This piece in the Forward contains the usual argument about Jewish voters in Florida playing on the minds of the presidential candidates. Again I have to insist that Jewish voters are far less meaningful in the presidential process than Jewish donors and Jewish reporters. Ari Berman said this the other day at the Center for Jewish History, and I applaud him for his candor and urge journalists to think about this and drop the hypocrisy. If you are a presidential candidate, you are very aware of the Jewish presence in the establishment. I’m not going to talk about money here; I know more about the culture of journalism. The candidates know that many of the reporters who will be looking at them are Jewish. I always think of NPR, which everyone I know listens to. Well their two main political people are I bet Jewish [a weird phrase, on reflection; I'm sorry, but I am friends of one of these people and didn't want to name names out of delicacy], and ATC anchors Robert Siegel and Melissa Block I wager are also Jewish. Daniel Schorr is Jewish. Jeff Zucker at NBC is Jewish and has dissed the Palestinians. The other day Wolf Blitzer got angry that Jimmy Carter had reportedly said that Israel has 150 nuclear warheads (saying this statement compromises nonproliferation efforts; maybe it helps?). Well Blitzer is Jewish and worked for AIPAC once. Jodi Kantor who reported for the Times on those mysterious Jewish voters laying in the Everglades with nictitating eyes is I wager Jewish. I could itemize further, but you get the point. Yes Jewish reporters are liberals by and large. But leave aside abortion and gay rights and stem cells–on Israel/Palestine issues, Jews, even well-informed Jews, are generally biased toward the Israeli narrative. Daniel Schorr, big liberal. Well his mother lit candles for Palestine and he disses Arafat. This is, as I have said before, because Israel is a central part of American Jewish culture and identity, and though many have fallen off the bus, like me and Tony Karon, reporters are consciously or not invested in these narratives.
Politicians see who is empowered. The Washington Post hired Jeffrey Goldberg to blast Jimmy Carter’s book, and when Goldberg blasted Walt and Mearsheimer in The New Republic, New York Times columnist David Brooks, Iraq war booster, congratulated him for writing a great essay (it’s actually lousy; full of bluster, and lately, largely recanted). Many of the Times columnists are Jewish. There is no point in doing a headcount. Judy Miller who rang in the Iraq war with bad reporting, and suffered for it, is Jewish, and so is Bill Kristol, who drafted the Iraq war memos going back to ‘99 and hasn’t suffered. I have little doubt how they feel about Israel/Palestine.
What I am saying is that presidential candidates worry very much about how the press is going to portray them, a lot more than they worry about Florida voters; and so Israel/Palestine is a giant concern. We all remember Jesse Jackson’s ‘84 Hymietown comments. Well political maven Larry Sabato says here they hurt him with the press.
It is hard for reporters to write about themselves. Harder still to write a word about Jewish power in the establishment. Ergo: Jewish voters in Florida.
P.S. On reflection, I note that this post (stupidly) failed to mention the super-delegates. I think the candidates might be playing to them right now….
Related posts:
{ 32 comments }
I don't think distinguishing that politicians are fishing for money more than votes is anti-semitic.
Thats a description of the dollar democracy, in contrast to the one-person one-vote democracy, or the rational vs the rationalizing.
I think you are ignoring an IMPORTANT function of the electoral marketplace. You repeatedly pejoratively describe Jews' active participation in political discussion and donation.
I think you are GRAVELY mistaken about the moral importance of that. That is a GOOD, that a community cares.
I think you should be criticizing the populations that don't contribute, that don't speak up, as divested in American life.
It would be anti-semitic to say that Jewish involvement has kept non-Jewish participation out.
When you conflate Jewish participation to some conspiracy to deceive, rather than just to express, that is likely an example of anti-semitic comment.
I assume that a Jew is more sensitive to anti-semitic comment than a non-Jew. I assume that a black is more sensitive to racist comment than a white. I assume that a woman is more sensitive to mysoginist content than a man. I assume that a Palestinian is more sensitive to anti-Arab comment than an Israeli.
Its a good thing, best if they speak as witness rather than as resenter or as opportunist.
Speaking truth to Jewish/Zionist power is
a very risky activity; fear of being labelled anti-semitic is one of the few
characteristics shared by the left and the
right.
I don't think distinguishing that politicians are fishing for money more than votes is anti-semitic.
Thats a description of the dollar democracy, in contrast to the one-person one-vote democracy, or the rational vs the rationalizing.
I think you are ignoring an IMPORTANT function of the electoral marketplace. You repeatedly pejoratively describe Jews' active participation in political discussion and donation.
I think you are GRAVELY mistaken about the moral importance of that. That is a GOOD, that a community cares.
I think you should be criticizing the populations that don't contribute, that don't speak up, as divested in American life.
It would be anti-semitic to say that Jewish involvement has kept non-Jewish participation out.
When you conflate Jewish participation to some conspiracy to deceive, rather than just to express, that is likely an example of anti-semitic comment.
I assume that a Jew is more sensitive to anti-semitic comment than a non-Jew. I assume that a black is more sensitive to racist comment than a white. I assume that a woman is more sensitive to mysoginist content than a man. I assume that a Palestinian is more sensitive to anti-Arab comment than an Israeli.
Its a good thing, best if they speak as witness rather than as resenter or as opportunist.
I've been thinking about what Phil has written above about reporters for a while now, and it strikes me that the same thing holds true with the top echelons of the Democratic National Committee. That is, at the top, the guys who run the party, advise the candidates, formulate the advertisements, give consultations about strategy, fundraising, and legal advice are probably a majority Jewish.
Most Jews don't think the Christian America of Indiana, of Wisconsin, of Ohio notices this, and perhaps those mid-Western Christians largely don't notice it on a conscious level, but it still has an effect. And here is how.
Needless to say, those Jews who run the Democratic National Committee are largely from large urban centers, New York, LA, Philly, Baltimore, Chicago, and they feel contempt for people from the rural Midwest, whom they assume are anti-Semitic and racist and provincial. Thus, you have Mickey Kantor, chief strategist of Clinton's first campaign, saying that people in Indiana live like "shit," and perhaps elaborating by saying that they are "white niggers."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IzdWZCGEgs
God knows what the Mickey Kantors of the Democratic party say about the people of Indiana, when the cameras are not on.
It also affects the Democratic Party's main supporters in the entertainment industry, which portrays small town rural Americans as backwards Bubbas and religious fanatics and racist kooks.
Rural America may not understand how important Jews are in running the party, but they sure as heck perceive the contempt that the party and its main supporters have for them.
To tell you the truth, when things really hit the fan in this country, which they will (its just a matter of time, given the liquid fuel situation and the decrepit and inefficient infrastructure of the country), I sincerely doubt that the Democratic party is capable of representing those people. Which means that they will be represented by Pat Buchanan-type, Christian identity populists.
I don't quite understand how Jews did not see this coming. They are over-represented in the most important aspects of running the country at a time when much of the rest of the country, corporations, universities, religious organizations have all been emphasizing the importance of diversity.
For example, what must it be like at the New York Times, where of the editorial writers, Paul Krugman, William Kristol, David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, Herbert, Friedman, Gail Collins, Frank Rich, at least 5 out of 8 main writers are Jewish, and 4 of them, Kristol, Brooks, Friedman, and Rich, tout their Jewish identity regularly in their columns. Is this really the kind of diversity that my professors at the liberal college I went to said was necessary to make sure everyone was included? I can't find one practicing Christian among the Brain trust of the New York Times. Is that really representative of the country for an institution that touts itself as the national newspaper? How does the left in this country think that it can lead in a country that is still majority Christian, when it has so much contempt for those very people?
***********************************************************
I've found that all references to Jewish preponderance in the media, and to the bias that this introduces into the coverage of our Middle Eastern policy, are always met with the loudest Zionist howls. This topic — above all other aspects of Jewish power in American society — is really the great taboo.
I predict that the response to this piece, like that of all Phil's other pieces on Jewish influence in the media, will confirm the rule.
The rabid response has something to do with the recognition that media manipulation, unlike say campaign contributions to a cause one believes in, is a flagrant betrayal of power. It goes beyond advocating for one's position, to denying others the very possibility of holding an alternative position by withholding from them the information they need. It reveals the fundamental mistrust of the host society that is at the core of Zionist thinking.
There is just one opinion on Israel/Palestine that self-identifying Jews nearly universally condemn. That is the revulsion towards terror on Israeli civilians as a popular means of "resistance".
That recognition and revulsion for terror used as a means NEVER leaves the math of commentators on any issue regarding Israel.
I hope that you are in that group.
Beyond that, there is a very very wide range of proposals and reactions that "establishment" Jewish contributors and Jewish journalists very publicly convey.
"That recognition and revulsion for terror [i.e. Palestinian resistance] used as a means NEVER leaves the math of [Jewish] commentators on any issue regarding Israel."
You're making D's point, Richard.
The revulsion towards terror as a means is VERY widespread, far far beyond the Jewish community.
It leaves the math of those that pretend to be only "objective" or only "realistic", but it never leaves the math of any rational policy-maker.
It shouldn't leave the math of a responsible journalist, however that dilutes the "truth" of their message.
It is the bone of a state, the obligation to defend its civilians, and that will never disappear.
"That is the revulsion towards terror on Israeli civilians as a popular means of "resistance"."
And that revulsion started when? I mean revulsion against terrorism? With the War of Stones?
this is only an anecdote but is it widely true? a very famous (now) media person apparently pretended to be jewish when he first got to new york from london.
i appreciate the hell out of this piece. it's something everyone knows anyway. it creates huge anger among gentiles and the more it is outed the less the pressure builds up. the thinking behind the impulse to keep the "secret" because it feeds anti-semitism is 180 degrees off.
is there a political journalist of any reknown who is not jewish? i know there must be. at the moment i can't think of any, except those that are tools of the right.
this is only an anecdote but is it widely true? a very famous (now) media person apparently pretended to be jewish when he first got to new york from london.
i appreciate the hell out of this piece. it's something everyone knows anyway. it creates huge anger among gentiles and the more it is outed the less the pressure builds up. the thinking behind the impulse to keep the "secret" because it feeds anti-semitism is 180 degrees off.
is there a political journalist of any reknown who is not jewish? i know there must be. at the moment i can't think of any, except those that are tools of the right.
That's a good column. It also clearly shows why Zionists get far more positive press in the U.S. than objective, logical thinking Israelis and true statesmen like Jimmy Carter.
I am posting too much. But damn this stuff is just so important I can't stop thinking about it. Thank you D. for your thoughts, they are what have been rattling around in my head.
So if the Jews are now the elite, will they "serve" the community at large or will they only care about themselves? Is the eternal question "is it good for the Jews?" going to change into "is it good for the country, for the world?"
I don't believe people out there in the red states care if the elite is Jewish or what it is. Are they serving us?
I believe there has been a little sophistry happening that goes like, American and Israel have the same interests so it doesn't matter if we put Israel first.
If you feel alienated and victimized by the society you live in , are you going to contribute to it? I don't think so. If there is a conversation going on all the time about the pogram that can always happen any time, what investment do you have in the community at large?
If this is truly embedded in Jewish culture , then America will have a hostile elite. That's when words like 'host' and 'parasite' get used. That's when the anti-semite buttons get pushed. Please don't let this happen.
"If this is truly embedded in Jewish culture , then America will have a hostile elite. That's when words like 'host' and 'parasite' get used. That's when the anti-semite buttons get pushed. Please don't let this happen.
Posted by: peters | May 31, 2008 at 07:34 PM"
>>>>>>>>>>>
Well we all see what the "jewish elite" has done in our government don't we? If this is an example of their 'intellect and governing" abilities and ethics then they have to go.
If is wasn't for the fact that I know a lot of jews who dont' subscribe to the "zionazis" Israeli fetishI would be calling for another holocuast.
But I will settle for the zionasiz and gentile neo's being tried for treason and war crimes….however I am not holding my breath.
As an ex-NYCer now living in a Fly-By-Country red state, I can say that Peters statement is accurate according to what I've discovered and experienced:
>>"So if the Jews are now the elite, will they "serve" the community at large or will they only care about themselves? Is the eternal question "is it good for the Jews?" going to change into "is it good for the country, for the world?"
I don't believe people out there in the red states care if the elite is Jewish or what it is. Are they serving us?">>
Sure, I'll hear words like "Oh yeah, he's a Jew" said in a tone that would raise eyebrows in Manhattan, but it's innocent. It's a label. It has the same gravitas, the same meaning as "Oh yeah, he's a Sierra Club guy" or "he's a Shriner." (It's like pointing out horses to a greenhorn out in the field on the farm: you dont call them Morgans, Appaloosas, or Arabians, you say the greys, the blacks, and that pinto.)
But I agree even more with the rest of Peters' point that "If there is a conversation going on all the time about the pogram that can always happen any time, what investment do you have in the community at large?" Especially communities in a country where the separation of church and state is sacrosanct, or was.
This is the larger question. And if we engage in wars to assuage those fears for the benefit of only 2.4% of the population, citing their religious differentness or superiority, then you run the risk of what my older Jewish scientist friend, who taught theoretical physics at City College, told me: "Our history for 2,000 years is nothing but a self-fulfilling prophecy. We don't know how to be good neighbors unless it's to our own."
==========================
You are to be commended, Philip, for what you are doing on this blog.
D,
word.
Working on fine art cartoons to bring the visuals into a proper perspective. You'll like his writing, Steve Lendman, I hope.
I'd like to take some of your writing and have the fine artist do some imagery, I'll scan it digitally and get it to you so you can do whatever you like with it … it's time the Jews see what it looks like with a bunch of Zionist pigs eating our Constitution.
Our website has not been worked on in forever. We're partnering now with the policeabuse.com people (30,000 hits a day), to get the message out.
btw, my cousin once removed was/is Karl Marx.
I truly hate Zionism and also Jewism, too.
Actually I think all religion is nonsense. That is, other than believing in Pink Unicorns.
Kidding but my favorite is an ancient Taoist Master:
"Do it yourself and take the burden off God."
"It is hard for reporters to write about themselves."
This, it seems to me, is the critical issue. There are cultural orthodoxies – whether it's in the mainstream media or the so-called progressive media – and everyone knows whether someone is crossing a boundary beyond which they face the risk of professional isolation (or at worst, getting fired).
One gets the feeling that there is a basic unspoken code in operation. It is an expression of the fear that if journalism was to cross a certain threshold of self-criticism, the whole edifice would collapse. So, rather than take that risk nearly everyone chooses to keep quiet. If there are a few snipers on the sidelines, then a semblance of self-criticism can be maintained and the risk-averse majority can avoid looking at the extent of their own collusion.
"I truly hate Zionism and also Jewism, too.
Hate is a strong word. I vaguely remember, but it is a long, long time ago.
And what exactly is "Jewism"? Can you ask one of your artist to show me, visually?
nytimes has been closet neocon for a long time. and don't point out the pathetic exceptions please. in the main it has been neocon. the book review section has been particularly obvious. all non-neocon books were reviewed by neocons. either ridiculed or patronized. i know this because i have been reading it page by page for years. it's screamingly obvious.
yes, it is liberal in the sense it gets all over some terrible regime in africa or asia, or the terrible famine somewhere. i think this is what confuses people. and there is paul krugman who strikes me as an old socialist who criticizes the economy. so that's the "liberal" nytimes.
nytimes has been closet neocon for a long time. and don't point out the pathetic exceptions please. in the main it has been neocon. the book review section has been particularly obvious. all non-neocon books were reviewed by neocons. either ridiculed or patronized. i know this because i have been reading it page by page for years. it's screamingly obvious.
yes, it is liberal in the sense it gets all over some terrible regime in africa or asia, or the terrible famine somewhere. i think this is what confuses people. and there is paul krugman who strikes me as an old socialist who criticizes the economy. so that's the "liberal" nytimes.
i thank everyone for helpful comments.
Richard: I care about terror. I really do. I was in NY on 9/11, I know what it does to a community.
The issue here is Policy Nullification. Nixon and Ford were dead set against the colonizatinon of the west bank. Carter was too. His opposition contributed to his loss in 80. Bush I has blamed his loss in '92 on his opposition to settlements; and there is some basis to believe this.
Both Clinton and Bush II have not made this mistake, out of political concern. This is as Jeffrey Goldberg said in the Times 2 weeks ago, thebiggest issue: Why can't our politicians speak out on settlements.
call it a conspiracy, but Goldberg himself is reduced to vague statements about rich men behind gates in Boca Raton.
Our politicians talk all the time about terror. I want them to tune up the Illegal Colonization and Dispossession wawa pedal…
RE:"I think you are ignoring an IMPORTANT function of the electoral marketplace. You repeatedly pejoratively describe Jews' active participation in political discussion and donation.
I think you are GRAVELY mistaken about the moral importance of that. That is a GOOD, that a community cares."
Remember the German-American Bund? Should this have applied to them too? Certainly, they were a community who cared…
Phil,
Do you think it is good that Jews care enough to participate in political process, or bad?
If Jews participated in political process as a unified bloc, then I could see criticizing their numbers, their names, as a potential example of imposition.
But, that is NOT what I see. In EVERY issue, varying Jews express 180 degrees of varying opinions. Even on issues regarding the West Bank, settlements. Even among the orthodox, even the ultra-orthodox.
The ONLY issue of nearly perfect unanimity, reasoned and angry alike, is the repugnance for terror as a means, and the utter inability to trust advocates or active doers of terror in negotiation.
And, it NEVER leaves the math of the state's reasoning, and shouldn't. That is one unanimously held view of the role of a state (any state), to protect its civilians.
That does NOT describe a unified bloc, a political imposition, anything deserving a careless generalization.
Richard, why do all the still viable presidential candidates have to
use AIPAC speak? I agree that many Ameican Jews are much more subtle in their take on foreign policy, but what does that matter in the face of AIPAC-speak? Are you seriously trying to tell us that there is not a standard spiel which no American can deviate from and survive in the USA political arena? Phils's whole point is American Jews need to speak up, e.g.,they need to rail against the neocons and the suppression of Palestinian life in America's name, and paid for by same…. What other lesson is there from the silent Germans of bygone days?
"In EVERY issue, varying Jews express 180 degrees of varying opinions."
Let's start at the easy end of the scale: Which is the media Jew arguing to withold U.S. aid until Israel conforms with U.S. policy?
Phil
You have commented that your views have cost you financially in print media. Thank you for this blog-it is appreciated. I'm a daily reader and have never commented since you and your readers usually cover the bases better than I would. A few are getting a little wordy lately. Good to hear from Mr Haygood the other day.
For those of us who are non-tenured or in the business community, this is as close as we get to an honest discussion. Many like myself won't even sign their names.
for a member of the 'unified block' to try and pull a fast one does not mean the 'unified block' does not exist. just means said member is trying to pull a slick one.
"The ONLY issue of nearly perfect unanimity, reasoned and angry alike, is the repugnance for terror as a means, and the utter inability to trust advocates or active doers of terror in negotiation."
For you, Twitty. Don't hold your breath waiting for a response, Keating. Unless your a jew. We goy don't quite understand the sacredness of the jewish experience, apparently.
The utter depraved hypocrisy of Richard Witty's statement – now that is truly 'repugnent' to behold.
Are you,- you fake bastard -as disgusted in the Israeli government's policy of terror, slow genocide, lies about having "no partner for peace", an on and on and fucking on? Is there near unaniminity of that in the jewish community you stupid c**t??
I do hate Zionists. And it's very, very fucking clear to me why.
"Richard, why do all the still viable presidential candidates have to
use AIPAC speak? "
I don't believe that it is "AIPAC speech", anymore than you are just a puppet, Charles.
Maybe they believe what they are saying, except for Hillary, who seems to pander the most of any.
Ironically, Obama strikes me as the individual most soberly committed to Israel's security of the three. Sober in goal, equitable and sustaining peace. Sober in scope, defense (rather than accepting expansion). Sober in firmness, commitment.
A man with backbone and heart.
Dear readers and commentators,
Is their room between not caring about
Zionism, Jews ,Israel, and Hating them?
Isn't it possible, indeed normal, to get angry about the deviousness and insensitivity of some people belonging to the above groups, espeially when said acts effect the lives of ALL the people of the world? The really ironic fact is that the Jewish members of the media, who use their position and wealth to distort the news to protect Israel from "terrorists" and "antisemites", are really by dint of their paranoic actions creating dislike for their people among everyday citizens of the planet..
Furthermore, we need to reflect on just what is the connection between disliking Jews and doing them harm. The mantra that suggests there is an identity between "antisemitsm" and acts of harm against Jews, may not really stand up to rigorous criticsm..
''That is a GOOD, that a community cares.'
If that community uses it's political clout to urge and sponsor wars which take the US to the brink of ruin, is it still 'a GOOD'? Who or what exactly are they 'caring' about?
'It would be anti-semitic to say that Jewish involvement has kept non-Jewish participation out'
Who cares if you think it's anti-semitic – is it true? Change 'non-Jewish' to 'anti-Zionist' and then, yes I think Jewish participation has worked to keep (certain) others out. In fact, any others who don't dance to their tune. Ask Findlay, McKinney, and all the rest.
'Do you think it is good that Jews care enough to participate in political process, or bad?'
Richard, I credit you with enough nous to know that it isn't participation per se that's the issue, but what it's purpose is. Charles's jab about the Bund was well placed. It's not good enough to say 'care enough' – tell us, 'care enough' about what? My guess is the continuing dispossession of Palestinians – what's yours?
Just over 2% of the population is contributing over 60% to the Democrats and a lesser but still significant percentage to GOP coffers – and this leverage is used relentlessly to steer Congress their way. Madrid points out the preponderance of Jews in the DLC and Phil has listed only a few (tip of the iceberg really) of the media mavens who police the boundaries of public discussion.
These are facts, not simply assertions, and facts cannot be anti-semitic. What they point to is not a community just 'contributing' to the polity it lives in, the same as any other. It's not merely contribution, it is domination.
That might be legit, but it isn't right, it's hardly healthy and it's I think downright dangerous – for the community as well as the nation, in the long run.
'The ONLY issue of nearly perfect unanimity, reasoned and angry alike, is the repugnance for terror as a means, and the utter inability to trust advocates or active doers of terror in negotiation.'
It isn't just Jews who think like this. I do too, the difference being that I include Israeli state terror in my condemnation, and cannot trust Israeli advocates in negotiations any more, indeed far less, than their counterparts, given their long record of deceit.
Worse, Israel has always operated from a position of power, not to say dominance, and I have never once detected even a whiff of magnanimity from them. Charles keeps saying the test of virtue is power. Israel has failed that test; it may be powerful, but it is a very long way from virtue.
And well said hlmeankin – 'The really ironic fact is that the Jewish members of the media, who use their position and wealth to distort the news to protect Israel from "terrorists" and "antisemites", are really by dint of their paranoic actions creating dislike for their people among everyday citizens of the planet..'
Clever ain't wise.
Comments on this entry are closed.