Kesher Talk

Common sense on talking politics and ethnic alliegances. Gary Farber at Amygdala (BTW one of the best blogs around) patiently instructs Kevin Drum in how to discuss neoconservatism without being anti-semitic. As I said in the comments, Gary's explanations are such blindingly common sense that I have to wonder why a smart, sensitive liberal like Kevin is so obtuse on this one topic.

But Kevin's choice of words gives me a hint: He says, "Neocons are 'rabidly' pro-Israel." Rabidly. Um, Kevin, mayn't we infer that you have a bit of an agenda of your own when you use such an inflammatory adjective? Do you describe Texas Hispanics, many of whom have family and business south of the border, as "rabidly" pro-Mexico?

PS Personal disclosure: I am an actively Jewish social liberal and fiscal conservative with strong libertarian leanings, who believes Israel should be treated like any other nation. My conviction on this stems as much from my sense of fair play and justice as from my Jewish connection to Israel. I credit my Jewish connection to Israel with sensitizing me to the facts of Israel's mistreatment in the international community and my desire to take the time to find out what is really going on. Likewise, it would be reasonable to expect an American of Bosnian ancestry or Mexican ancestry or Irish ancestry to pay extra attention to their ethnic homeland, and therefore to have more information on the topic than your average Joe Sixpack. I appreciate some of the positions of the neoconservatives, but I would never characterize myself as one; I think of myself as a liberal who appreciates how the free market works. So what good are these labels but to pigeonhole people, in the pursuit of an agenda?

PPS Everyone has linked to Jonah Goldberg's dissection of Jim Moron (sic), another patient march through logic and facts. Kevin: please read both, apply to all political questions of ethnic allegiance, and stop throwing up your hands and dithering whenever J-E-W-S are the group under discussion. And if that's difficult for you, ask yourself why.

UPDATE: Kevin responds. I take his point that "insisting on superhuman precision of language" tends to chill the discussion. However, tone counts for something, and being disingenuous about word choice can come across as an evasion of responsibility. "Rabidly pro-Israel" is a cliche which implies something about the writer's agenda, as Dr. Frank points out by getting out his thesaurus.

Kevin wonders if there isn't a double standard operating when Bush's Christianity can be discussed as an influence on his foreign policy but neo-con's Jewishness can't. I don't think all mention of ethnicity or religion in foreign policy decisions and lobbying should be excised. These are important parts of our lives and they do inform our decisions. My rule of thumb would be: if a different country/religion/ethnicity were at issue, would you talk about it the same way? If not, why not? Can you approach the subject honestly and have something fresh to say about it, or are you buying into easy stereotypes?

In Bush's case, one man - who happens to be Christian - is being discussed. As Gary and others pointed out, neo-cons and Jews are diverse, overlapping, but not synonymous groups. Not all neo-cons are Jewish, not all hawks on Israel are Jewish, and not all Jews are hawkish on Israel or invading Iraq. A group is being discussed and its diversity is being ignored. Also, pointing out Bush's Christianity doesn't automatically accuse him of dual loyalties, whereas that is always the subtext with Jews and Israel.

I have some more thoughts, but I got up very early this morning to catch my flight back to NYC and I still have to finish learning a haftarah for tomorrow morning. (Essay question: Was the ethnic cleansing of the Amalekites justified? Why or why not? Should the Kenites have tried to bring everyone to the negotiating table? Was Sha'ul being merciful, greedy, weak, or some combination of the three? Is Shmu'el a wise veteran of foreign affairs, forseeing consequences Sha'ul cannot, or a raving loony with a sword? Was mentioning Sha'ul's height a cheap shot? Discuss. This will count for 40% of your final grade.)

UPDATE: Haftarah went well. Continue discussion of "Jewish influence" on Bush's Iraq policy here and here.

posted by Judith @ 3/14/2003 03:55:15 PM