Seems like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman would be poor fits then, ironically enough.
Really. Why would they be poor fits? Please elaborate.
I was referring to this context:
Secular Jewish Republicans (SJR)
wealthier (on balance), more educated (on balance), usually socially moderate-to-liberal and very neoconservative on foreign policy and Israel issues. usually Mitt Romney-style conservatives on business/economic issues. many NeverTrumpers here.
They are almost always establishment republicans. Usually have a strong identification with their ethnic Jewish heritage and some knowledge of the religion as well but rarely follow the religious customs.
SJRs:
- Sheldon Adelson (he's pro-choice, pro-lgbt, anti-marijuana, pro-israel, neoconservative and a business conservative; only thing that sticks out is that he is a trumpist)
- Bill Kristol (he's pro-life, but other then that he's your typical neoconservative, secular Jewish Republican)
- Bret Stephens (secular, jewish, neoconservative)
- Norm Coleman (didn't marry Jewish, but identifies with the ethnicity and religion strongly and is a establishment neoconservative)
- Jennifer Rubin (secular and neoconservative)
- Rudy Boschwitz (seems to be secular, definitely establishment republican)
- Paul Singer (strong LGBT advocate, his son is gay, and a strong establishment republican)
- Linda Lingle (socially moderate, big national security hawk/neoconservative)
- Jonah Goldberg (NeverTrump, National Review writer, prob one of the more right-wing people in this category)
- AIPAC-aligned Republicans (They are too establishment, too moderate for the RJRs and too establishment for most TJRs)
- Emergency Committee for Israel (Bill Kristol's group)
Rand and Friedman seem much more fiscally conservative than this group, and, while certainly pro-Israel in foreign affairs, strike me as more Jacksonian than this Wilsonian neoconservative group.
