I have often written here that Brian Lehrer, the popular talk show host at WNYC public radio, reflects a strongly pro-Israel position because he regards himself as representing the attitudes of the Jewish community in New York. Yesterday in a discussion of the Supreme Court, Lehrer openly embraced that bias, and took a shot at Noam Chomsky in doing so:
Brian Lehrer: Can I ask you, what is Clarence Thomas’s legacy on the court on these racially charged cases? I always thought having Clarence Thomas as the only black person on the Supreme Court is like having Noam Chomsky as the only Jew at the U.N. You know– from the group, but opposed to the positions of probably 90 percent of the group on the salient issues. Do his votes this week on affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act and over his career bear that out?
Adam Liptak of New York Times: He has taken a very consistent and most people would say principled, hard line against racial classifications from the government whether for good or ill. He doesn’t want the government’s help. He thinks that black people can make it on their own. And in all of these cases, he takes a very hard line against any kind of he’d call it discrimination, whether it’s benign or not, whether it means to help historically disadvantaged groups or not. And that’s been his position since he was a very young man.
A couple of comments. I wonder how many of Noam Chomsky’s statements decrying the brutal exercise of US power overseas or supporting human rights in Palestine would actually be objectionable to the liberal Jewish community? It is time we had that battle, and let Lehrer stand up for Iraq-war neoconservatives– whom he so often hosts on his show– and drones. And see where “the community” is.
But let’s say Lehrer is right. He might be right. And by Chomsky he means cultural Zionists and anti-Zionists: so we are on the fringe in the Jewish community. Well then, here’s a simple challenge to Lehrer. Where are we politically represented? Clarence Thomas has strong political support, inside the Republican Party. Adam Liptak speaks respectfully of Thomas’s positions, above; and there are other black conservatives in public roles. Where’s our home? I’m not talking about the synagogues– but in the press, on WNYC, the New York Times, and in the Congress and legislatures. Who thinks we have a point? And if we don’t have a home, isn’t that a bad thing?
This was first reported by the tireless Lisa Guido. Thanks to her and Adam Horowitz.
I guess we need to know more precisely why Lehrer thinks Chomsky and Thomas both represent a fringe spokesperson for, respectively Jewish Americans, and Black Americans? And, if he speaks for the majority of Jewish Americans, does he also speak for the majority of Black Americans? Why? Isn’t he too a member of the rarified elite? And he certainly is not black. More basically, even if its true what he says about who Chomsky and Thomas represent–a mere fringe of both groups, why does he think the majority is always right? His justification’s logic deduction is that, he, Lehrer, speaks for the majority of whatever subgroup of Americans because he parrots the view of that majority. Pretty juvenile, but very lucrative, and career-enhancing. So, ignoring the view of the minority of any group is supposed to enlighten the public? Twisted version of informed consent. How does he see the Amendments to the US Constitution that put a brake on the power of majority opinion (pure democracy)? I guess he’d just sit there and babble if they were all taken away? Because he does not represent any fringe group?
‘Where are we politically represented? Clarence Thomas has strong political support, inside the Republican Party. Adam Liptak speaks respectfully of Thomas’s positions, above; and there are other black conservatives in public roles. Where’s our home? I’m not talking about the synagogues– but in the press, on WNYC, the New York Times, and in the Congress and legislatures. Who thinks we have a point? And if we don’t have a home, isn’t that a bad thing?”‘
Yes it is a very bad thing. But you’re not represented within the political power structure in the US at all…..or the press…except you might see the occasional ‘guest editoral’ piece..but even then it wont go too far against zio land.
However I am not going to be one to say …..’oh if only the Jews would do more on this’…..it would change……cause it probably wouldnt…..you’re locked out by the incesteous special agenda driven political-media elite like the majority of citizens are on a host of things.
If you’re not part of the establishment you’re a ‘throw- away American’. The only comfort in this bad is it makes you part of biggest club in the US.
RE: “Where’s our home?” ~ Weiss
ANSWER: ‘Conscious pariahs’ don’t really have a home, especially not in this country (with its two empire-loving political parties, not to mention its corporatist mainstream media)!
We have a home: it’s called the progressive base.
Most progressives in the democratic base don’t like their politicians cozying up to Wall St, yet it inevitably happens because of the need for fundraising.
Most of us don’t like them signing off on wars, especially in places like Syria. 70% of the American people were against involved. If you look at self-identifying progressives we’re talking 85% and up. Yet it happened.
The progressive base has been ignored because we’re well-behaved, unlike the Tea Party. I have little patience for those who say the Tea Party is one giant scam by the Koch brothers. The Kochs and others have tried to co-opt the movement, and their results have been mixed at best, but the core of the TP was always among the conservative base and they were disciplined and they took a vicious beating from the press and kept at it. What happened after Occupy Wall St? It all fell apart, as it usually does with the left.
It began with economic policies. If you look at the offshoots, like Oakland, you’ll notice that the focus quickly went from economics to petty identify politics. This is what usually happens, and that divides people and then you inevitably see splintering.
If you want specifically Jewish progressive places, well, there’s no other way out than playing the long game. Look at the beating J Street took for taking essentially AIPAC lite positions. You can’t really negotiate with these people.
You wait, and then people will come as time progresses and Israel falls further in the Apartheid mud.
In the end, however, I believe in cross-cultural/cross-ethnic alliances. It’s a mistake to limit yourself to the Jewish community, even if the core ought to have a heavy Jewish mix. Why “Jewish progressive critics” when you can have the much broader “progressive critics”? Behaving otherwise makes you fall into the trap that only Jews can criticize Israel “because we do it out of love” – which is really a way to control the conversation because they know they control the discussion inside the Jewish community. J Street tried to reform it from the inside, they gave up and now they’re AIPAC’s whipping boy running around doing their errands. Not a place I’d like to end up in.
Brian Lehrer really ought to think about these three facts before sneering at Chomsky:
(1) In 2005 the British magazine Prospect conducted a poll in which Chomsky was voted “the leading living public intellectual.”
(2) The next year, the New Statesman magazine ranked Chomsky seventh in the list of “Heroes of our time.”
(3) Between 1980 and 1992, Chomsky was cited in the field of Arts and Humanities more than any other living scholar.
[source: Chomky entry in Wikipedia]
Finally, I recall that in 2000, the Jerusalem Post conducted a poll, asking “who have been the most influential Jews in the last 1000 years?” Chomsky was on the list.
However, I can’t find a citation online for this. I may have misremembered this “fact.” Can a Mondoweiss reader help?