Patrick Buchanan
The Racialism of the Super Bowl (and Politics)
Time to get on my hobbyhorse. I gather that on the McLaughlin Group yesterday, they—warning, here comes Yiddish—kvelled about black advances, black power, and Pat Buchanan said, Talk about power, what about the Jews, 2 percent of the population, 13 members of the Senate. Etc. No big surprise, he didn't exactly start a conversation.
As a pluralist (I want all races and ethnicities to mingle and disappear in the great liberal bath of Humanity; alas, they haven't yet), it interests me that Buchanan broke a rule: some ethnicities and races can be openly described in our journalism, others spoken of only in coded ways. Chris Matthews, for instance, regularly welcomes guests named McCain, Kennedy, Murphy, McMillen with jokes about Irish night, or insights about Irish politics. He's a street smart guy, he loves ethnic politics. Matthews wants to talk about Jews as openly but he finds he can't go near it.
The other night, telling Ben Ginsberg that his scenarios about Iran "scare the bejesus out of me," Matthews said that Bush was still surrounded by "ideologues" who support attacking Iran, and that if Bush did attack Iran, Hillary would support him "for political reasons." All code for Jews. Now that Walt and Mearsheimer have broken the taboo, you'd think Matthews could say what he thinks: Jewish money is essential to Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Jews by and large support an aggressive response to Iran because of Ahmedinejad's anti-Israel rhetoric, the neoconservatives are rightwing Jews, many of whom have intimate connections to Israel's rightwing leaders.
Right now the Jewish press is the only press that will delve into this stuff. Presumably because while black-coaches-in-the-Super-Bowl confound stereotype, Jews-in-high-places confirms them. So the Times ignored Walt-Mearsheimer. I am of course for talking about Jewish power because I think it's politically significant, and the Mideast is a powder keg. Also, if we openly identify the simple fact that protecting Israel is part of our Middle Eastern policy, Americans will a, almost certainly support the policy, while b, they increase pressure on a centrist (Jimmy-Carter-James-Baker-John-Mearsheimer) agenda: Israel's hateful occupation of Arab lands is part of our problem.
Two Comments That Didn't Get In, Re Free Speech and Jew-Hatred
Here are 2 guys who couldn't be hear thru normal channels. The first was in response to the issue of censoring comments, something I just started doing.
Phil: I agree with KoboldBlew. I know it's just another piece of drudgery to have to monitor babies like those who spew hate here in yr comments threads & elsewhere on the web. But you really need to do it for the rest of us who're interested in both what you have to say & what intelligent folk on either side of the debate have to say. I believe in free speech. But hate speech either against groups or individuals doesn't deserve the same respect." Richard SilversteinTikun Olam (And I urge readers to look at Richard's latest, on a favorable review of Carter's book by Yossi Beilin)
And this was from Brad, responding to my statement about wanting to have it out with the neocons, within the Jewish community. His post follows the last one there now, Beth Waterberg's comment mocking me:
Dear God, Phil - Seriously - Have you lost your senses? It's one thing to critique Israeli policy, it's another thing to actively foster the type jew hatred that was predominant in the 30's and 40's. I'm not writing this to be rude. I'm seriously concerned. I am a liberal Jew who does not subscribe to AIPAC and has worked for years to build bridges with Arabs and work for a 2-state solution, so don't write this off as the rantings of an angry right-wing zionist. Working towards a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not require one to parrot David Duke and Pat Buchanan. Brad
The Other Hillary Haters
On the cover of this week's edition of Pat Buchanan's American Conservative, Hillary takes fire from another direction: The anti-war, anti-Israel right, to whom her support for her husband's interventions in the Balkans seem particularly damning, as does her hard line on Iran. The cover story's author, the libertarian Justin Raimondo, seems to want to make a kind of isolationist common-cause with the Left:
What does Hillary want? A smarter, smoother, better-planned interventionism, one that our allies find more amenable and yet is, in many ways, more militant than the Republican version -- one that "levels with the American people" about the costs of empire and yet doesn't dispute the alleged necessity of American hegemony. As she finds her voice as a would-be commander in chief, it isn't one the traditional Left in this country will recognize. Hers is not the party of Eugene McCarthy but of the neoconservative [Marshall] Wittmann.
