Archive for the ‘United States’ Category
Another Dreyfus Affair Moment for France? Musings on American and French Antisemitism, and the Jewish Diaspora
I was about to write a post about conservative blogger Brooks Bayne’s antisemitic rant directed towards Sandra Fluke’s boyfriend Adam Mutterperl, when I read the news about the horrific shooting at a Jewish school in Toulouse, France, that left four dead, including three children. We don’t know for certain that this attacks was motivated by antisemitism, but it seems likely, and kind of makes the Brooks Bayne nutjob variety seem less threatening, even if a Bayne is an admitted gun enthusiast.
What to make of these incidents? Is the recent shooting a Dreyfus moment, a wakeup call to French Jews, and Diaspora Jews in general? Contrary to popular myth, the Dreyfus Affair in France, did not launch Theodor Herzl’s Zionist beliefs, though it certainly helped reaffirm them. For those who don’t know, in 1894, French Jewish army captain Alfred Dreyfus was falsely accused of treason, convicted, and imprisoned in solitary confinement on an island in French Guiana. Eventually, new evidence came to late proving Dreyfus innocence. The “Affair” really began in 1898, when author Emile Zola wrote “J’accuse“ and blamed French antisemitism for the mistaken conviction. Riots rocked France, dividing the population between those who supported Dreyfus (the Dreyfusards, generally liberal and secular), and those who condemned him as guilty (the anti-Dreyfusards, generally conservative and often religious). Eventually, in 1899, Dreyfus was retried, convicted for a second time, but then pardoned by the French government, though he was only fully exonerated in 1906.
Theodor Herzl, a journalist, covered the story for a Viennese newspaper. He went on to lead the modern political Zionist movement. And so, we must ask, does this recent shooting in France offer any Zionist lessons? After all, A.B. Yehoshua, left-wing Zionist author and activist, has just told us again (and again) that Diaspora Jews live only a partial Jewish existence, unlike the full Jewish existence that he and other Israeli Jews live. Perhaps the most interesting (and most new and original) thing Yehoshua said this time around was “I have never heard the Jews analyze the Holocaust as a Jewish failure, which was not anticipated.”
Of course, the Holocaust was sort of anticipated, by Herzl in the 1890s, by Leo Pinsker in the 1880s, even Karl Marx’s friend Moses Hess in his 1862 book Rome and Jerusalem, where he wrote ”Even an act of conversion cannot relieve the Jew of the enormous pressure of German anti-Semitism. The Germans hate the religion of the Jews less than they hate their race – they hate the peculiar faith of the Jews, less than their peculiar noses.” (I like to chide my Marxist friends by saying that Hess was much more prescient than his friend Karl, though that prescience was tragic).
So I ask again, are these recent French shooting a similar warning sign? Or are they an aberration, the work of a lone lunatic? Neocon John Podhoretz has already jumped to red alert, declaring that “Jews are being hunted.” J-Pod brings up 9/11 in his article, which made me think of the 2002 essay in The New Republic by Leon Wieseltier (certainly his best work), “Hitler is Dead.” Jews in the Diaspora should not panic.
The irony, it seems, as Yehoshua well knows, is that for the most part, antisemitism does not threaten Jews in the Diaspora, at least certainly not in North America. I’ve written about this many times before on this very blog. The real threat is assimilation, intermarriage, low birthrates. We all know this well.
So I’m horrified by the shootings in France. But I’m not going to go alarmist yet. Let’s focus on this incident, on who is responsible, and on honouring the victims and providing sympathy for their families. It seems like Jews are not the only target of this attacker. Let’s learn more before making sweeping judgments.
And I’m much less worried about the ravings of one antisemitic moron in the United States who thinks that “Brandeis University is one of the nation’s leading petri dishes for anti-American and neo-Marxist thought.” Has Brooks Bayne ever been to Brandeis? I think it’s more of a hot-bed for capitalist consumerism, like most educational institutions, Jewish or not (and Brandeis is not Jewish in the way Yeshiva University is, for example).
Brandeis is a great school, and indeed, one of our tentacles at PhD Octopus, Julian, actually goes there. Hey Julian, would you say that Bayne has pegged Brandeis pretty well? Do the undergrads you’ve taught ooze anti-American Marxism? Or is Brandeis one of those places where you find actual conservatives studying and teaching the humanities, at the undergraduate and graduate level? I think it’s more of the latter. I don’t want to give Bayne too much attention, and my friends Sarah and Liora have already trashed his post very effectively.
So I’ll conclude by writing that antisemitism in the US remains a minor phenomenon, in the words of scholar Stephen Whitfield, a “dog” that “did not bark,” or perhaps more accurately, barked but did not bite. Yes, there is American antisemitism, on the right and left (and yes, it can be different than anti-Zionism). It is a phenomenon that needs to be denounced, punished (in the court of public opinion, if nowhere else), and understood. But the real problem for the Jewish Diaspora’s future is assimilation, and that has been true for the past several decades.
This week I lectured on ‘The First World War and Africa’. My students seemed to really enjoy the topic, which isn’t surprising; in a course (African History since 1800) where so much is new to first year undergraduates, the First World War is a topic they know quite a lot about and for which they have an extensive frame of reference. This is because the First World War is constantly talked about here. Between high school course work on the causes of World War One, and the pervasive cultural memory – enhanced by Downton Abbey and recent BBC miniseries like Sebastian Faulks’ Birdsong – students arrive at university with a pretty solid foundation in World War One history.
Obviously, the First World War was pretty devastating to Britain. Not only did 2.19 per cent of the population die in the war, but over a million and a half servicemen were wounded as well. Its social and economic impacts in the British and French colonies in Africa were similarly devastating. Contrast this with America’s 0.13 per cent casualty rate (as a percentage of the population) and its easy to see why this is a topic that has a much greater, more lasting emotional impact here. World War I was the event that catapulted Britain – like it or not – into the modern age. Add to that the historiographical line that has made its way down to the classroom level – the futility and pointlessness of the war – and it becomes clear that all my student essays this term are going to be about the impact of the Great War on Africa.
I think all of this is interesting because, although I feel like I had a really excellent high school history education, and a fantastic undergraduate history education, I arrived in Britain knowing only a few key facts about the First World War: that it had been the first major conflict in which the flame-thrower was used; it gave rise to Egyptian nationalism; and it was a major influence on Hemingway. My husband was pretty dismayed when I explained that in a lot of American schools, World War I is taught as basically the pre-World War II: the same actors, basically; the same plot-line from an American perspective (we come in late and end the war); and pretty much important (from our perspective) because it lines up the causes of the Second World War. Obviously this is not the case everywhere in America, and I’m sure that if you chose to focus on this in college, there’s loads of good teaching out there. But it is possible to come through the American education system without too much emphasis on this conflict.
Despite my explanation, I’m not sure he believed me until we (finally) watched the first season of Boardwalk Empire. Talking about it afterward, we were commenting that if this had been a story set in Britain at the same time (1920), it would have been all about the war, the changes in society after the war, the crumbling British institutions, etc that are all the fodder for Downton drama [in fact, the first episode of season 2 of Downton drove me nuts a little because they just wouldn't shut up about the war! even though it was supposed to have been going on for a couple of years by that point!]. Instead, the characters who fought in the war are outsiders, are really not supposed to bring it up, and are even shunned a little for having participated (especially for having volunteered).
In fact, the big cultural shared moment that pushed the US into modernity in the way most like World War I for Americans is the Great Depression, an event that really didn’t affect Britain to the same degree. For both countries, there’s a heyday for the wealthy before an almost hubristic crash, which brings about more equality and more social programs. A recent piece in the FT Magazine by Gillian Tett points out that the reality of economic austerity is much closer for those in Britain than for those in the US precisely because our big cultural shared memory of austerity in America is over a generation ago, while the memory of the pain Britain felt in the 1970s is still relatively fresh.
Perhaps, following on from Gillian Tett, this all helps to explain both countries’ recent behavior, then. If the First World War is such a dominant theme in British life and education, maybe that explains their unwillingness to get sucked into the entangling alliances of European politics and finance. And if the Great Depression is a strong cultural memory in America, perhaps the idea of austerity and life before safety nets, and the pre-modernity it implies, makes the total return to Gilded Age politics distasteful enough to prevent too many cuts. Here’s hoping, at least.
On a recent visit to the Houses of Parliament, I was struck by the differences in tone between British and American politicians. Although there’s still the same rivalry and competition, and certainly in these times of ‘austerity budgets’, a feeling that the stakes are high, there also seems to be more tempered feeling. And in a totally admirable way, a sense of a government of novices. Of course, this is not true, since as we know from Yes, Minister, government is really run by long-serving civil servants here. But on the political side, the majority of MPs seem to have come to Parliament after another career, Cinncinatus-style, to serve their constituencies. Despite political differences, they can all have a drink together in the members’ bar. They shout at each other in debates and Prime Minister’s Questions, but at the end of the day, they’re all trying to run a country. Meanwhile, American politics seems to celebrate the fact that our politicians refuse to even talk civilly to one another.
As my friends here like to point out, the difference is also one of tone: in America, politics and the running of the country is a serious, dramatic business (captured in The West Wing) and in Britain, it’s the butt of jokes (Yes, Minister; The Thick of It). I feel like this was probably the other way around in the early nineteenth century, maybe particularly under Jackson. Or maybe that’s just me trying to hold onto an image of a scrappy, underdog America (and an evil British empire?) when in so many ways they have reversed.
But I can’t really do justice to the differences in the system, and how their perceived by both sides, as well as Armando Iannucci can:
Happy New Year readers! I recently got back from a vacation to South Florida. Both my parents (from Montreal) and in-laws (from Boston) go south from the northeast to the southeast for winter, because they’re Jews, and that’s what Jews do.
I’ve been to South Florida many times for winter vacation. We used to drive from Montreal, a 30-hour trip divided into three 10-hour days. A typical New Year’s of my childhood was spent falling asleep at 10 pm after watching HBO in our Econo-Lodge hotel room en route back to Canada. That suited me just fine.
Our family Florida destination was Deerfield Beach, specifically Century Village, the retirement community where my maternal grandparents rented a small, second-floor, one-bedroom apartment (with one and a half bathrooms, thank God). They would spend the winter months of the year there, which in Montreal can mean late October to mid-April. They passed away in 1996 and 1997, and my mother and her older sister (my aunt) inherited the place. They couldn’t buy there themselves at the time: Century Village rules require you to be 55 years of age to buy, but you could inherit at any age.
Century Village is exactly like it sounds. The original location was in West Palm Beach, though there are now other branches in Boca Raton, Pembroke Pines, and Deerfield Beach, the one I visit. The Century Village in Deerfield is a community of about 14,000 residents. The average age seems to be 105. People joking refer to it as “Cemetery Village.” Things in Broward County close early, but not too early for the residents to grab their early bird specials at the clubhouse restaurant. The place is fairly desolate at 8 pm, but by 6 pm, the roads are filled with seniors going on “the walk,” a half-hour trek around the Century Village oval. Shuffleboard, or Jewish curling, is a popular sport. Almost each condo unit has its own pool, but like my favourite comedian Jackie Mason says, Jews don’t typically care for swimming, preferring to “sit by the pool” (my mother is a prime example here, as were my grandparents).
Remember the Seinfeld episode about the retirement community known as “Del Boca Vista,” where Jerry’s parents stay? Century Village is exactly like that. In fact, if you want to “check in” on the app foursquare at Century Village Deerfield, you can do so under “Del Boca Vista.”
I’m currently on a research trip in Kenya, so have been following the news of the debt crisis from afar. In a country, and a region, currently facing a real crisis of famine, in part caused by the inability or unwillingness of various regional governments to prepare for the third drought season in a row, the fake crisis manufactured by extremist politicians in the US does seem a bit silly (silly, but still with wide ramifications, as an article in the Kenya Daily Nation argues). But in both cases, the unwillingness of governments to put governance before politics is marked, as this political cartoon reveals.
Not long ago, a blog I follow posted this video, a tourism video for a ‘libertarian paradise.’
When travelling or working in Africa, Asia, South America, and other parts of the so-called ‘developing’ world, the things that mark countries as ‘more’ or ‘less’ Read the rest of this entry »
I know I’m a bit late to the game here, but I wanted to respond for a second to Obama’s recent lecture about the virtues of compromise and bipartisanship that he gave to some college students. A number of good commentators have already jumped on the philosophy behind his remarks. Needless to say, I agree with what they say. Politicians certainly need to balance principles with compromise, but they shouldn’t make a fetish out of selling out their stated beliefs.
But Obama invoked Abraham Lincoln’s stance on the Emancipation Proclamation as evidence that sometimes you have to compromise.
Abraham Lincoln. Here’s a guy who didn’t believe in slavery, but his first priority was keeping the union. I’ve got a copy of the Emancipation Proclamation in my office, and if you read through it, most of the document is those states and areas where emancipation doesn’t apply because those folks are allied with the union so they can keep their slaves.
Here’s a wartime President making a compromise around the greatest moral issue that the country ever faced, because he understood that his job was to win the war and maintain the union. Can you imagine how the Huffington Post would have reported on that? It would have been blistering. “Lincoln Sells Out Slaves.” There would be protests, and we’re going to run a third party guy.
This is bad history, and in a revealing way.
First, of course, Lincoln received plenty of complaints from the left. As Joan Walsh pointed out, a number of abolitionist newspapers criticized Lincoln for inadequacy of the Proclamation. Second, there was a third party candidate: John Fremont, who was supported by a number of abolitionists, Wendell Phillips most prominent among them. Had it not been for the constant push of people like Phillips, Fremont, and Douglass, many of the best outcomes of the Civil War may never have happened. James Oakes has written well on the necessary interplay between radical activists and pragmatic politicians in the Civil War period.
But these are minor squabbles. The meat of Obama’s argument is that the Emanciaption Proclamation was a compromise from Lincoln’s lofty ideals, but he (like Obama) was willing to make it because he would achieve the Good rather than fail at the Perfect.
Here’s the problem: The Emancipation Proclamation was not a compromise for Lincoln. He had never previously stated that he could or would abolish slavery in the Southern states. When he ran for president, he was clear that he would not abolish slavery. In his first Inaugral Address he said:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
The Emancipation Proclamation, when he signed it, was a move to the left for Lincoln, not a compromise on fundamental principles. In response to abolitionist pressure, the “General Strike” of runaway slaves, and the general revolutionary logic of the Civil War, Lincoln moved slowly to the left over his presidency. I’m sure I would have been one of those people like Wendell Phillips or Frederick Douglass who was often frustrated how slow he did it. But even they couldn’t accuse Lincoln of violating campaign promises by moving to the right. On issues like black soldiers, emancipation, black suffrage, etc… Lincoln was moving towards the position of his leftwing critics and away from his campaign positions.
On the other hand, when faced with a situation when he was called upon to compromise the core principles that he had run on, he showed a remarkable backbone. Before the war actually started, when hardline southerners had already seceded, there were numerous calls- from Seward among others- to pass some sort of compromise which would placate the South and avoid war. This movement coalesced around the Crittenden Compromise, which if it had passed, would have, among other things, guaranteed slavery below the 36° 30′ line for perpetuity (It’d sure be interesting if Los Angeles was a slave city, huh?). It was sort of the master “Grand Bargain” of the day.
Lincoln had ran on the platform of Free Soil, and so he took an admirably hardline stance on this issue, refusing to endorse any compromise that might end secession in return for the extension of slavery.
With Obama, on the other hand, the changes in his position are always to the right. At this point,the 2008 candidate who supported the public option, card check, protecting civil liberties, higher taxes on the rich, and cap and trade looks like Lenin compared to what we see today. I can’t think of a single issue on which Obama has moved to the left since the campaign, but I’ve lost count of the amount of times he’s moved to the right.
This isn’t to say Lincoln was always pure and Obama always compromises. But there is a difference between moving (slowly and haltingly as Lincoln did) towards doing the right thing, and moving (eagerly) to do the wrong thing. That Obama chooses not to see the difference is quite revealing. Lincoln started small, but grew big. Obama, on the other hand, seems determined to shrink.
Perhaps, Obama’s compromises are all justified. I believe, with plenty of others, that he needs to grow a spine. But either way, he shouldn’t be comparing himself to Lincoln.
Update: While I was writing this (clearly because he knew what I was going to say) Obama manifested evidence of a backbone for the first time in some while. Good. But my critique stands.
Yesterday’s FT featured a book review by the Conservative operative Danny Kruger. The book reviewed was The Labour Tradition and the Politics of Paradox, a book that lays out the intellectual framework for ‘Blue Labour’. Blue Labour is a newish move in the British Labour Party to appeal to middle class and working class voters by shifting to the right (the Tories are blue and Labour is red here) on a number of social issues, particularly immigration, crime, and the welfare state. It is not unlike the idea of ‘blue dog democrats’ in America in its appeal to somewhat socially conservative, blue collar and middle class voters. I haven’t read the book and this isn’t a counter-review. Kruger made some interesting statements, though, in defense of the ‘blue’ of Blue Labour.
In terms of the political spectrum as outlined by Kruger, there are both ‘Utopian’ and ‘Nostalgic’ forms of both Labour and Tory ideology. Blue Labour conforms to the Nostalgic: He reports that Maurice Glasman (one of the leading lights of Blue Labour) ‘wants to rebuild a “Tudor Commonwealth” of freemen, hustings, guilds and guildhalls. The task for Labour, in today’s outsourced and globalised world, is to be “the collective poet” for England, retelling the stories of the nation.’ In contrast, the New Labour of Tony Blair and the Millibands is Whiggish and Utopian. Kruger points out that the Conservatives have the same two strands of Utopian and Nostalgic ideology. He rejects the Utopians in both parties and supports the project of Blue Labour for that reason. He likes that ‘Glasman and Rutherford give hat tips to Burke, Wordsworth and Coleridge, the Conservative elegists who saw the 19th century coming and didn’t like it. Most of all, credit is given to Aristotle – though Moses and Jesus should also have got a mention too, given that Blue Labour’s worldview is, in large part, Judeo-Christian. Instead of progress, our task is civilisation, the melioration of brokenness.’ Read the rest of this entry »
This week’s Economist and Weekend FT both feature articles about the newest candidate to enter the Republican nomination contest, Michele Bachmann. As papers that regularly point to the celebrity reality show nature of Sarah Palin’s past (and potential future) candidacy, the papers treat Bachmann remarkably seriously. They refer to her polling numbers in Iowa, where she is only behind Mitt Romney by 1 percentage point in the Republican nominating contest. They refer to her religious convictions, and although it’s clear that they are not shared by the authors of the pieces, the tone is markedly different from those aimed at Palin, or even Newt Gingrich. ’Authenticity’, ‘conviction’, ‘credentials’ seem to be the buzzwords surrounding Bachmann. She is genuinely passionate about her religious convictions, the papers argue. She’s the opposite of Romney’s transparent faux conservativeness, and therefore will appeal to real value voters, they say. She is ideologically pure, as well, ridiculing the Republican establishment with as much vigor as she ridicules Democratic opponents. But they also emphasize that she’s no lightweight. Although she has a limited political track record, they are keen to highlight that unlike Palin, she’s smart. Not just shrewd (though there’s that too: ‘And Mrs Bachmann certainly knows how to play Iowa;’ ‘She is a gifted public speaker, with a knack for rousing a crowd;’ ‘ her appetite for provocative stunts;’ etc), she is portrayed as genuinely smart, presidential material: The Economist says ‘ She replied, in a suitably dignified, presidential manner, that she deserved to be taken seriously.‘ The FT says that ’In Republican circles she is seen as having the potential to outshine Palin by being a smarter and more disciplined candidate.’ Clearly the comparisons to Palin are easy for journalists: they are both ‘values’ candidates, they appeal to similar voters, and they are both women.
What is more intriguing about this coverage, though, is its potential for international comparisons. A regular feature of the Economist (and its only regular Read the rest of this entry »