Wow, things sure are messy in here, what with all the broken and outdated links, the dry-rotting CSS foundation, the nest of silverfish clustered in one corner of the site code, just behind my old Hoover upright and a rusty, mold-throated mini-fridge (whose half-open door reveals a single untouched Rolling Rock longneck and the dessicated husk of a grapefruit half). Man, is there anything more poignant than a solitary longneck standing stoic and tall beside the carcass of a forgotten breakfast…?
Anyway, lots of housekeeping to be done around here if I’ll be having visitors. So, you know, put your bundt cakes over there on the counter for the time being.
Meantime, here’s a chilling blurb I came across yesterday in The Weekly Standard:
‘It used to be said that anti-Catholicism was the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals,’ columnist George Will observes. ‘Today, anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.’
Exhibit A this week is the editorial in the latest issue of the Vancouver-based corporate-bashing lefty journal Adbusters, which asks plaintively, ‘Why won’t anyone say they are Jewish?’ They are the ‘neocons.’ The editor of the journal, Kalle Lasn, has helpfully compiled a list of 50 ‘influential neocons,’ and he’s annotated the list by scribbling little black dots in the margin next to the names of the 25 he thinks are Jews. Charming.
He thereby inadvertently confirms the perspicacious joke definition of our former colleague David Brooks, who recently explained that ‘con is short for “conservative” and neo is short for “Jewish.”‘” Lasn, alas, does not have a sense of humor. He seems to think he is being brave.
‘Drawing attention to the Jewishness of the neocons is a tricky game. Anyone who does so can count on automatically being smeared as an anti-Semite. But . . . here at Adbusters, we decided to tackle the issue head on.’
This is vile, yes; it’s also preposterous. It’s the political equivalent of those numbskulls who think Americans are prudish and uptight about sex, when the truth is we can’t shut up about it.
What, in fact, has anyone had to say about the neocons for the last two years except to obsess about their Jewishness? The standard left-wing critique of American foreign policy for the past two years runs as follows: ‘Likudnik, Likudnik, Likudnik; Sharon, Sharon, Sharon; Volfovitz, neocon, PNAC, PNAC; neocon, Likudnik, neocon.’ And that’s the sophisticated, BBC-World-Service version.
Adbusters is indeed engaged in a tricky game, and it’s no smear to call it by its proper name. Of the making of lists of Jews, alas, there is no end.
I don’t know why stuff like this bothers me so much, but it really does. In fact, increasingly mainstream instances of such ugliness have become frightening enough that one might persuade himself (after a night of tequila shooters and dubious fish tacos with a pair of Mexicali hookers) to disappear from view for a year or so in order that he might undergo radical cosmetic surgery to have his foreskin reattached (and by “his,” I mean “donor-provided,” bless the children).
Luckily, Schindler’s List is due for a DVD release in the next week or so, including a deluxe collectible Gift Set — perfect for those Vancouver relatives who happen to work at Adbusters.
Full disclosure: I’ve never read Adbusters, nor have I ever visited Vancouver. And of course, some of my best friends are kikes.
Have you noticed, Jeff, that not a lot has really changed since you left?
Oh, wait. Yes it has. Anti-Semitism is now PC, but it’s un-PC to call anti-Semites anti-Semites.
And, um, I’m probably voting for Bush in November.
I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life. I will in November.
Meryl, you’re going to vote for Bush because the Weekly Standard found some Canadians who are anti-Semites? Um, OK.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002214.html
“‘con’ is short for ‘conservative’ and ‘neo’ is short for ‘Jewish’”??? Thanks, I hadn’t heard that! (I must now go watch The Matrix again.)
In all seriousness—thanks for writing, Jeff! I don’t think I’ve stopped by here before, but on Meryl Yourish’s recommendation, I’ll happily give it a try. So far I like what I see a lot.
Andrew: I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life either. Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, Gore (that last while holding my nose gently). But I, too, will be voting for Bush in November. I might have had a decision to make, had Joe Lieberman stayed the course and gotten the nomination; he, at least, is a Democrat who knows we’re at war. With him out of the race, my decision is clear.
It used to be that, if you wanted good serious antisemitism, you had to find a Republican. But today, the Republicans are the strong supporters of Israel, while Democrats and their backers seem to think that antisemitism is chic. The Weekly Standard isn’t the problem; they merely illustrate a trend.
Even apart from the all-important issue of the war, this is a serious problem for me. As a Jew and an expatriate Israeli, I cannot support the Democrats for national office until they get their act together.
respectfully,
Daniel in Medford
Aside from a shared continent, what connection is there between AdBusters and the Democrats? Why is this more interesting than a Republican-affiliated organization that calls jewish people “Shylocks”, and holds conferences attended by Republican congressmen? Or Grover Norquist comparing the estate tax to the Holocaust and fundraising for Islamic terrorists? Where does this impression of Democratic anti-Semitism come from? I’m a Democrat. Am I anti-Semitic? John Kerry is a Democrat. Is he anti-Semitic? How about Joe Leiberman? Henry Waxman? Can you name one policy supported by the DNC or any prominant Democrat which could be called anti-Semitic? Can you point to any statements by any current prominent Democrats which could reasonablt be called “anti-Semitic”?
The trend illustrated by the Weekly Standard and idiots like David Brooks is the use of Google to find outrages which can then be used to tar political opponents. It’s just guilt by association, minus the association, in this case. It’s propaganda.
Respectfully (but Jeez Louise!),
Andy, formerly in Somerville
For added warm fuzzies, it’s fun to note that the only person David Brooks bothers to actually call out as an anti-Semite is Wesley Clark, nee Kanne. Here’s a fascinating expose of how he’s big Jewy Jew (along with 4 other Democratic candidates) by right-wing site “Real News 24/7”, whose banner features Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh rampant. Today’s top story: Israel’s Betrayal of the US!
The Republican party used to be full of anti-Semites. Ever wonder where they all went?
I’m pretty sure they meandered over to the Pat Buchanan camp, which—last time I checked—was pushing many of the same policy proposals as many in the Democratic primary.
But anyway, nowhere in the blurb I posted does the word “Democrat” appear (unless it does, I’m too lazy to re-read it). Don’t know why this has turned into a partisan thing; I don’t think most Dems are far left, but I do believe that many on the far left—like many on the Buchanan right—show a noticeable dislike for Abe’s extended progeny. Imagine that: the far left and the far right joining up to complete the circle of life…
Andrew:
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, I did use too wide a brush, and thanks for calling me on that. True, AdBusters has little to do with American Democrats. But AdBusters does have quite a lot in common with the American left, particularly the far left… which the Democratic Party has been going to great pains to pander to, in my opinion (and to my regret).
No, the Democratic Party itself has not become antisemitic—nor was my intention to level such a charge against you; my apologies if it seemed to you that I was. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has not seen fit to distance itself from its anti-war fellow-travelers (e.g. moveon.org, International ANSWER, and their ilk). I wish it would; the Democrats have many ideals that are important to me.
respectfully,
Daniel in Medford
Ah, progress. Now, please name these anti-Semitic policy proposals (Repealing the upper-income tax cut … on Jews? Adding two divisions to the armed forces … to kill Jews?), or even one of them, being pushed by the Democrats, now led by John Kerry, whose ancestors died in the Holocaust. While you’re thinking about it, check out National Review founder William F. Buckley’s admiring piece on Westbrook Pegler, anti-Semite and Nazi-lover, now on magazine stands everywhere. Again, I wonder where all those anti-Semites went?
Uh, Jeff, this might work better if you didn’t just get through saying how the Democrats are on the same page as anti-Semite (former Republican Presidential candidate) Pat Buchanan. Read the Brooks article, and note how many Democrats – many of whom are part-Jewish – are called anti-Semitic because they criticize the policies of Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, and Dick Cheney. Better yet, read Josh Marshall on it. David Brooks is an fucking asshole.
I didn’t say the policy proposals of either Buchanan or the Democrats were anti-semitic—just that some of them coincided (the new-found isolationist streak, for example). YOU keep making the connection between anti-semites and Democrats. I, on the other hand, connected many Buchananites to many far lefties, who seem to find mutual agreement in their distaste for Jews. I further connected some Buchananesque policies to some Democratic primary-offered policies.
As to the Brooks article, I didn’t blog on that.
Daniel, come on. The Democratic Party has no connection whatsoever with International ANSWER, or AdBusters – none. International ANSWER is run by Communists, not Democrats, and any Communist or Democrat can explain the rather unbridgeable gulf between the two. As for moveon.org, it was George Soros’ donation to that organization that prompted GOPUSA – an organization whose conferences are patronized by many sitting Republican congressmen – to publish an article call him “Shylock”, amoung other rather loaded epithets. No distancing from this event ever happened, no explaination was ever given, and no was any apology issued. Strangely, the Weekly Standard was untroubled. They’re worried about Canadian websites no one’s ever heard of. I don’t know who “the American left” is – some Nader supporters, maybe? – but I have a feeling it exists largely in the fevered partisan imagination of repulsive little liars like David Brooks.
But, more seriously, you do recognize that opposing the war in Iraq (which the Democrats did rather tepidly, as did I) is not, in actual fact, anti-Semitic? Please tell me you realize that this is nonsense. I’m not Jewish, but I would think it is a profound devaluing of what anti-Semitism has really meant (and continues to mean) to just use it as a synonym for “things I don’t agree with.”
(Sorry if I’m a bit brusque here, but I was a bit offended before. I’m rather pointedly not anti-Semitic, and I would never associate at all with anyone who was. I appreciate your reply.)
And around and around we go. “I’m not blaming Democrats, I’m blaming Lefties. And Democrats.” What policies, Jeff?
Read it again. Paragraph 3.
Brooks is mentioned in the blurb. He’s not the subject of the blurb. George Will is mentioned, too. Doesn’t compel me to review his entire oeuvre.
YOU connected American Democrats with a Canadian leftist. Me, I was troubled by an instance of singling out Jews on a list. Your response to my post seems to be that there are other anti-semites in the world who don’t work at Adbusters. Okay, point taken. And so what?
As to the Buchanan / “progressive” Democrat connection, I see similarities in a newfound progressive Dem tendency toward isolationism.
Andrew:
Thanks for your reply. Sometimes it’s not clear, on fora such as this, whether a person is at all interested in civilized dialogue or not. I get the impression that you are, which I appreciate.
First and foremost: it was not my intention to offend you (or anybody, as a matter of fact). I do apologize for that. You have convinced me that you do take antisemitism seriously, and I’m very glad of that. And believe me, I too take the subject of antisemitism quite seriously.
I do not consider opposition to the war in Iraq to be antisemitic; I didn’t say that it was. However, there’s been a fair amount of anti-war sentiment that came close to the line, or skirted over it. I do not claim that leaders of the Democratic Party said these things; rather, I wish that they would take the trouble to disassociate from the more noxious statements of their fellow-travelers.
For example, the endless discussions, bordering on conspiracy theory, about “the neocons” (which, as you’ll recall, is how this whole thread started). The intentional pillorying of Paul Wolfowitz. The many silly attempts to connect the war in Iraq to Israel, or to claim that Bush is carrying out a Zionist agenda, or that Ariel Sharon has anything at all to do with the war in Iraq (other than an extremely interested bystander).
I’ve heard plenty of this, some of it directed at me personally. As you might guess, I take such accusations seriously.
What I meant by ‘the American left’ (far left, actually) are those on the left who, in their blind hatred of Bush, can no longer reason or see reason. Those who cannot stop screaming “BUSH LIED!!!!”, for example, and won’t examine the issues. Those who, Democrats or no, have been willing to demonstrate alongside the likes of International ANSWER, complete with antisemitic trash up to and including the blood libel—and somehow closed their minds to what that meant.
I’ve felt for a long time that, in discussing politics, one particular political divide means more than any other. It’s not between Democrats and Republicans, or liberals and conservatives, or any other such thing. It’s between people willing to think for themselves and change their minds, on the one side, and people who can’t or won’t on the other side. (To paraphrase Mark Twain, someone who *doesn’t* think for him or herself has no advantages over someone who *can’t*.)
I’d much rather discuss politics with a thinker, be they opposed to everything I believe in, than with a closed-minded individual who agrees with me on everything. I believe you to be one of the open-minded ones, Andrew; I hope I’m right.
Jeff: looks like I’m responsible for kicking open a lot of partisan political discussion. Sorry ‘bout that; perhaps I should drop back into lurking mode for a while.
respectfully,
Daniel in Medford
Daniel:
Don’t let Andrew’s blustering bully you into withholding your comments. Andrew is often reasonable, but in this case, he’s reacting to a post entirely of his own creation. The post I wrote had to do with the way I felt when I came across a story about a man making a list of Jews. The post Andrew read had to do with, well, whatever.
Daniel – I agree with everything you’ve said. I just don’t think it’s fair to judge a group of people by the worst members, let alone by unaffiliated Canadians. I don’t think the Republican Party is anti-Semitic as a whole, either, but my point is that anyone can find examples of anti-Semitism pretty easily, as well as examples (Brooks, Weekly Standard) of people dishonestly using anti-Semitism to impune the integrity of their opponents.
Jeff –
1) Again, what policies?
2) The article quotes the Brooks article, and mentions what a lovely job Brooks did in naming the problem, and Brooks was talking about Democrats, by name, explicitly. We can pretend this isn’t what we’re discussing, but somehow you, I, Meryl, and Daniel all knew exactly what the score was. Meryl and Daniel are voting Republican because – and I quote – “Democrats and their backers seem to think that antisemitism is chic.” There’s no bullying going on, I’m just asking for cards on the table, straight up. If the Weekly Standard is upset about anti-Semitism, it doesn’t have to go to Canada. Neither do you. The Weekly Standard and the perspicacious Mr. Brooks are upset about “the standard left-wing critique of American foreign policy…”, and so it Googles up some anti-Semitism from the Yukon to change the subject. The Weekly Standard is upset it might lose a policy argument, so it calls all its opponents racists. Johnny Cochran couldn’t have done a better job.
Andrew:
You can pretend to know what was in my mind when I wrote up this post, but the truth is you don’t know. Lucky for you then, I’ve patiently explained several times now exactly why I posted about what I posted about. My problem was with the singling out of Jews on a list simply for their Jewishness (and all the ominous overtones that that designation is supposed to suggest to people of a certain mindset). My post wasn’t about this puerile partisan bickering you seem to want to engage me in. The WS blurb was simply a springboard for me to discuss what I see as a troubling trend—specifically, thinly-veiled anti-semitic remarks posturing as serious political critique.
Frankly, your suggestion that I avoid Canada should I wish to avoid Canadian anti-semitism, is itself an ugly remark—and quite a surprising one coming from you. I can think of all sorts of unflattering analogies to make here, but I’m done dignifying this line of discussion. I just hope you meant it differently than it sounded.
As to the rest: if you want to deconstruct Brooks’ article, do it. You have a blog. Or, if you’d like to do it here, be my guest. Me, I haven’t read it. Because it’s not what my post was about—and not even how it was used in the blurb here, if you’re describing it correctly. And re-read my earler comments: Protectionism in the Dem’s latest talk of international trade / labor policy (we’re outsourcing jobs to the foreigners at the expense of good ol’ unionized American workers blah blah) reminds me of the kind of isolationist talk common to Buchananites.
I have no idea what this sentence means. I called Canadians anti-Semites, perhaps? Never happened. Everything’s all written down, and it’s not there, nor is the suggestion. The WS/David Brooks calls me an anti-Semite; you call me an anti-Kunukite. Man, that shit’s fucking pathetic.
I’m not saying I can read your mind, I’m just saying I can read. The article is about how critics of “neo-con” (foreign policy) are anti-Semitic, and the Brooks article cited, quoted and feted is explicitly about how specific (ethnically Jewish, no less!) Democrats are talking in anti-Semitic code when they criticize Republicans. Meryl and Daniel argued that they felt sympathy for this line of argument; I argued against this; you said that Democrats are pushing Buchananite policies; I called bullshit; you took it personally, and are now calling me a Canada-hater. Look, if you don’t want to to defend the real subject of the article, than it’s real simple: don’t do it. That’s fine, I won’t make you. But don’t come in and defend it, and look how Democrats are morphing into Buchananites, and then run away when I call you on it saying you just hate anti-Semitism. That’s fucking bullshit, and you know damned well it is. So put up or shut up: what policies, of the many you are aware of, do the Democrats have in common with Pat Buchanan?
And fuck Canada, too.
(This is no fun, all this name-calling. Make fun of some celebrities, already. Casper van Dien was talking ‘bout your momma!)
Oh, I get it now.
Read: “If the Weekly Standard is upset about anti-Semitism [to find it, because it’s all around you, hence the subject of my previous 6000 comments], it doesn’t have to go to Canada. Neither do you.”
That was confusing, I guess. Casper van Dien made me do it.
This isn’t my day. Try this:
“If the Weekly Standard is upset about anti-Semitism, it doesn’t have to go to Canada [to find it, because it’s all around you, hence the subject of my previous 6000 comments]. Neither do you.”
That one was all Dina Meyer’s fault.
Andrew: No, I’m not ready to vote for Bush because of the anti-Semitism I’m seeing from the radical left. (And thanks to the Passion, I get to see the re-emergence of the anti-Semitism of the radical right. Joy.)
I will probably vote for Bush because we are at war, and I don’t think Kerry can do the job. I don’t think we should be asking the UN for permission to defend ourselves. I think we have to go after terrorists with our armed forces. Not with lawyers and diplomats.
I would have voted for Edwards or Lieberman on the Democratic ticket. I had no faith in any of the others. But the Dems have chosen Kerry. They’ve left me no other choice but to hold my nose and vote for the man I would otherwise never vote for.
So you can see how that might be confusing. Thanks for clarifying.
No, it’s about how this guy at Adbusters (described as far-left) is using techniques that come dangerously close to anti-semitism. And my post was about how that bothers me.
Untrue, untrue, & etc.
Here’s what I said: “I’m pretty sure they [the erstwhile Republican anti-semites you insisted on bringing up, though again, they have nothing to do with my original post — except that they, to, would be worrisome to me] meandered over to the Pat Buchanan camp, which—last time I checked—was pushing many of the same policy proposals as many in the Democratic primary.”
What I was talking about specifically, as I’ve now said 5 times, is this new feint toward protectionism being embraced by some “progressive” Democrats—though these Dems are clever enough to depict the foreigners who are taking American jobs as being oppressed by the very US corporations employing them, whereas the Buchananites aren’t so deft when they talk about immigrants taking American jobs.
This, of course, is not the same as saying Democrats are equal to Buchananites; instead, I called attention to a point of agreement between the two camps—and only after you turned this into a partisan issue. You seem to be seizing on a rather offhanded remark of mine and trying to pin me on it. Let it go.
Incidentally, I’m not running away from anything I wrote. My post was, is, and always has been about one thing: my discomfort with thinly-veiled anti-semitic remarks posturing as serious political critique. That you have decided to intertextualize yourself into a lather is on you, I’m afraid. I still haven’t read the Brooks article, so I can’t join you in the “discussion” you seem to be having with it.
And Casper rocks.
Meryl – Well, more evidence of what happens when I assume, I guess. I don’t understand thinking Edwards (of all people) is better on foreign policy than Kerry, but it’s a free country. There’s still plenty of time to change your mind.
Jeff –
Which continues with: “The standard left-wing critique of American foreign policy for the past two years runs as follows: ‘Likudnik, Likudnik, Likudnik; Sharon, Sharon, Sharon; Volfovitz, neocon, PNAC, PNAC; neocon, Likudnik, neocon.’” Let’s mix up criticism of neocons with anti-Semitism some more – that’s “standard” for the opposition. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to defend it, but you quoted it, and people reacted to it. It is right there, in the article you quoted, and on the page. Plus, the egregious Brooks making the same point again. You don’t have to read his article either, the quote gets right to the heart of it – even if they won’t come out and say it, people oppose the neoconservative agenda because they are anti-Semites. It’s “standard”. I reacted to people’s reactions to it, and you reacted to that. And here we are.
“Feint towards”, “streak” and “talk [which] reminds me” are not synonyms for “policy proposals”. The Buchanan policy towards globalization and trade is to stop international trade because Mexicans are stealing our jobs, and then build a wall on the border to keep them out, because Mexicans are too lazy to work. This doesn’t remind me of any Democratic policy I’ve heard, probably because it’s not. I put it to you again that there are, in point of actual factual fact, a total of zero policy proposals put forth by the Democrats which were borrowed from Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan is a racist, that’s the thing about him, and this is the central feature of his politics. If I’m wrong, tell me, and I’ll tell the offending Democrat to get stuffed. But I strongly doubt it is so.
And my disagreement is always with thinly-veiled political hatchet-jobs posturing as discomfort with anti-Semitism. You are uncomfortable with what the article is about; I’m (also) uncomfortable with what it is. Let’s stop pretend we’re talking about the same thing, then, and let’s leave poetic connections between unnamed Democrats and anti-Semite Pat Buchanan out of it.
… your momma!
Oh, shut up Andrew. That came from the heart, by the way. I love you, mwah. But can it. Forget pathetic—this shit is fucking boring, which is a bigger crime than being “pathetic” is, at least in my eyes. But what do I know, I’m not into turning every single goddamn observation into macho political debates.
I read “left-wing” and took it to be a continuation of “far left” as exemplified by this Adbusters guy. I don’t consider most Democrats to be far left. Which explains Clinton’s continued popularity.
And as I said in my last comment, my drawing connections between Buchananites and progressive Dem policy statements was never meant to be anything more than an off-handed remark built around certain uneasy similarities I’ve noticed. Take it for what it’s worth. If you don’t see a connection, you don’t see it.
But it’s Friday night, so I’m gonna quit now and go eat pizza and watch a movie. Interstate 60, I think. Because that’s what I do now—change diapers and watch movies in between.
Jeff–you’re a dad now, too?
Now we know what you were doing while you were gone.
Mazal tov, bubelah.
Thank you, Meryl! Yes, it’s true, my son was born January 6th of this year. His name is Satchel. My wife and I are thrilled, proud, and quite tired…
I had to wade through all that hair-splitting head-of-a-pin bullcrap to find out you now have an heir to the PW fortune? I’d say congratulations, and I’m sure that I will, but damn! Don’t you think your minions should know that, kind of up-front?
Anyway, congratulations!
…after a night of tequila shooters and dubious fish tacos with a pair of Mexicali hookers…
Mmmm…tequila shooters, dubious fish tacos, and hookers…I wanna party with you, cowboy.
And I’m with Andrea: blogger macho political debates are so, so, so like 2002 it’s not funny. Isn’t it easier to say, “I disagree with you, you (Neocon/Liberal/Libertarian/Whatever) wanker, now let’s go hoist a few lagers and catch that ballgame on ESPN”?