THE PLANK FEBRUARY 5, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Brad Plumer has done some outstanding work at TNR (see, for instance, this) but I think his Plank item from yesterday goes badly awry. Brad is making a point about U.S. policy toward Iran and accusations of anti-Semitism, but he hops from one fuzzy premise to the next.
Brad begins by writing,
The New York Sun--hardly a hotbed of anti-Semitism--recently reported that leading Democratic presidential contenders have been reluctant to speak out against war with Iran for fear of angering "pro-Israel" lobbying groups in New York.
So I read the article in the Sun, and it doesn't say that. I would encourage readers to read the article and see if they find any hint of a report that Democratic candidates were changing their positions to please Jewish donors. Nothing in the article is inconsistent with that view if you're inclined to believe it, but nothing in it says that, either.
Brad proceeds to cite a New York Post article reporting that Hillary Clinton made a relatively dovish speech before an AIPAC audience, and was received coolly. This does suggest that many AIPAC members are hawkish about war with Iran, but it undermines the contention that Democratic candidates have been bullied by AIPAC into favoring war with Iran.
From there he advances to the following observation:
Of course, Wes Clark and Matt Yglesias were accused of anti-Semitism and compared to Charles Lindbergh when they pointed out this state of affairs.
Well, no. Let's start with Clark. The retired general didn't say that some AIPAC members, or even all of AIPAC, favor war. He said that the pro-Israel lobby is driving the United States into war. Here is the quote:
When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."
Clark isn't just saying that the pro-Israel lobby has influence, which is indisputably true. He's saying that it controls American foreign policy: He is asked why he is certain that the U.S. will attack Iran, and he replies that wealthy Jews want it. I find much to admire in Clark's career, and I'm sure he personally gets on well with Jews, and I think accusing people of being anti-Semitic or racist is usually an intellectually murky, counterproductive exercise. But it's pretty clear that in this line he's advocating a paranoid conspiracy theory of the sort that tracks classic anti-Semitic thinking.
As for Yglesias, National Review's Jonah Goldberg wrote a blog post comparing his views to those of Charles Lindbergh. Goldberg carefully noted that he does not think Lindbergh was an anti-Semite, and that "the merits and motives of the arguments surely differ in important respects, but they are similar in important respects too." So I don't think he was trying to accuse Yglesias of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, if you compare somebody to a figure who is widely regarded as anti-Semitic, it will have the effect of an accusation of anti-Semitism even if you don't mean it that way. So in that sense Goldberg made a mistake in making the comparison, and I attribute the mistake to the sloppiness that tends to go with frequent blogging.
Anyway, Brad's language--"were accused of anti-Semitism and compared to Charles Lindbergh"--makes it sound like Yglesias suffered some massive public demonization campaign, and I don't think one item on the Corner qualifies as such.
--Jonathan Chait
11 comments
Damn. Glanced at this entry, thought that finally, the Plank was highlighting Rube Goldberg and Julio Yglesias and instead I got The World's Longest Pissing Match. With a ringside seat as those two giant intellects of the contemporary western world, Jonah G and Matt Y, let it fly.
- teplukhin
February 5, 2007 at 3:31pm
you sound dumber and dumber. That interpretation of Clark's off-hand comment is just laughable on its face. And are you seriously contending that AIPAC pressure (and money) do NOT push Democratic candidates in a more hawkish direction? You're becoming incoherent. You're tying yourself up in knots. All for what? To never have to back down? Let. It. Go.
- john7788
February 5, 2007 at 3:39pm
john7788, Chait is suggesting that there is no evidence that democratic candidates have actually changed their positions as the result of such pressure. If that suggestion is so absurd as to verge on incoherency, then surely there is some evidence you can point to which supports brad's position. Is there?
- lluppen
February 5, 2007 at 3:46pm
Clark doesn't say anywhere in this quote that he's *convinced we're going to bomb Iran - Ariana Huffington says that he's convinced. Chait seems to consistently miss where the actual quote is here. But what's so weird about this supposed story is that the first quote of Clark's (his anger at the administration) basically has nothing to do with second: the money being channeled from NY money people to control "office seekers" - a crucial difference. Are we really supposed to believe that (at this moment) Wesley clark is worried about an attack on Iran *after Bush leaves office? The first quote seems to contradict the second! The're lots of holes between these 2 quotes and the only reason to link them together is because Huffington does so in her blog.
- bstahlbe
February 5, 2007 at 3:47pm
Yes, yes I agree with you completely, Chait. Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton, must have inadvertently compared Clark to a well-known pro-Nazi American just by chance. Jeez, I guess from that angle, Jonah Goldberg's entire career has just been a long series of "mistakes". Can I have whatever dope you're smoking??
The formulation, "I don't think you're anti-Semitic, but I'm going to compare you to a Nazi anyway" can't be interpreted any other way but a cowardly smear.
- john7788
February 5, 2007 at 3:55pm
Why are you willing to bend over backwards to let Jonah off the hook for his words, but willing to read so much into a quote from Clark which was relayed through a post by Ariana Huffington? Does that make any sense? Clark is an accomplished man, a Rhodes Scholar, a four-star general. Do you really think that he thinks all our military decisions are made by some secret Jewish cabal? He made an off-hand comment that may or may not have been accurately recorded by Huffington. It's obvious that he was merely stating what everyone knows: that AIPAC and similar groups are lobbying for a more aggressive policy toward Iran, and that those groups are influencial in shaping the policies that office-seekers adopt. He's worried that this lobby is pushing the U.S. toward a reckless policy. That's all. It's not sinister. It's not paranoid. It's not anti-semitic.
- mhowe
February 5, 2007 at 4:02pm
Ask and ye shall receive, lluppen
From Kevin Drum
Brad also brought up a very good point. Why are military strikes against Iran even considered pro-Israel, when their probable success seems so low? That is a question I would like answered.
- john7788
February 5, 2007 at 4:11pm
rather than confine this topic to this posting blurbs, go all out. Ask someone like Yglesias or Alterman or whomever to go 1:1 with you, maybe even include Chotiner or even, god forbid, Peretz and do an entire issue. This topic, the supposed anti semitism of the left obviously conjures up very strong emotions and opinions, as it should. Ask Judt to contribute, get this Goldberg guy. Go all out...but bring in some heavyweights from the liberal Jewish left, maybe, as I suggested, liberal Jews like Yglesias and Judt who have accused by some, right here at TNR, on the "wrong side" of this debate. This is just my suggestion.
- MrCookie1
February 5, 2007 at 4:20pm
"go all out" = ? Paintball? Kickboxing?
- teplukhin
February 5, 2007 at 5:00pm
precise...no physical violence but just a real airing out of this topic, from both perspectives and done professionably, honorably and with some style.
- MrCookie1
February 5, 2007 at 5:18pm
john7788, I think that link goes a long way toward proving that Edwards is pandering. It's either that or his position is moving left, because his more recent comments--to Ezra Klein--are substantially less hawkish than what he said in Israel. Anyway . . . If a politician says one thing to your face and then publicly undercuts that statement when he gets back home, it doesn't say a whole lot for the strength of your lobby.
- lluppen
February 5, 2007 at 9:01pm