossible to directly compare statistical results across them. However, overall patterns, for example, whether religion remains the primary source of political divisions, can be reasonably compared across them.

  6. 6.

    In addition, personal correspondence with Clem Brooks, Professor of Sociology, Indiana University.

  7. 7.

    In my previous analysis (Kotler-Berkowitz 2002), I did not examine the potential political division between in-married and intermarried Jews, but I examine that social cleavage here.

  8. 8.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey.

  9. 9.

    http://www.pewforum.org/datasets/.

  10. 10.

    The Pew study also included two other groups, which the Pew researchers called people of Jewish background and people of Jewish affinity. See the Pew report for details. Neither group is included in this analysis.

  11. 11.

    The reference category and coefficients that are not significantly different from the reference category at p < .05 are set to zero in calculating the mean of the model set of coefficients.

  12. 12.

    For example, a hypothetical set of model coefficients for three categorical variables of .05, −.12 and .23 would, in conjunction with the reference category, have a mean of .04 [(.05 − .12 + .23 + 0)/4 = .04]. The resulting centered coefficients would then be, respectively, .01, −.16, .19 and −.04. The sum and mean of the newly centered (or normalized) coefficients are zero.

  13. 13.

    For example, the indicator of Jewish denomination has five categories. If the categories were evenly distributed, each would contain 20% of the population. But the categories are not evenly distributed. Orthodox Jews are 10% of the population, producing a weight of .5 for them (.1/.2 = .5). Reform Jews are nearly 36% of the population, producing a weight of 1.79 (.358/.2 = 1.79).

  14. 14.

    Kappa could be calculated using the bivariate cross-tabulations of social divisions and political measures, but using coefficients from regression models allows kappa to be calculated for each social division net of the effects of other social divisions.

  15. 15.

    In addition, personal correspondence with Clem Brooks, Professor of Sociology, Indiana University.

  16. 16.

    For example, a hypothetical set of kappas of .30, .18, .05 and .01 would be scaled to 1, .60, .17, and .03.

  17. 17.

    See the Appendix for an alternative approach to the regression models and calculation of kappa.

  18. 18.

    Relative to religion, the average strength of the political divisions produced by education is .37, age is .44 and gender is .28.

  19. 19.

    Relative to religion, the average strength of the political divisions produced by immigrant status is .47, race is .44, marital status is .39, income is .39 and region is .22.

  20. 20.

    Marital status and income come very close to producing the same level of political division as religion on government size and services.

  21. 21.

    http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/. Accessed 10 July 2015.

  22. 22.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/. Accessed 10 July 2015.

  23. 23.

    They are not scaled because they are already all on the same metric, namely 0–100%.

  24. 24.

    This kappa, .12, should not be compared to the scaled kappa, 1.00, for party support in Table 6.

  25. 25.

    The fact that the kappas for Americans generally are based on voting, rather than party identification, may increase their size somewhat because voters tend to return more strongly to their parties at elections than off-election year measures of party identification may indicate. As a result, the difference between kappas for Americans generally and the kappa for US Jews may be slightly smaller than indicated.

  26. 26.

    It is possible that measures of Israeli politics unrelated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, were they available, might not be structured as strongly by religious divisions.

  27. 27.

    It is well known that disentangling cohort and life-cycle effects with cross-sectional data is extremely difficult. The debate over cohort vs. life cycle effects also animates the research on emotional connections to Israel, and to date there is no consensus in the scholarly literature on the issue (Cohen and Kelman 2010; Kotler-Berkowitz and Ament 2010; Sasson et al. 2010).

  28. 28.

    Recoding varied. For party identification and ideology, two categories were combined and predicted against the other categories combined. For government size/services and two-state solution, the modal category was predicted against all other categories combined. For US support of Israel and settlements, the modal category was predicted separately against each other category. See footnotes in Tables 9 and 10 for details.

  29. 29.

    The average kappa for religion across the 11 measures is .57, followed in order by age (.33), immigrant status and race (.27 each), education (.25), income (.19), gender and marital status (.18 each), and region (.11). Averages not displayed in tables.

  30. 30.

    Though religion structures Obama’s job approval more weakly than it does all other dependent measures except for one, it still structures Obama’s job approval more strongly than all the other predictors do.

References

  1. Alford, Robert R. 1973. Party and society. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arian, Asher. 2005. Politics in Israel: The second republic. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks, Clem, and Jeff Manza. 1997. Social cleavages and political alignments: U.S. presidential elections, 1960 to 1992. American Sociological Review 62: 937–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carroll, Susan J., and Richard L. Fox. 2013. Gender and elections: Shaping the future of American politics, 3rd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, Steven M., and Ari Y. Kelman. 2010. Thinking about distancing from Israel. Contemporary Jewry 30(2–3): 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Desilver, Drew. 2014. The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/polarized-politics-in-congress-began-in-the-1970s-and-has-been-getting-worse-ever-since/. Accessed 22 Mar 2016.

  7. Dowty, Alan. 1998. The Jewish State: A century later. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Forman, Ira N. 2001. The politics of minority consciousness. In Jews in American politics, ed. L. Sandy Maisel, 141–160. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fuchs, Lawrence H. 1956. The political behavior of American Jews. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Goldscheider, Calvin, and Alan S. Zuckerman. 1984. The transformation of the Jews. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hout, Michael, Clem Brooks, and Jeff Manza. 1995. The democratic class struggle in the United States, 1948–1992. American Sociological Review 60(6): 805–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Katznelson, Ira. 1995. Between separation and disappearance: Jews on the margins of American liberalism. In Paths of emancipation: Jews, states and citizenship, ed. Pierre Birnbaum, and Ira Katznelson, 157–205. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A. 1997. Ethnic cohesion and division among American Jews: The role of mass-level and organizational politics. Ethnic and Racial Studies 20(4): 797–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A. 2001. Ethnicity and politics: Cohesion, division and British Jews. Political Studies 49(4): 648–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A. 2002. Social cleavages and political divisions: A comparative analysis of British, American and South African Jews in the 1990s. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies 1(2): 204–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence, and Jonathon Ament. 2010. The Israel attachments of American Jews: Assessing the debate. Contemporary Jewry 30(2–3): 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kotler-Berkowitz, Laurence A., and Lawrence Sternberg. 2000. The politics of American Jews: Cohesion, division and representation at the institutional level. Jewish Political Studies Review 12(1–2): 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lachat, Romain. 2007. Measuring cleavage strength. Revised version of paper presented at 2006 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 31–September 3. http://www.romain-lachat.ch/papers/cleavages.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2016.

  19. Levey, Geoffrey Braham. 1996. Review article: The liberalism of American Jews – has it been explained? British Journal of Political Science 26(3): 369–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lichbach, Mark Irving, and Alan S. Zuckerman. 2009. Comparative politics: Rationality, culture and structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. Liebman, Charles. 1973. The ambivalent American Jew. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Liebman, Charles, and Steven M. Cohen. 1990. Two worlds of Judaism. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1981 [1959, 1960]. Political man: The social bases of politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  24. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Stein Rokkan. 1967. Party systems and voter alignments. Toronto: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Earl Raab. 1995. Jews and the new American scene. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Manza, Jeff, and Clem Brooks. 1998. The gender gap in U.S. presidential elections: When? why? implications? American Journal of Sociology 103(5): 1235–1266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Manza, Jeff, and Clem Brooks. 1999. Social cleavages and political change: Voter alignments and U.S. party coalitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Medding, Peter. 1977. Toward a theory of Jewish political interests and behavior. Jewish Journal of Sociology 19: 115–144.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mellman, Mark S., Aaron Strauss, and Kenneth D. Wald. 2012. Jewish American voting behavior 1972–2008: Just the facts. Washington, DC: The Solomon Project.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mendelsohn, Ezra. 1993. On modern Jewish politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. 2008. U.S. religious landscape survey. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2008/02/01/u-s-religious-landscape-survey-religious-affiliation/. Accessed 2 Aug 2015.

  32. Pew Research Center. 2013. A portrait of Jewish Americans: Findings from a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. Jews. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/. Accessed 3 Oct 2013.

  33. Pew Research Center. 2014. Political polarization in the American public. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/. Accessed 18 Apr 2016.

  34. Pew Research Center. 2016. Israel’s religiously divided society. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2016/03/08/israels-religiously-divided-society/. Accessed 9 Mar 2016.

  35. Sasson, Theodore, Charles Kadushin, and Leonard Saxe. 2010. Trends in American Jewish attachment to Israel: An assessment of the ‘distancing’ hypothesis. Contemporary Jewry 30(2–3): 297–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Spinrad, William. 1990. Explaining American-Jewish liberalism: Another attempt. Contemporary Jewry 11(1): 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tobin, Diane, and Aryeh Weinberg. 2014. Racial diversity and the American Jewish community. Journal of Jewish Communal Service 89(1): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wald, Kenneth D. 2015. The choosing people: Interpreting the puzzling politics of American Jewry. Politics and Religion 8(1): 4–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wald, Kenneth D., and Allison Calhoun-Brown. 2014. Religion and politics in the United States, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zuckerman, Alan S. 1991. The structural sources of cohesion and division in the American Jewish community. In Divisions between traditionalism and liberalism in the American Jewish community, ed. Michael Shapiro, 277–310. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zuckerman, Alan S. 1992. When ethnicity interacts with class and party: A comparison of Vienna and Warsaw during the 1920s. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Empirical findings from this analysis were first presented at a session on American Jewish politics at the 46th Annual Conference of the Association of Jewish Studies, December 14, 2014, Baltimore, MD. I thank Larry Sternberg, Steven M. Cohen and three anonymous reviewers for their critical review and helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper, and Clem Brooks for guidance on methodological issues. I alone retain responsibility for the analysis and interpretation presented here.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz.

Appendix

Appendix

In the main analysis, initial kappa was calculated by centering and weighting regression coefficients, and final kappa was calculated by transforming initial kappa to a 0–1 scale. This was done because the regression coefficients were generated using 1) dependent variables with different metrics and 2) different regression techniques. The final kappas show the relative magnitude of political divisions structured by social cleavages within dependent measures, with the largest initial kappa scaled to a final kappa value of 1 and all other initial kappas scaled to a proportion of the largest final kappa. As a result, patterns of relative magnitude across the dependent measures can be examined, but the values of the final kappas cannot be directly compared to each other across dependent measures. In other words, on all measures where religion has a final kappa of 1, it signifies that religion structures the most significant political division on that measure. However, it does not mean that religion structures political division to the same extent across the measures.

In order to compare kappas directly with each other, they need to be calculated from regression coefficients that are generated using 1) dependent variables that have the same metric and 2) the same regression technique. That approach is taken here by recoding the six ordered dependent measures into eight dichotomous variables,Footnote 28 keeping the three original dichotomous variables as is, and using binary logistic regression to predict all 11 variables. Kappas were then calculated by centering and weighting the model regression coefficients, while foregoing the final scaling step. In some cases, recoding the ordinal dependent measures into dichotomous variables results in a loss of a small amount of information, but as compensation the kappas for social cleavages, displayed in Tables 9 and 10, can be compared directly to each other across the dependent measures.

Table 9 US political measures: kappas (centered and weighted) for social divisions
Table 10 Israeli political measures: kappas (centered and weighted) for social divisions

The patterns are consistent with the main analysis. Religion, as measured by denomination, generates the most significant political divisions on eight of the 11 measures, produces the highest average kappa across the 11 measures,Footnote 29 and in no case fails to produce political divisions. Calculating kappa this way shows that religion structures the most significant political division with respect to societal acceptance or discouragement of homosexuality, followed by US support for Israel when the trade-off is about the right support vs. too supportive, and settlements when the trade-off is settlements hurt Israeli security vs. settlements help Israeli security. Religion yields the least significant political divisions on government size and services and Obama’s job approval.Footnote 30

When religion is not the primary source of political division, it is replaced by education and gender on government size and services, age on the Israeli government’s peace efforts, and race on settlements when the trade-off is settlements hurt Israeli security vs. settlements make no difference to Israeli security. In each of these cases, religion generates political divisions only moderately weaker than the top social divisions, and in none of those cases do the alternative social divisions produce the same level of political division that religion does when it is most potent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotler-Berkowitz, L. The Structure of Political Divisions Among American Jews. Cont Jewry 37, 5–27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-016-9180-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social divisions
  • Political divisions
  • American Jews
  • Religion