SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home After Nobility

WASHINGTON DIARIST SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

After Nobility

BY LEON WIESELTIER

The politics of anti-politics is a great American comedy. Contempt for Washington has become one of the primary qualifications for elevation to Washington. Those who despise government are desperate to join it; those who despise politics are politicians. And those who cherish government and cherish politics are ominously instructed by their consultants to be silent. Inside the system they pretend that they are outside the system, and denounce the institutions as if they are not talking about themselves. Even the president poses as a marginal man, which of course has the effect of marginalizing him. Obama is reaping the harvest of his superiority to the sordidness of power: the revival of the American right in 2009-2010 was owed in part to his squandering of his early strength upon a prissy dream of bipartisanship, or post-partisanship-not of compromise, which has a place in a universe of conflict, but of a utopian sort of consensus in which “faction,” whose abiding reality is one of the central recognitions of the American method of government, is miraculously overcome. Obama came to lift us to a higher place, when a better place was all we needed. To feed a hungry man who comes to your door does not require a redesign of your kitchen. The president’s high-minded misreading of the Republicans will stand as one of the most consequential delusions of our time. And it was entirely of a piece with one of the central teachings of Obama’s campaign, which is that people can be brought into politics by endorsing their alienation from politics—and that the answer to alienation is transformation, so that they can go directly from pre-political to post-political. This disarmed them against many disgusting Beltway developments to come, and prepared them only for disappointment. It is irresponsible to weaken people’s patience with imperfection. The Republicans, needless to say, do not regard themselves as too good for politics; and they are right.

YET IT MAY BE that the only thing worse than the anti-political going into politics is the anti-political not going into politics. In India, in Israel, and most alarmingly in Egypt, revolts of various noble kinds have been animated by a belief in the righteousness of the non-political. In India, a Gandhian character in white cotton named Anna Hazare, an anti-corruption activist from Maharashtra, was arrested in New Delhi before he could begin a hunger strike in a park. His arrest created a national furor, he was released, he staged his protest. “This is a moral moment,” an exhilarated activist from Hyderabad told The New York Times. “There is a lot of anger in the country, not only to end corruption but to end politics as it is conducted today.” In Israel, “the miracle of the summer of 2011,” as one of its organizers called it, was an extraordinary series of demonstrations around the country, culminating in one of the largest rallies in the country’s history, against the impossible cost of living and the outrageous levels of income inequality in Netanyahu’s Israel. Tent encampments were set up to dramatize the magnitude of the social injustices. At a vast rally in Tel Aviv, a commentator in Haaretz claimed that he had witnessed “the birth of Israeli civil society.” The protests certainly proved, as an Israeli friend of mine remarked, that there is no basis for Reaganism in Israeli society. And in Egypt, well, there was the great revolution of Tahrir Square, where civil society overthrew a dictator. All of these were just causes. They all looked for their integrity to the fact that they originated outside the political system.

BUT WHAT NOW? About India I do not know enough to say, though it strikes me that the country could use less Gandhi and more Nehru. In Israel, the protests are winding down because summer is over and everybody must return to work and school: civil society is logistically demanding. People are awaiting the reports of a couple of commissions. Otherwise, as the Talmudic adage has it, olam keminhago noheg, the world is acting according to its custom: Netanyahu, whose sickening mixture of personal expediency and historical rigidity is gravely injuring his country at home and abroad (and all the start-ups in the world will not undo the damage), still faces no serious political challenge. As for Egypt: a few months ago I found myself in conversation with an Egyptian. “Mubarak’s biggest mistake,” he said, “was to shut down the Internet.” I asked him to explain. “Simple,” he replied. “Everybody left their apartments.” Now they are back in their apartments. The most striking fact about the Facebook heroes of Cairo is that they did not proceed to the formation of political parties. “We are going to win because we don’t understand politics,” Wael Ghonim declared in a TED Talk in March. “We’re going to win because we don’t play their dirty games. We’re going to win because we don’t have an agenda.” It makes you want to weep. The Muslim Brotherhood understands politics, and plays their dirty games, and has an agenda. Ghonim later announced on Twitter that he is forming “a technology focused NGO to help fight poverty & foster education in #Egypt.” Cool. But NGOs do not participate in politics. They are designed to circumvent it or to supplement it.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND this confidence that history will be changed by popular epiphanies, or by the virtual epiphanies known as networks. Moral moments come and go. The tents go up, the tents come down. The square fills, the square empties. The only way to perpetuate the accomplishments of the square is to leave the square for politics. The romance of civil society may have gone too far. Anyway, the abdication of politics plays into the hands of forces that already have no use for it. As Evgeny Morozov has written, “You can’t simply join a revolution any time you want, contribute a comma to a random revolutionary decree, rephrase the guillotine manual, and then slack off for months. Revolutions prize centralization and require fully committed leaders, strict discipline, [and] absolute dedication.” There is no question but that politics is unlovely, and appeals to the vices as well as the virtues. Yet it is also the only way to put constraints on power, and to wield power reasonably and accountably. It is true that power is the end of innocence, but who wants innocence? We should want goodness, not innocence. (We should want also a proper definition of goodness.) Politics is all that stands between power and cruelty.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article appeared in the October 6, 2011, issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 50 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

50 comments

An excellent essay that takes insights from the writers such as Arendt and Adorno and applies it to contemporary events.

- arnon

September 16, 2011 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A well-considered piece. One of the enduring points here is the importance of institutions and networks that harness their members to existing institutions or build new ones. This is a great failure of Organizing for America. Sure, people were tired after the election, but part of Obama's problem is that people saw him as both King and Johnson at the same time. This makes some sense, as most people had some understanding that it was time for a change of political direction and a victorious Obama would have near-MLK levels of historic import. Obama could not clone himself, however. He could not lead the organization, speak at rallies, and corral the troops of operatives and strengthen their morale. That's the job of a revivalist or mission leader. Obama is the president. He has lots more responsibilities than he used to, and he has mainly been focused on them rather than the politics of leading the public to support and expect major changes.

- chaitless

September 17, 2011 at 12:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To me the most important point is: "Politics is all that stands between power and cruelty." The embrace of the political is what made democracy possible. To abjure politics would not make our lives better. At best without politics our lives would be ruled by the administrative. At worst we would be at the mercy of tyranny.

- arnon

September 17, 2011 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good piece. People who say they hate the government really want to be the government. They just don't like the one that's in power at the moment. Did the people who became Tea Partiers hate Bush's government? No, they loved it, because Bush was anti-government. The real purpose of Republicans in power is to weaken the government to the extent that it places rich people, corporations, and gun lovers beyond any responsibility. Obama has intentionally and effectively demonstrated that his opponents want to hamstring the U.S. government to the point where it's powerless. Voters next year will have to decide whether they want the government to protect them somewhat or leave them totally at the mercy of sociopaths like Grover Norquist, whose stated goal is to drown a shrunken U.S. government in a bathtub. Lenin had similar fantasies. Let's hope the voters reject Comrade Norquist and his Republican pals in 2012.

- magboy47.

September 21, 2011 at 3:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Republicans, needless to say, do not regard themselves as too good for politics; and they are right." Why is that? It's clear that the tea party movement is the product of the same conservatives who gave us GWB; not a revolution but a return to the status quo ante. Time will tell if the other "revolutions" around the globe are much the same. Like a virus that is constantly changing to adapt and survive but a virus nevertheless.

- rayward

September 21, 2011 at 7:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brilliant. In early 2009 I could not believe that people who worked so hard to elect Obama did not realize that the next week or month they had to go work and make sure they got their preferred candidates for state legislator, district attorney, and county controller elected to make sure that any gains Obama made were locked in. It was as the second coming had arrived. I did not think of this as an international phenomenon though. Orwell could not have described what is going on today better than Leon. My only solace is in Kohelet 7:8-10. I just hope I live long enough to see the the civilized world snap out of it, and without a big war, at that.

- SFergessen

September 21, 2011 at 7:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems that this piece defines politics as "representative democracy," when it seems clear that many people see the representation as having failed - not just due to one bad apple, but on a systemic level.

- whyamihere

September 21, 2011 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Though not particularly a Leon fan, I have to acknowledge that this is a cogent and insightful piece. He hits a bullseye that others have hinted at, namely, that Obama's unending quest for bipartisan consensus and harmony, his moral imperative to transcend politics, has been a delusion and a horrendous wasted opportunity. The accurate naming of this core failure shook me, it was so true.

- JackR

September 21, 2011 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

a weak essay. a new political guru is needed in the new republic. my potential candidate: Paul Berman.

- sf4200

September 21, 2011 at 10:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well done, Wieseltier. Your prose was especially well-wrought in the first paragraph but the entire piece stands out.

- tealeaves

September 21, 2011 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Richard Posner on Machiavelli: “People… have difficulty grasping the distinctive and essential components of political morality, comprising the qualities necessary in a statesman or other leader. Those qualities are strategic and interpersonal (manipulative, coercive, psychological) in character. They are quintessentially social. They constitute the morality, misunderstood as cynicism, expounded by Machiavelli, the morality that Weber contrasted with an ‘ethic of ultimate ends’, his term for the uncompromising absolutist ethics that one finds, for example, on the Sermon on the Mount. The ethics of political responsibility implies a willingness to compromise, to dirty one’s hands, to flatter and lie, to make package deals, to forgo the prideful self satisfaction that comes from self-conscious purity and devotion to principle. It requires a sense of reality, of proportion, rather than self-righteousness or academic smarts. The politician must have an ‘ability to let realities work upon him with inner consciousness and calmness.’”

- basman

September 21, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I give the first paragraph of this piece an A+. My sense is that it's the cogent and incisive articulation of some matters Wieseltier has given a lot of thought to. It trails off and downwards from there, making the same point over and over but ends on a very strong note. I agree witht he observation made above that "Politics is all that stands between power and cruelty," the proposition Wiesletier ends on is as trenchant as it is profound. And too I quite liked this swipe at technology as religion: "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND this confidence that history will be changed by popular epiphanies, or by the virtual epiphanies known as networks."

- basman

September 21, 2011 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...the revival of the American right in 2009-2010 was owed in part to [Obama's] squandering of his early strength upon a prissy dream of bipartisanship, or post-partisanship..." What part of "We won; get over it!" or the passage of Obamacare and the Mega-Stimulus had anything to do with bipartisanship? How many Republican's voted for them? And how many Democrats did not?

- dalefogden

September 21, 2011 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon says..." 'Politics is all that stands between power and cruelty.' The embrace of the political is what made democracy possible. To abjure politics would not make our lives better. At best without politics our lives would be ruled by the administrative. At worst we would be at the mercy of tyranny." Where that it were still so. One has to wonder when Americans start realizing that our "representative" government, regardless of political party, isn't representative in the truest sense of the word. Your or my interests to the politician end when someone comes in with more money and more power. The difference between the youth protestors in the Middle East versus the "Wall Street" protestors here within the past week is that the those youth are not afraid to tear down the "foundations" or "institutions" that create and perpetuate the oppression, repression and inequality and try something new. Something non-political and non-hierarchical. Why? Because they've literally got nothing left to lose or fear. That the dictators would enforce "law" and "peace" through tanks and guns says much about what those in power will do to keep it. The protests here in America don't amount to much of anything really. They're fun but useless. Here people protest, wave some placards (whether they're pro-union or Tea Partyers), and then return home still wrapped in the proverbial blanket of the system in which they "protest" against. Turn on the TV, watch a reality show and have a beer and burger. Americans hold strong in their belief (as taught over the last 150 yrs) that our way of thinking is right for the rest of the world. And when we don't see other countries embrace our lifestyle or politics we question the sanity of them or verbalize a disdain for their barbarism or undeveloped ways of life. As if having a Starbucks or McDonalds on every other corner of your town is a sign of supreme culture. Leon says he doesn't understand why these young people in the ME insist on not getting political when "politics is what stands between power and cruelty". He is confused. Politics, as it is practiced now and for the longest time, is a tool of power and cruelty by those who wield it. The Medicis knew this well. As did the Bushes. Obama failed on one level, but the majority of the vast millions of those who voted for him, failed to follow through with actions of their own (beyond simply holding useless rallies or more protests). When people (both inside and out of the political system, and both sides of the political aisle) saw Obama pushing for progressive policies so quickly, people clamored for him to slow down. "Don't go too fast. We can't dismantle the status quo so easily. The American people aren't ready for that kind of change" they said. So instead we've watched the power-brokers, politicians, lobbyists, and others either block or massage Obama into towing the status quo line. Rock the boat a little to placate those below, and then stop rocking when they lose interest. Meanwhile, the very people who need to be acting for the progressive agenda, making it happen on the ground, are waiting for some miracle (or a more progressive Progressive than Obama) to come save America from itself. Why are we still waiting for the solutions to come from above? Politics is the often referred to the art of compromise. It would be so if both parties negotiating are willing to compromise. But what do you do when the more powerful is neither willing nor will ever compromise away it's power? The GOP have no desire to bargain away the power from those they pledge loyalty to. The GOP will simply hasten the rate of decline of our institutions until those that choose to no longer be a part or party to the system decide that acting from within gets them nothing in return except more debt, more wars, more abuse and more big screen TVs to watch 'Jersey Shore' and the NFL on. How does one dismantle the system that does not work for the masses but continues its death march for those in power? Do you try using the tools they use? Do you ignore the system and do your own thing? In what manner does some person or some group of disaffected, disenfranchised people reclaim their rights when the very system that those in power use to retain power, claim it is the only way to fix the system? I'm of the age that puts me in the middle of two completely different generations and forces me to question not just what was or is but what can be and really not knowing how best to react. The first is Leon's generation (culturally & socioeconomically) that still has faith in the rightness of the system and that working from within, politicking, will lead to justice and thus still defends the status quo. Then there is the Millennial generation, that has grown up in an era in which all of those beloved institutions of Leon's are either crumbling, underfunded, or been abused by a small coterie of people who think they are 'right'. The Millennials have grown up in an era where social, non-hierarchical networking is the norm. Where multi-cultural relationship are the norm. Where socioeconomic stratification is less important. Where no specific individual or small group wield power over the many. That is scary to those who have spent their entire lives living within the system and fear they can't live without it. Leon says "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND this confidence that history will be changed by popular epiphanies, or by the virtual epiphanies known as networks. " This might reflect a view that the only way to change history is using the same tools that preceded the Facebook & Twitter revolutions in the ME. Really, what these technologies allowed for is a dispersed, non-hierarchical response to the status quo that is failing on so many levels. To imply that trying something other than the "cultural tool of politics" is fantasy or naive speaks much about one who is deeply inculcated into believing, accepting and enforcing the very systems that need restructuring. When a person or persons have used all available means - pleading, voting, giving in, bending over, protesting, writing letters, etc., within the system and only been met with either force, denial or threats, what recourse do those persons have left? Trying again with same methods? The failures of our system and politics are becoming more apparent, year by year, election cycle by election cycle. The system has become sclerotic. The system needs rebuilding.

- singlspeed

September 21, 2011 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Where that it were still so. One has to wonder when Americans start realizing that our "representative" government, regardless of political party, isn't representative in the truest sense of the word. Your or my interests to the politician end when someone comes in with more money and more power." Maybe so, what show may where this is not the case. There is no perfect representative system, but direct democracy has many more problems. Politics is not about solved problems, it's about solving problems without resort to violence. It's about replacing the dueling with weapons, to dueling with words. This is a relatively recent development in our ten thousand (give or take a few thousand years years) settled history.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The difference between the youth protestors in the Middle East versus the "Wall Street" protestors here within the past week is that the those youth are not afraid to tear down the "foundations" or "institutions" that create and perpetuate the oppression, repression and inequality and try something new. Something non-political and non-hierarchical. Why? Because they've literally got nothing left to lose or fear. That the dictators would enforce "law" and "peace" through tanks and guns says much about what those in power will do to keep it." Been there done that. single speed, forgot the history of socialism that led to the Gulags and Maoism. All in the name of equality, fraternity, and peace.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 4:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just as Russia was the last place on earth where Communism would work well, so to is the Middle East the last place on earth were equality (beginning with equality of the sexes) will ever take root because of a few demonstrations.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Masterly. Thank you, Mr. Wieseltier.

- mgorvine

September 21, 2011 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon says "Politics is not about solved problems, it's about solving problems without resort to violence. It's about replacing the dueling with weapons, to dueling with words." This is true in the figurative sense but not the literal sense. Politics is used, now, even in the US, as a way for those writing the laws to enforce the laws that benefit them the most. And not all violence takes the form of dueling. Instead it's more subversive than that. arnon says "single speed, forgot the history of socialism that led to the Gulags and Maoism. All in the name of equality, fraternity, and peace." No. I haven't forgot the history of socialism. And to think or ignore that Gulags are singular to socialism or nazism is convenient. I suppose the "reservations" we forced Native Americans onto was more moral and humane. Socialism as practiced by the USSR, China or North Korea is simply another variant of a political power structure meant to allow control of many by a few. My position is simply that the current form of our representative democracy needs fixing. I can write all the letters to my representative to actually, you know, represent the people who voted for her, not the big oil businesses that 'fund' them. Here is where our system of democracy has broken down. You and I (mostly) still think that actively engaging that the plebeian level of democracy would affect solutions to the problems of our society, while in reality people like the Koch brothers outweigh our efforts through more persuasive measures and means. It is a veritable plutocracy in many respects.

- singlspeed

September 21, 2011 at 5:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Just as Russia was the last place on earth where Communism would work well, so to is the Middle East the last place on earth were equality (beginning with equality of the sexes) will ever take root because of a few demonstrations." So what makes you so sure that equality in the ME will never take root? Much could have been said about America 60 years ago.

- singlspeed

September 21, 2011 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree strongly with SFergessen above. I was probably looking at a limited milieu at the time -- academia, humanities -- but I found that a lot of people seemed to imagine that electing Obama was like selecting a new chair for one's department. If you just find the right man or woman, and secure the votes, that's the job done. Obama was elected Chair of the Department of America, so things would be ok and one could now breathe easily. What they failed to realize, however, was that the U.S. is more like a department with a bitter ideological struggle over "things" going on, and that some professors are just never going to accept the legitimacy of the new boss. The idea that the GOP would somehow either recognize the intelligent and constructive ideas that Obama was putting out there, because they were so intelligent and constructive, or roll over and die, was a pretty extreme misreading of the nature of the American world.

- ironyroad

September 21, 2011 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Brilliant piece - and one of the most important aspects of it is the problem that "The Great RW" as we used to call it doesn't exist in the bedroom or inside one's head or on the internet, it isn't on Facebook, it isn't virtual and it isn't a game. This is why so many silk-scarved, leather-jacketed revolutionaries went to work in daddy's law firm, after having attended some antiwar demonstrations or even, making an impassioned speech under a crimson flag. Just surviving turned out to be hard work, real work; let alone creating a new world. I admit to being frustrated, we haven't done what we set out to do and now, it's looking more and more like just trying to make something beautiful for somebody who will love it in the future; something small - some beadwork, a poem.

- Sophia

September 21, 2011 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

singlspeed "So what makes you so sure that equality in the ME will never take root? Much could have been said about America 60 years ago." The socio-historical situations are completely different. If you don't know that, then it's no wonder that you don't understand LW's article.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 6:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Republicans, needless to say, do not regard themselves as too good for politics; and they are right." What does this mean? And how is Obama situated in relation to this assertion? That Obama regards himself as too good for politics and he is wrong? Is this an endorsement of Obama's superiority or a denigration of Republicans? Is politics good or bad? Is it good to be too good for it or not?

- noga1

September 21, 2011 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As an after thought, to me it sounds like George Costanza breaking with his current girlfriend telling her the reason is she is too good for him, she deserves much better.

- noga1

September 21, 2011 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga the Canadian Republican. She lives in a country with a decent health care system but loves the Republicans who are against it from far away. (Or from the near-far as the Russians might say.)

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Canada, with "a decent health care system "?? That's news to anyone who has to suffer from the decency of the Canadian health system.

- noga1

September 21, 2011 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Such tantrums, arnon. If you weren't so ugly and puny I might actually feel sorry for you. Have you nothing better to do in life than to follow me around and respond to my comments with the most irrelevant bile you accumulate in your system? Do you imagine you are on a mission from God or something?

- noga1

September 21, 2011 at 9:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Canada, with "a decent health care system... You're fucking right it's a decent health care system. I and others I know have lived with it, needed it in our own ways and will affirm it any place any time.

- basman

September 21, 2011 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

..."The Republicans, needless to say, do not regard themselves as too good for politics; and they are right.... ...What does this mean? And how is Obama situated in relation to this assertion? That Obama regards himself as too good for politics and he is wrong? Is this an endorsement of Obama's superiority or a denigration of Republicans? Is politics good or bad? Is it good to be too good for it or not... These questions betray a complete failure to understand Wieseltier's argument.

- basman

September 21, 2011 at 9:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No doubt you have a decent health system because you have supplemental insurance. Don't tell me what the health services in Canada are like for those who cannot afford it. I have an intimate relationship with them.

- noga1

September 21, 2011 at 9:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"These questions betray a complete failure to understand Wieseltier's argument." They are genuine questions, how can they betray anything but curiosity and lack of understanding?

- noga1

September 21, 2011 at 9:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That's news to anyone who has to suffer from the decency of the Canadian health system." Move to Texas, then, but you won't. Such hypocrisy.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Such tantrums, arnon. If you weren't so ugly and puny I might actually feel sorry for you." For tantrums, no one beats Noga, the friend of the pro Palestinians and their websites. Noga is angry because Obama proved her wrong yet again. The nerve of the guy, proving the Commentary Republicans wrong by standing up for Israel. Those guys are besides themselves. And so is Noga.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 10:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You're fucking right it's a decent health care system. I and others I know have lived with it, needed it in our own ways and will affirm it any place any time." I know they do, I used to know people who lived in Toronto many years ago who had moved from the US and they couldn't believe how much better the care was, basman. Noga has no credibility.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"These questions betray a complete failure to understand Wieseltier's argument." Many of the comments here do. I have gotten tired of so much ignorance and don't bother to answer them anymore; with few exceptions.

- arnon

September 21, 2011 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No intelligent person Wieseltier's piece can ask such questions. Anyone intelligent may or may not agree with his argument, may or may not like it, but the questions, genuine or not, are purblind.

- basman

September 21, 2011 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have no supplemental insurance. And I'll tell you whatever I want.

- basman

September 21, 2011 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have known five people who have each spent at least a year in the U.S. and at least a year in Canada. Four of the five agree that Canadian health care is more accessible, more affordable, and puts you through many fewer hoops than the U.S. system. The lone dissident also happened to be the only one of the five who was on US Medicare.

- whyamihere

September 21, 2011 at 11:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: Don't insult my intelligence. No sane person who can afford it will remain without supplemental insurance (unless you choose to pay for things from your own pocket, which amounts to the same thing). Especially not you. It doesn't compute with that general impression of being a spoiled-rotten kid. True, you can tell me anything. And you have. But I take a certain pleasure in noting that, predictably, you don't have the minimal self-discipline, or decency, to keep a promise that you made to yourself in public here, that incontinent you are. You are simply not to be taken seriously.

- noga1

September 22, 2011 at 6:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If I were Noga, I wouldn't use terms like "self-discipline, or decency." This is the same No-ga who claimed that I called Netanyahu a "Judeo-Nazi." She is a perverse indecent liar who lacks even a minimum of self discipline.

- arnon

September 22, 2011 at 10:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In general I agree with LW central thesis about the importance of politics I disagree with the following comment he made. LW: "Obama is reaping the harvest of his superiority to the sordidness of power: the revival of the American right in 2009-2010 was owed in part to his squandering of his early strength..." This isn't completely accurate. Obama lost momentum after Teddy Kennedy died and the Republicans took over his seat. From that moment on, the Democrats could no longer break a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Hence way before the mid-term elections Obama stopped being able to implement his agenda. This made him look weak and the Republican in that election played on that theme.

- arnon

September 22, 2011 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nogs, piss off.

- basman

September 22, 2011 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This is the same No-ga who claimed that I called Netanyahu a "Judeo-Nazi." " http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/95112/obama-turkey-erdogan-palestine-vote?page=1 Noga (quoting): "The hypocrite: arnon: "You'll never convince Noga or the Commentary crowd of this. They still think Obama is a secret Muslim." Noga: "And Arnon believes Netanyahu is a not-so-secret Judeo-Nazi."" Arnon: "You are full of shit. This is typical and typically vile noga assertion." noga: "Decency is not really your forte, is it, Tartuffe?" arnon: "Noga the pig. She spends her days on antisemitic islamic and nazi like websites from dawn to dusk. She even visits some of these websites written in Arabic and uses google translation service to repost these comments on the TNR forums. Noga has only one mode of counter-argument: reduce anyone's argument. Pretend that there is no difference between the commenter and those written on the antisemitic websites she habituates. The she thinks that calling me a Tartuffe she has said something profound. She knows of no other example of hypocrisy in world literature. Noga is the least intelligent poster here. She is all pretense and attitude, no substance." Noga: This is the product of the soft brain of the petty cyber-bully, incapable of dealing with its own serious shortcomings, while imagining it is in excellent, sharp-shooting shape. Just setting the record straight.

- noga1

September 22, 2011 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon: a little advice worth everything you are paying for it: give this person a wide berth. She reminds me of a former poster here, I can't remember his name, "george" something whose ubiquity made him immpossible completely to ignore. So it's likely that at some point she won't arouse some comment, as from me on this thread. But my rule, and my advice, ignore her as much as possible. One day George stopped showing up and that was that. Can such beneficent lightning strike twice? Would that it could.

- basman

September 22, 2011 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Corrected in the interest of high literacy and writing like Hemingway: ...Arnon: a little advice worth everything you are paying for it: give this person a wide berth. She reminds me of a former poster here, I can't remember his name, "George" something, whose ubiquity made him impossible completely to ignore. So it's likely that at some point she will arouse some comment, as from me on this thread. But my rule, and my advice, ignore her as much as possible. One day George stopped showing up and that was that. Can such beneficent lightning strike twice? Would that it could...

- basman

September 22, 2011 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Two important articles delineating the dangers of politicizing Israel by Jewish Republicans. "Politicizing Israel" Editorial http://forward.com/articles/143255/ "In Rare Move, AJC Reprimands Anti-Obama Ad" http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/78932/in-rare-move-ajc-reprimands-anti-obama-ad/

- arnon

September 22, 2011 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Just setting the record straight." Re-posting comments isn't setting the "record straight." Nothing I said about you is a lie. Your comment about me thinking that Netanyahu is a "Judeo-Nazi" is a vile lie. Until you own to it, I for one will keep hammering away at you.

- arnon

September 22, 2011 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the advice, Basman. I don't take anything No-go says seriously.

- arnon

September 22, 2011 at 12:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Politics is all that stands between power and cruelty" -- great words.

- EDavis

September 26, 2011 at 8:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close