The semitic canard
Jun 14, 2009 Faith and Works, Politics and Poker
IN LIGHT OF MY EARLIER POST about how it’s not Rush Limbaugh hollering about “the Jewish Lobby,” a reader emails:
Rush has been downright forceful in defending Israel, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Jew defend him.
It is frightening and sobering for me, as the child of Holocaust survivors, to see my co-religionists align with pals of unambiguous anti-semites like Rev. Wright.
I let my wife choose to raise our kids as protestants, rather than have them risk the fate of my grandparents.
Oh, puh-leeze. How nice that Glenn’s reader has found an excuse for assimilation. He “let his wife raise [their] kids” (his non-Jewish kids) as Gentiles. Was he going to divorce her or make them want to adopt his inferiority complex if he ever “heard a Jew defend Rush Limbaugh”?
And–please–he hasn’t “ever heard a Jew defend” Rush Limbaugh?
He’s never “heard” of Mark Levin? Michael Medved, who used to sub for Rush before he had his own radio show? Bernard Goldberg, who left the Party (i.e., CBS) and became a modern-day Whittaker Chambers vis-a-vis the “drive-by media“?
How about Ron Coleman, since he’s looking so very hard? There are plenty of names between those actually famous Jewish conservatives and myself.
I’m generally disappointed with the politics of American Jewish liberals. With their votes and their money, they are arguably as important a conceptual blog within the Democratic Party as unions or blacks.
But this is largely a myth. These Jews are all too often Jews in heritage, not practice or commitment, and like Glenn’s anonymous correspondent, their children are more likely than not Jews in name only.
The thng about liberal Jews isn’t that their religion interferes with their politics. It’s because politics is, for most of them, their only source of religion. Issue for issue, their votes are not defined in any identifiable way by the the sensibility of Judaism, but rather the sensibility of Jews, mostly idealized old lefties who abandoned Faith and embraced Progress.
But whether they’re liberal, like most Jews, or conservative, like the reader Instapundit quotes, they should do the Jews a favor and stop “crediting,” blaming, their politics on their heritage. It will be a big favor for both.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Just for the record I agree with everything you said about liberal Jews. However there are conservative Jews and not just famous ones like the media personalities mentioned. I defend Rush all the time to my liberal friends, both Jews and non-Jews. Most of them don’t listen to his program but are filled with judgements about his message.
As Obama and his minions wreck the nation they are beginning to have second thoughts.
June 14th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Thank you for writing this. The first and last paragraphs are precisely what I was thinking when I read the original post at Instapundit.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
I have to disagree. My mahatunim are quite observant (e.g. keep kosher) and they not only think Obama is the most wonderful president ever, but don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that he in the most wonderful president ever.
June 14th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Dear Mr. Coleman: I think you are off the beam on this one. You are right about ethnic Jews being detached from their religion:
“Issue for issue, their votes are not defined in any identifiable way by the the sensibility of Judaism, but rather the sensibility of Jews, mostly idealized old lefties who abandoned Faith and embraced Progress.”
That won’t do them one bit of good against the Wrights of the world. When was the last time you heard, say, Charles Schumer denounce the anti-Semitism that is running so strongly in academia, and the Democratic party? Jews might follow your prescription:
“But whether they’re liberal, like most Jews, or conservative, like the reader Instapundit quotes, they should do the Jews a favor and stop “crediting,” blaming, their politics on their heritage.”
to the last letter. Will that stop the Walts and Mearshimers of the world from their insinuations and mass paranoias? Ha.
I do think your prescription is wise. It just isn’t going to do much good in combatting anti-Semitism. These hard times we are going through aren’t going to help matters any, either.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
June 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Well Ron you made me do it. I vigorously attacked the anonymous person who wrote to Glenn, because he was wrong a) to assert that his children could be considered to be Jews, b) that raising his children as Protestants would somehow save them from an anti-semitic maniac, and c) about the notion that Jews have not vociferously defended Rush from attacks by the Left. All three of these assertions made by Mr. Anonymous are provably incorrect. You identified and dealt with two of these.
Hitler murdered anyone who was even a second cousin of a Jew and Stalin had a similar policy. And that dispatches the third stupid thing this guy said.
But then you went a bit too far. A Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish, or coverts to Judaism using the process overseen by an Orthodox Jewish Court. If someone meets one of these requirements, he or she is Jewish. Not in name only, but actually Jewish. It bothers me greatly that belief is not a requirement to be Jewish, because, like you I’m sickened by the Jewish Left that has made Government their god and Politics their religion, but these people are Jews in every sense of the word. They are lost to the Jewish religion, but they are Jews and the rest of the Jewish community is commanded to care for them without regard to their level of religiosity. This is ironic, because these same people HATE religious Jews for a myriad of political reasons, and excuse themselves from giving a damn about us.
All sad, all true.
David Jacobson
Cleveland Heights, OH
June 14th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I think the most disappointing thing about Jewish “liberalism” is that its basically European political ideas that were brought over to America without thinking.
There is nothing progressive or liberal about their ideas. They match up to European politics almost exactly and Jews from across the religious spectrum from religious to very secular often hold much of the same outlook.
When you look at the difference at how Jews were treated in Europe and how they were treated in America you would hope they would rethink a lot of their ideas and realize the greater good of what are often called American “conservative” ideas given that Jews are one of the chief beneficiaries of it.
Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. They are enabling the very people hoping for their ruin through their vote.
Its a sad and poor showing by my own people.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
I agree. That poster was pathetic. I used to hear that kind of excuse used years ago (back in the 70′s) by Jews who were intermarrying and failing to raise their kids as Jews. Instead of admitting that they were alienating their families and destroying their heritage, they came up with that lame excuse.
What’s interesting was how dense Reynolds was on that issue, but he tends to be a little dense on a number of issues, including energy (ie, “coal is dirty”).
June 14th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Texas, Glenn is being a pretty good sport even linking to me on this one, considering that it kind of hits close to home!
June 14th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I wonder, did the Nazis segregate the Jews that did not practice their religion from those that did? I don’t think so. And, if I recall correctly, a good many of the Jews that ended up in the deadly concentration camps had buried their heads in the sand and refused to believe that the government would ever do what it did.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
David Jacobson, thanks for bringing up a point I meant to get in there — how you raise ‘em, or even whether we count ‘em for a minyan, never stopped our enemies, and Instapundit’s correspondent claimed to believe he was avoiding that problem. So as far as that goes, good. But I never liked the idea of letting our worst enemies “define” us.
I’m not sure what it is I said that makes you say I “went too far,” though.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Greg, antisemitism is a feature of the Diaspora. The best local prescription for it is good citizenship by Jews on the secular front, and a good relationship with God on the secular front. Every other proposed solution ends up bringing the worst upon us, God save us!
June 14th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Cathy, I will take your word for it, though if (only) “keeping kosher” is your definition of “quite observant” I may be giving you a huge benefit of the doubt. But how about you?
June 14th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Elle, thanks. Of course there are big shots, medium shots like you and me and even widdle-bitty shots out there who are Jews and conservatives!
June 15th, 2009 at 12:31 am
The real issue, I think, is that many Jews belong to the “New Class”, socio-economically speaking, and put the sensibilities of their class before their Jewishness, or rationalize these class sensibilities as being somehow part of “the Jewish commitment to social justice”. (“Social justice” being left-speak for “equality of outcome” policies that are neither social nor just.)
And it struck me, during my time in the heart of C[r]ook County, that this can include even card-carrying Orthodox Jews — if they belong to “New Class” professions (VERY rarely otherwise — Orthodox Jews as a group vote almost as Republican as Mormons these days).
As far as “saving” your children by raising them as Xians, the Nazi definition of a Jew under the Nuerenberg laws was “three Jewish grandparents, regardless of religion, or two Jewish grandparents, and a member of the Jewish community”. Indeed, families in Germany, Hungary,… that had thought of themselves as Catholics or Protestants all their lives, but were ethnically Jewish, were surprised to be sent to the camps regardless. (One Hungarian family I know wiped out their tracks by converting to Catholicism, moving, and converting again to Lutheranism — so their papers would not say “Jewish” as “previous religion”.)
“Even second cousins of a Jew”: not even the Nazis (y”sh) could get away with that, althouygh they might have gotten around to that. One or two Jewish grandparents (and not a members of the Jewish faith) got you classified as a “Mischling” of the 2nd and 1st degree respectively. Lesser degrees of Jewish ancestry were considered “German” but encountered obstacles to becoming members of the Nazi party (required for certain professions) and especially the SS (which for officer candidates required “proof” of Aryan ancestry back to 1750).
June 15th, 2009 at 12:42 am
Ron,
Where you “went too far” in my opinion was saying that these were Jews in name only. My point was that either someone is Jewish, by the definitions that I posited earlier, or not Jewish. This despite “reformed” Judaism’s notion of patrilineal heritage.
David Jacobson
Cleveland Heights, OH
David Jacobson’s last blog post..Angela Lansbury
June 15th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Oh, but David, my point is that they are more likely than not to be intermarried, and — like Glenn’s correspondent — they have children with Jewish names, but are not Jewish. They say in a Reform Hebrew School these days the way to tell the Jewish kids from the non-Jewish kids is the Jewish kids are the one with the non-Jewish-sounding names…
June 15th, 2009 at 6:48 am
1. There used to be a lot of complaining from Reform Jews that supposedly they were not considered Jewish by traditional Jews. Meanwhile, the Reform congregations have been accepting non-Jews in waves.
2. The leftist ideal of international social justice, which Obama’s “Jewish” entourage has bought into, is largely to favor any current enemy of Israel.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:37 am
IMHO referring to Jewish liberals is the same as referring to liberal Catholic politicians as Catholics – they’re outwardly observant leading up to election day but since they don’t adhere to any of the teachings are they really Catholics?
June 15th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Re Cathyf: A lot of liberals who think that everyone agrees with them are just too emotional and zealous to be disagreed with. With my family and friends (mostly Jewish), the older and/or female liberals, and most of the women regardless of age, get so furious if you say anything against Obama or for any Republican, that it’s not worth the trouble to mention it. However I know that I’m far from the only anti-Obama supporter in the room. The problem is, the Obama supporters don’t, so they think everyone agrees with them.
June 15th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Re: last post: Accidently hit the “submit” buttom before proofing. Forgive the redundancy and typos.
I forgive you, my son.
June 15th, 2009 at 9:15 am
abandoned Faith and embraced Progress
Progress gives us longer, healthier lives, healthier children, efficient commuter trains, blogs, facebook and BlackBerry Curve 8900′s with 3.2 MP cameras. It’s not all bad.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:17 am
No, but you need not abandon faith to have progress.
At least, not all faiths.
June 15th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Progressivism, as today’s self-styled progressives understand it, can be important and useful sometimes. The United States has gone through some real social crises in its history — slavery, sweatshops and corporate monopolies, poll taxes and Jim Crow, and so forth. Progressivism was willing to take on the establishment to right some important wrongs.
But what happens when the most serious wrongs you can come up with are mostly non-issues, or cases where we still do better than most of the rest of the world? I think that what happens is that the protesters keep on protesting, always looking for a new ’cause’… and sometimes live in willful disbelief that their latest ’cause’ is meaningless.
(Think about it. What are the burning social issues facing America today? Gay marriage? Health care? The increasingly fragile ‘glass ceiling’? These may require attention, but THEY ARE NOT CRISES — certainly not compared to how most of the rest of the world deals with these issues.)
I’m glad the progressive mentality exists, because sometimes we really do need them; sometimes conservatism holds us back from going where we need to go next. But there are times for looking for new causes to fight, and there are times for holding on to what we have — particularly in the face of an enemy determined to take away all we have, regardless of whether or not we have universal health care or gay marriage.
Traditional Jewish teachings do tend to lean in a liberal, or progressive, direction — think tikkun olam, a Jewish obligation that literally means “repair the world”. But some American Jews have lived in comfort in the United States for so long that they’ve forgotten how dangerous it can be to be Jewish — and the importance of keeping one’s powder dry. (Or, in the case of Glenn’s anonymous correspondent, they are so frightened that they have given up completely — and will be sitting ducks for the next Hitler that comes along. As several have pointed out here, Hitler didn’t care if you consider yourself Jewish or not. Neither did the Entebbe hijackers; neither do Islamist terrorists worldwide today. If they target you, not having gone to Hebrew school won’t save you.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
June 15th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Two things, I think we had a Freudian slip here: “conceptual blog?!”
Heh.
Instapundit’s daughter is BTW is Halachically Jewish.
soccer dad’s last blog post..If you do it for us, we don’t have to
June 15th, 2009 at 11:11 am
The tikkun olam we subscribe to is to perfect the world in the kingship of the Almighty (see our Alenu prayer), not to implement a secular socialist agenda.
June 15th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Sorry, Ron, I wasn’t clear that I am totally an outsider here — these are my husband’s sister’s in-laws I’m talking about. They are observant Jews according to what has been explained to me over the years by multiple Jewish friends and co-workers, but I have no skin in this game. I’m Catholic, and the ONLY way to join my religion is via conversion.
I also live in the rural midwest, and yes there are plenty of Obama supporters here, but also plenty of people who are dumbfounded and amazed that anyone could support him. We are polite to each other (small town people have to live which each other’s differences) but it’s clear to all of us that the only thing that we are agreeing on is to disagree. Joe Y — I think that what we are seeing is less a liberal-conservative thing and more a big-city vs country thing. Big-city liberals are not clueless because they are liberals, but because they live in big cities and actually have the numbers to successfully ghetto-ize themselves.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Totally unscientific, but I know a number of professed “orthodox” or “conservadox” Jews who consider themselves politically “liberal” or “progressive”. Interesting post though with some neat observations.