I See...

Huh. It's interesting to see Charles Krauthammer just saying this explicitly: "Look. Harry Truman used to tell derisive Jewish jokes. Richard Nixon said nasty things about Jews in government and elsewhere. Who cares? Truman and Nixon were the two greatest friends of the Jews in the entire postwar period: Truman secured them a refuge in the state of Israel, and Nixon saved it from extinction during the Yom Kippur War."

Well, I'm not sure any especially terrible consequences flowed from Truman's Jewish jokes, but, um, I care about stuff like that. Being a Jewish person living in the United States of America, it would trouble me for the President of the United States to be an anti-semite. Indeed, Nixon's anti-semitism seems to have had real consequences, being part-and-parcel of his paranoia and proclivity for witch hunts. The idea that this is all made okay because someone was nice to Israel is pretty weird. Beyond weird, of course, it's the flipside of the theory that anyone who criticizes Israel must be an anti-semite.

Comments

Really, what does one say in response to statement's like Krauthammer's "It is very hard to be a Jew today, particularly in Baron Cohen's Europe, where Jew-baiting is once again becoming acceptable" other than, "Why would you possibly write such a thing? Do you imagine that many of your readers aren't Jews, including Jews who have recently been to or, more relevantly, lived in, Europe, and noticed that it is not in fact a particular barrier to most anything to be a Jew today?"

Posted by washerdreyer | November 24, 2006 3:04 PM

Krauthammer is a very bad human being. It's sad that he gets published, but analysis beyond, "He's still evil," is probably unnecessary.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 24, 2006 3:15 PM

Actually, this seems like a common trope amongst right-wing American Jews. The most famous example is a 1995 Norman Podhoretz essay entitled "In the Matter of Pat Robertson" in which he stated that "in my view Robertson's support for Israel trumps the anti-Semitic pedigree of his ideas."

In other words, for the likes of Krauthammer and Podhoretz, anti-Zionism is a far more wicked offense against Jews than mere anti-Semitism. But at least they make this odious litmus test explicit, as you mention.

Posted by Joey | November 24, 2006 3:19 PM

I think Krauthammer's article serves as a vital corrective to Cohen's ingratitude.

"America is the most welcoming, religiously tolerant, philo-Semitic country in the world. No nation since Cyrus the Great’s Persia has done more for the Jews. And its reward is to be exposed as latently anti-Semitic by an itinerant Jew looking for laughs..."

I mean - what will the wandering Jew get up to next? Mocking Christ?

Posted by DavidS | November 24, 2006 3:23 PM

Actually, this seems like a common trope amongst right-wing American Jews. The most famous example is a 1995 Norman Podhoretz essay entitled "In the Matter of Pat Robertson" in which he stated that "in my view Robertson's support for Israel trumps the anti-Semitic pedigree of his ideas."

In other words, for the likes of Krauthammer and Podhoretz, anti-Zionism is a far more wicked offense against Jews than mere anti-Semitism. But at least they make this odious litmus test explicit, as you mention.

To be fair, wasn't it Gloria Steinhem who didn't care about the Lewinski affair because Clinton policies were good to the feminists?

What I do think as being really rotten are the accusations of antisemitism whenever someone criticizes Israel. Crying wolf over the smallest slight while trying to tar people's names is very very low.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 24, 2006 3:35 PM

He's such a bad man. Such a bad, bad man.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 24, 2006 3:36 PM

To be fair, wasn't it Gloria Steinhem who didn't care about the Lewinski affair because Clinton policies were good to the feminists?

Because that's a useful comparison. Blow job vs. blowing stuff up...lying about one is impeachable, the other is just good clean fun. Will historians be able to make any damn sense whatsoever out of 1990-2010 America?

Posted by Pooh | November 24, 2006 4:00 PM

Blow job vs. blowing stuff up...

Huh? Who said anything about blowing stuff up?

Posted by dj moonbat | November 24, 2006 4:10 PM

Pooh: Your reply to Kaufman has nothing to do with what Kaufman actually said. He wasn't comparing Clinton's actions to anything done by Bush, let alone anything violent done by him; he was comparing them to the anti-Semitic remarks of Truman and Nixon. I find the comparison valid: if a president can treat women poorly in private and still be lionized by women's groups on account of his public actions, why can't a president who is anti-Jewish in private be judged only on his public actions, and vice versa - if anti-Jewishness in private cancels out all good or alleged good you have done in public, why not private contempt for women?

Posted by James Kabala | November 24, 2006 4:10 PM

if a president can treat women poorly in private...

There is, of course, a difference between getting blowjobs and misogyny.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 24, 2006 4:17 PM

why can't a president who is anti-Jewish in private be judged only on his public actions, and vice versa - if anti-Jewishness in private cancels out all good or alleged good you have done in public

At a minimum, your equation of "good for American women" with "good for Israel" needs some justification. The latter requires a step to get to "good for American Jews" that should be made explicit. This is particularly true here, where Yglesias's objection seems to be to precisely that claim.

Posted by somecallmetim | November 24, 2006 4:20 PM

Sorry if that was inartfully phrased, but my basic problem is in treating something as basically meaningless as a private sexual relationship as even in the same league as matters of national policy, especially where the policy concerns actual life & death struggles, like, uhm, wars.

So while the comparison between Steinam on Clinton and Podhoretz on Nixon is perhaps apt as a logical matter, the respective subject matters defy comparison.

And FWIW, I wasn't trying to take a shot at Mr. Kaufman.

Posted by Pooh | November 24, 2006 4:47 PM

This does bring up an interesting discussion about the distinction between words & deeds. Harry Truman was also fond of using the N word as well. Yet he was arguably the first President to take civil rights for Blacks seriously. It was Truman's actions on behalf of racial integration that sparked the first Dixiecrat revolt by Strom Thurmond and company, leading them to form their "State's Rights Democratic Party" to run against Truman. Does this mean that Truman, was "objectively anti-racist"

We should also keep in mind the academic understanding of racism today, wherein Racism is defined by power & action. Blacks may be just as racially prejudiced & bigoted as whites, but this shouldn't be (according to some standards) be understood as racism because you can't point to any racist action blacks have taken towards whites and it's doubtful whether they have the power to do so.

Posted by DRR | November 24, 2006 5:30 PM

Right, James Kabala, letting a woman fellate you is "treating her poorly." Condescending, much?

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 24, 2006 5:50 PM

I'm not a fan of Krauthammer, but I'm not so repulsed by his argument here. He believes rigthly or wrongly that having a secure and powerful Jewish state in Palestine is very important for the well-being of Jews in general. He understands that there is still anti-Semitism in the world but cares more about genuine harms that could be done to Jews than about offending statements or sentiments. That seems pretty pragmatic Jewish point of view (me not being Jewish), even though I disagree with his view of Israel.

That's not quite as bad as saying that critics of Israel are anti-Semites. In the former case you are excusing anti-Semitic attitudes or words or putting them in proper perspective in light of pro-Jewish actions. In the latter case you are impugning the motives of those who disagree about policies by calling them bigots. The real compliment to Krauthammer's argument here would be, "Despite the fact that most critics of Israel are not in fact bigots, their proposals would if enacted be harmful to Jews."

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 24, 2006 6:02 PM

There is nothing unique about what Nixon said, just that we happen to have tapes of his private conversations. What Nixon said about Jews in private is the kind of, on the whole, sociologically accurate observations about Jewish tendencies that everybody who is a successful player in Washington understands and acts upon. I'm sure that if you bugged Krauthammer's office, or Harold Meyerson's, or Nancy Pelosi's or whomever, you'd hear much the same kind of statements about the power, influence, and predilections of Jews.

Posted by Doubtful | November 24, 2006 7:24 PM

Truman had an interesting situation. He always claimed that his "S" initial was a nod to both his grandfathers, Anderson Shippe Truman and Solomon Young, though I've seen it suggested that it was more related to his maternal grandfather (after all, his paternal grandfather supplied his last name). But anti-Semitism in the mid-west made a name like "Solomon" a political target. So telling derisive Jewish jokes may have been some attempt to pre-empt the political smears. Those smears were used in some of Truman's election campaigns, and it's pretty easy to find hate sites that claim that Truman was really Jewish, thus explaining (in the eyes of racist nutcases) both his support for Israel and desegregation of the military.

As for Clinton/Lewinski being once more hauled into an argument in an attempt to confuse the issue, face it guys, Clinton had more sex with more women than you ever will. We all get it that you think this was a terrible, terrible thing, and I'm sure it bothers you no end, but you really ought to get a life and like, maybe a girlfriend. Or at least the URL for a decent porn site.

Posted by James Killus | November 24, 2006 7:27 PM

In the same piece, Krauthammer quotes a couple of lines from a rather bizarre op-ed by Norwegian children's book writer Jostein Gaarder - adding "et tu, Norway" - as proof of how anti-semitic Europe in general and Norway in particular is. This is equivalent to me quoting Michael Richards' recent tirade as proof positive of America's unbridled and all-pervasive racism. Now, while anti-semitism is surely a very real problem in much of Europe, just like anti-black racism is surely a very real problem in the USA and elsewhere, this kind of argumentation strikes me as grotesquely unfair. Most readers here in Norway reacted with shock and disgust at Mr Gaarder's formulations, just like most Americans (black or white) reacted with shock and disgust at Mr Richards' insane bigotry. That being said, obviously "Borat" would have worked as least as well over here in Europe, as has already been proven by Da Ali G Show's British run. And most Europeans who enjoy Borat are not so stupid as to belive that the film reveals uniquely American idiocies that we are somehow immune from.

Posted by frode | November 24, 2006 8:38 PM

There is, of course, a difference between getting blowjobs and misogyny.

Shh! Don't tell Amandagon.

Posted by Kiril | November 24, 2006 8:46 PM

Not that I agree with it, but from a feminist perspective, blowjobs wasn't the problem. The feminist and the politically correct movement in the nineties made a huge deal about sexual harassment in the workplace and even more crucially in Clinton's case, they made a big hoopla about establishing proper etiquettes in the workplace.

One of these etiquettes was for people of power and status to not take advantage of their power and status in their dealings with inferiors. Arguably, Clinton did precisely that when he engaged in sexual relations with an intern.

That was in fact the pretext for the question which prompted Steinhem to answer that it was Clinton's public policies that mattered.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 24, 2006 8:50 PM

Well, one of the reasons I was on Nixon's enemies list was that I'm jewish so you'll understand that I don't agree that Nixon's anti-semitism was just innocent banter. By the same token, indulging Israel at every turn doesn't win points with me.

As usual I find myself at odds with Krauthammer.

Posted by BroD | November 24, 2006 10:01 PM

I don't understand Krauthammer's "argument" at all. I don't actually believe there is an argument there. Just a mishmash of rhetoric, half-considered invective and quarter-considered praise.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 24, 2006 10:24 PM

Whether Monica was treated badly is debatable (although she regards him as having lied and continuing to lie about what went on between them); that Clinton's actions treated his wife Hilary badly is (unless we believe the marriage is a complete sham for the cameras) irrefutable.
And of course, Paula Jones was treated badly; all previous politicians with sexual harrassment chargfes against them, even the liberal-on-social-issues (but Republican) Bob Packwood, were instantly assumed guilty and condemned by the feminist community; Clinton was the first to get a free pass.

Posted by James Kabala | November 24, 2006 11:06 PM

Clinton was the first to get a free pass.

Increasingly,I think it's pointless to argue with the Reds: we don't share enough of a culture with them for it to be profitable. We can't even be sure that we agree on fairly basic arrangements of words. I would not have thought that "impeached" was equivalent to "get a free pass."

Posted by somecallmetim | November 25, 2006 12:09 AM

The issue in the Clinton impeachment was not "blowjobs" but the President's perjury during his testimony in a sexual harassment civil suit. Clinton ultimately lost his license to practice law in Arkansas due to his perjury and he paid Paula Jones a little under a million dollars to settle her sexual harassment suit.

The sexual harassment brouhaha was politically very relevant since he and Hillary won the White House during the celebrated Year of the Woman that followed the sexual harassment charges against Clarence Thomas in October 1991. Many of you are no doubt too young to remember it, but that sexual harassment whoop-te-do was a huge, huge deal in the early 1990s, and was widely credited with helping the Democrats do well in the 1992 election.

I predicted in December 1992 that an investigative journalist would go to Little Rock and find a state employee who had been subject to "unwanted sexual advances" by then Gov. Clinton, and the ensuing scandal would threaten to bring down the Clinton Administration. I advised Mr. Clinton to apologize in advance. You can read my Dec. 1992 essay "A Specter is Haunting the Clinton Administration" on the coming Clinton sexual harassment scandal here:

http://www.isteve.com/clinthar.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 25, 2006 12:31 AM

Steve Sailer: "Many of you are no doubt too young to remember it, but that sexual harassment whoop-te-do was a huge, huge deal in the early 1990s, and was widely credited with helping the Democrats do well in the 1992 election."

I do remember the 1992 election - in fact, it was the first election I paid close attention to - and you're flat out wrong about this. The primary issues I remember were national health care and the economy. To the extent that women's issues were a factor, the focus was mostly on abortion, not sexual harassment. Had there been no Clarence Thomas scandal, the Democrats would still have won the election, and by about the same margin.

Posted by Josh G. | November 25, 2006 5:27 AM

Ah, perjury.

The judge upbraided Clinton because the standards on him because of his office were higher. Not for perjury. If there were an actual charge of perjury in that case it would have been pursued.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 25, 2006 11:01 AM

Maybe it's because I haven't read TRUMAN in a few years, but I don't seem to remember anti-semitism being a hallmark of his personality. I could be wrong, but my guess is, much like his attitude towards blacks, some of his opinions were antiquated, and some of his comments offensive, but there was no defining bigotry (a la Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats) in his personality or his presidency. He may have used the phrase "nigger preacher," but he also desegregated the military. And not that it's an excuse for outdated ways of thinking, but people change too slowly, unfortunately.

So please, if I am wrong, show me where I am wrong.

Posted by Brian | November 25, 2006 12:16 PM

There is nothing unique about what Nixon said, just that we happen to have tapes of his private conversations. What Nixon said about Jews in private is the kind of, on the whole, sociologically accurate observations about Jewish tendencies that everybody who is a successful player in Washington understands and acts upon. I'm sure that if you bugged Krauthammer's office, or Harold Meyerson's, or Nancy Pelosi's or whomever, you'd hear much the same kind of statements about the power, influence, and predilections of Jews.

Uh, do you hang out in DC? Because out here in the rust belt, I have never in my life heard anything negative about Jews at all. I remember four years ago coming home from a ska show and having a guy with swastika tatoos want to beat my ass for theorizing that the second intifada was the engine of the "war on terrorism". I do know anti-semites exist, I've seen them on TV, they write things on the internet, they seem REALLY, REALLY, concerned with making sure that everyone knows about the conspiracy and waste absolutely no time in segueing away from whatever the hook was to want to clue you in to all this.

You take that against secret polls which show that Congressmen consistently rank AIPAC as the scariest lobbing enemy out there, and either the place is full of crypto-anti-semites who go out of their way to extreme and embarassing lengths to pledge their support for Israel for fear of the Elders of Zion beating them in their collective head, or maybe you are nuts.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 25, 2006 8:11 PM

Clinton (unlike Thomas, Packwood, etc.) got a free pass FROM FEMINISTS. I refuse to believe this was anything but deliberate misreading on your part, Mr. somecallmetim.

Posted by James Kabala | November 25, 2006 8:38 PM

When you consider that Nixon's and Bush's policies have only hurt Israel by exacerbating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Israel's detriment (you know, the whole becoming a mini-empire mired in a prolonged counter-insurgency campaign against people you shouldn't be ruling over in the first place while undermining your own morals and democracy in favor of right-wing wackos who don't give a fuck about Israel, only Biblical land), Krauthammer's argument becomes downright stupid. Thinking always turns a K-wheels (*ducks*) argument into stupidity.

Posted by Reality Man | November 27, 2006 2:08 AM

"Conscience" may be the wrong word, but Krauthammer seem to be betraying a bad conscience about fronting for the Israelis.

Posted by brendan | November 27, 2006 11:27 AM