Perhaps the most peculiar slip of the first presidential debate of 2004 was when Kerry referred to Lubyanka Square (the former KGB headquarters in Moscow) as Treblinka Square, confusing the prison made famous by Sozhenitsyn and Arthur Koestler, among others, with the even more murderous Nazi concentration camp. Why this error? Those of us with a quasi-Freudian turn of mind might wonder if it has something to do with that sudden “discovery” by Kerry of his Jewish roots. The Senator, like Madeleine Albright, “stumbled” on his grandfather’s Jewish background (both were Czech incidentally) quite late in life, indicating either a rather remarkable lack of curiosity or something worse, deliberate obfuscation. I frankly suspect the latter because Kerry has a record of this, having participated, to some degree or other, also in the pretence that he was Irish-American. (Christmas in Cambodia anyone?)
Being Jewish, of course, I find the denial of the Jewish roots particularly disturbing. Hiding your ancestry has always meant to me an acquiescence to racism, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome in advance. When I first heard about it in Kerry’s case some time ago, I knew I could never support the man. And now we have this odd reference to Treblinka, like something buried trying to get out.
I have been wrestling with another question related in some way. Now that it is 2004 and I am a man of sixty, I have been trying to understand the real meaning of what happened in 1968. After all, I was a participant in those events, as much as John Kerry, perhaps more. One of the things that has always struck me is how many leaders of the Generation of 68 were Jewish, not just the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Allen Ginsberg and Jerry Rubin here, but abroad as well. Daniel Cohn-Bendit was arguably the most famous figure of May 68 in Paris. But here’s the thing about the year 1968 looked at from the perspective of 2004, 36 years later. 1968 was only 23 years after the liberation of Auschwitz. In history, but a minute. Doesn’t that give you chills? It does me. I’m trying to understand it. Were these people (was I?) running away from some unspeakable horror into a world of sex, drugs and rock and roll? Who could blame them?
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
69 Comments
1. Zak braverman:As for the misutterance of Treblinka for Lubyanka…Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, especially when it comes to getting your mouth around unusual foreign words (as opposed to say, “sushi”) when you’re nervous.
However, I think the rest of Roger’s discussion is interesting. I take it that Kerry’s slip was more of a jumping-off point for Roger than anything else.
Oct 1, 2004 - 12:51 am 2. geezer:I was only 12 in ‘68, mind ya, but, a few thoughts here:
- not every house had plastic-goop shaped furniture
- not everyone’s brother was burning their draft card
- not everyone’s dad was clamoring for RFK or some such other to wrest power from LBJ’s ignorant, greedy paws
- not everyone we knew over the age of 18 was wandering around in a purple haze
- some were actually looking forward to voting for Nixon or Humphrey.
So much for the power of TV.
Oct 1, 2004 - 1:57 am 3. thibaud:Nah, Roger, that’s too clever by half.
Kerry looks and sounds like a really smart guy, but he’s not any smarter than Jerry Ford, who also had a debate problem regarding East European geography and politics. The truth is more likely that Kerry simply doesn’t know anything about Feliks Dzerzhinsky or Lubyanka. He’s BSing you and me and everyone.
Exhibit A is that he appears to seriously believe– hard for me to type this, astonishing, I know, but he keeps saying it– that French and German “Help is on the way” in the form of troops in Iraq. The lefties have slapped him down on this, the French Germans Belgians Swiss Dutch Danes Spaniards have slapped him down on it… and he continues to say it. Everyone knows it’s complete nonsense, but he still delivers the line with all the assurance of Ted Baxter introducing the nightly news.
This is evidence of real cluelessness about the world, of a sort that would damn a less fluent, less handsome politician like a Jerry Ford
Oct 1, 2004 - 3:15 am 4. Buddy Larsen:Well, I was around too back then, and the idea was, (oh, stupid, stupid stupid us) we were the counter to the same sort of power that unchecked had led to the the concentration camps. So, that part makes sense, the percentage of Jewish countercultural leaders. Which BTW I hadn’t noticed but agree with your premise for the sake. But answer me this: Why are so many American Jews so unconcerned with the survival of Israel? I have a long-running argument going with a very young Jewish anti-trust lawyer–an idealist, working for the state–who will not take Israel into any account of his domestic political leanings. The notion of war making such exceptions paramount just won’t budge this guy. Almost as if he leans so far away from the stereotype of ‘Israel, right or wrong’ that he can’t even see Israel anymore. He says he’s proving true liberalism. I can’t help but agree, tho from a much different direction.
Oct 1, 2004 - 3:15 am 5. thibaud:Exhibit B is the reflexive peacenik/ freeze advocate bullshit about giving up, unilaterally, our bunker-busting capability (the B61-11).
Which was already operational in 1997 and which, just prior to 1997, the Clinton administration brandished over the head of Khaddafi in order to get him to halt construction of Libya’s underground nuclear weapons facilities. It worked. I don’t recall Kerry protesting it then.
From CDI:
Little noted in this debate is the fact that the United States has been at work on similar weapons since the mid-nineties and already has a bunker-busting nuclear weapon, the B61-11, a nuclear gravity bomb.4
The Pentagon began developing the B61-11 in 1993 and deployed it in 1997. Treading lightly around its obligations under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States observes but has never ratified, American nuclear scientists billed B61-11 as a spin-off of an existing weapon. By putting an iron casing around the nuclear warhead, the design theoretically allowed the weapon, released from an aircraft, to burrow through earth or concrete to destroy its target – the same mission officials at the Department of Energy envision for weapons currently being studied.
In 1996, the United States even threatened to use the B61-11 against Libya. When American intelligence learned that the Libyans were building a large underground plant to develop chemical weapons, Defense Secretary William Perry stated publicly that the United States would consider its whole range of weapons to stop construction – an implicit reference to nuclear weapons.
Kerry last night argued for unilateral disarmament. And went against a policy already successfully put in action by a Democratic administration that was actually faced with a rogue state determined to push ahead with its underground nuclear program.
We’re back to 1983 again, and the same silliness that we heard from the freeze crowd. Kerry is a poseur. Bush/Rove will make mincemeat of him just as Reagan did of Mondale in 1984.
Oct 1, 2004 - 3:22 am 6. chuck:Don’t know, Roger. I’m not Jewish, although my dad has converted, so I am not in that cultural stream. I do remember having the thought that the sixties kids were in some way living out their *parents* fantasies. Recall that our parents grew up in the depression, many fought in WWII, and others fought their way out of poverty as well. Their early life provided little scope for fooling around and I think some aspired to a more “sophisticated” view of life. Dr. Spock and all that. And naturally they wanted us to have it better, and for us to enjoy the things that they were forbidden. I don’t think we turned out quite as they expected, but hey, kids are like that.
The other oddity I recall from the radical sixties was that the most radical often came from well to do, if not wealthy, backgrounds. There is still a good book on the sixties to be written, but I doubt that any of us boomers will write it.
Oct 1, 2004 - 3:35 am 7. Terrye:I caught that gaffe too but I thought it was just a slip of the tongue, the kind of thing the press likes to pound Bush about but will no doubt ignore in Kerry.
As to the overall question here I think the 68′ers were naive and idealistic and wanted a world without war. Their intentions were good but we all know that saying about the road to hell, don’t we?
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:12 am 8. drbrett:To say that a lot of Jews were intimately involved with the anti-war movement of the 60’s is similar to saying that a lot of Jews are intimatly involved with the current neo-con movement. If you suggest one you can certainly suggest the other. Personally, as a jew, I just don’t think religion plays a role here.
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:37 am 9. richard mcenroe:Nah, Kerry was just being pig-iggerint and pretentious again. NEVER let him order the wine, if you know what I mean…
As for the rest, well, only you can speak for yourself, Roger, but it seems to me that with the rush to upward mobility there was a powerful impetus to reject anything in the way of a traditional social identity, from any source, even before the 60’s. Remember, this was the first generation that grew up with a really powerful, artificial image of a common social norm for everyone in the form of television “life.” Also, the exclusions of Jews from more “refined” levels of society were weakening at this time. So there was a powerful encouragement to shave those payess and pick up a tennis racket.
(And really, you can rationalize it all you want, but most us youngkers I knew back then were running towards the sex, drugs and rock’n'roll, not away from anything else… Proactive, that was us…
Oct 1, 2004 - 7:38 am 10. John Weidner:I also remember the SDS types of ‘the 60’s being disproportionately Jewish, though perhaps any intellectual movement is likely to be very Jewish. But what’s fascinating to me are the mental blinders one has to wear to be a leftist (and so almost by definition anti-Israel) and a Jew. Or in just the same way, to be an anti-American American…though these things were much less obvious then.
The fight against the bourgeoisie has always symbolically been against Americans and Jews. You probably remember the great article by David Brooks, Among the Bourgeoisophobes. There is an anti-Jewish and anti-American strain running through all our artistic/intellectual thought.
Which means that Americans and Jews get mugged by reality frequently, and have to ignore being mugged in order to hang on to certain ideas. Osama hates us and wants to kill us especially. And Chirac and Schroeder are neutral on the subject. And to be on the Left one has to ignore that, and to believe that Israel and the US are the only oppressors and warmongers of the world…
Strange and fascinating to behold.
Oct 1, 2004 - 7:41 am 11. Robert Schwartz:Roger: I am a couple of years younger than thee, and I grew up in fly-over country. But I was there in the 1960’s. I think you have touched on a very important part of the psycho-scoial-intellectual history of the Left in the last 50 years.
Other actors are the emigre professors who taught them at places like Yale and, my alma mater, Chicago, and their students, the ideologues who later turned into professors, writers and journalists themselves who continue to dominate the media and universities.
Oct 1, 2004 - 7:49 am 12. Tom Grey:Peace Love Dove; beads, bells, incense, light shows and Hare Krishna all you groovy freaks…
Remember the 60s joke about a secret racist, who might say: “Oh, I’m not racist, but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one of them.”
Jews who, like Tevje, wouldn’t want their daughters to marry one of “them” are stuck with their own half-racism. If they allow inter-marriage, their identity will be weakened. If not, they’re racists — and racism is bad.
Religion? Ethnicity? Y-chromosome from Abraham (you do know that ONLY the Y-chromosome comes from parents, essentially unchanged)? [I don't know if my German ancestors were at all Jewish, I think not -- my grandmother insisted we were AMERICAN, not German or anything else.] Who are the Jews, anyway.
The Left, like most of the world, is envious of Jewish educational and cultural achievements. Old-world envy, the kind where the neighbor’s dream is that your prize cow, dies.
Punish, er, Tax the rich! (especially rich Jews?)
The USA did NOT learn how to do a good job of nation building in Vietnam; O’Neill spoke of it in his 71 debate against Kerry. But Vietnamization didn’t work. Maybe because we used US soldiers to always win every battle.
In Fallujah, in Iraq now, maybe waiting until Iraqis feel strong enough to clear up the mess, with US subordinate (though heavy lifting) help, maybe Iraqification will work. 4 months till Iraqi elections.
6-day war; Prague Spring; Sgt. Pepper’s.
Peace love dove. Make love not war.
Peace and genocide, not fighting evil– that’s the missing truthful slogan.
Oct 1, 2004 - 7:57 am 13. Samuel:Roger
I’m with you and I have said this before, a Jew running from their Jewishness bothers the hell out of me. I know there are many legitimate explanations for such behavior, for me some are understandable, but none are acceptable, enough said.
Buddy Larsen
But answer me this: Why are so many American Jews so unconcerned with the survival of Israel?
Ignorance, head in the sand, selfishness, peer pressure, approval seeking, self-denial, “I’ve got mine”, Never Again… for me! My question is why are some of the most anti-Semitic people Jewish? I have my opinions on that one as well.
drbrett
To say that a lot of Jews were intimately involved with the anti-war movement of the 60’s is similar to saying that a lot of Jews are intimatly involved with the current neo-con movement.
Well…yeah! Irving Kristol rightfully said that neocons have made much of their beliefs part of the mainstream Republican culture but that does not diminish their origination as liberal Catholics and Jews “mugged by reality”. They introduced new blends of ideas into the Conservative movement along the way. Jews carried and carry a disproportionate influence in that movement, don’t let the stereotype diminish the fact that there is some actual truth to that stereotype.
Oct 1, 2004 - 9:03 am 14. Goof¬Æ:I was 10, but I’ve always felt that Hunter summed it up best (and earliest) and then…
Ah; this terrible gibberish. Grim memories and bad flashbacks, looming up through the time/fog of Stanyan Street…no solace for refugees, no point in looking back. The question, as always, is now … ?
from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1971)
His distillation of The Sixties: What Happened is as nothing though to his “Journalism” tirade a little later.
32 days to go.
Oct 1, 2004 - 9:13 am 15. jerry:Several comments on Kerry and Treblinka Sqaure.
First, if there is any Freudian slip involved it has more to do with imputing evil to Nazism/Fascism alone. However, I think it’s just ignorance.
Second, The name of the square that Lubyanka Prison sat on was Dzerzhinsky Square. It was named after the founder of the CheKa, Felix Dzerzhinsky
Third, I find it hard to believe that Kerry is ignorant of his ancestry. Grandfather is not that far removed that you wouldn’t know. If the names were reversed in my family, i.e., a switchbetween my parents last names, I kind think that my son would know what his both his grandfather’s last names were and their ethnic associations. For one thing, he had a geneology project in 7th grade. Kerry knew very well that his Grandfather’s name was Kohn and that he was Jewish.
Fourth, The comparison between Kerry and Ford is an insult to Ford. Ford may have been less articulate than GWB, but his native intelligence is far superior to Kerry. Top of of his class at the University of Michigan and Yale Law. Remember, Kerry had to go to BC, he neither had the grades or Law Boards to get into Harvard.
Fifth, I notice in the written text that Kerry claims he was one of the first people in the KGB archives after the Soviet Union fell. Kerry seems to be everywhere, Suwon airfield for the ceasefire, Christmas in Cambodia, etc. He seems to be at every important location in recent history. Kind of like RADM Victor “Pug” Henry in Winds of War/War and Rememberances.
Oct 1, 2004 - 9:56 am 16. Catherine:Roger
I’ve begun to wonder about these things myself. I’m constantly telling folks here that I’m surrounded by Bush-haters, but what I don’t say is that most of my Bush-hating friends and relatives are Jewish. I’m not sure whether other commenters here know that my husband is Jewish. I’m Christian, a Midwestern Methodist.
I’ve resisted making the connection, because it feels anti-semitic to me: it feels like a bad step for me to take.
As well, I can’t quite tell whether the fact that my friends are mostly Jewish means anything. Are Jews proportionately more heavily represented among ABB voters, or is that true only in my circles?
I have no idea.
Even so, lately I’ve wondered whether there is a way for me to think about this question that isn’t automatically anti-semitic and false . . .
A friend of mine, a psychoanalyst (yes, she’s Jewish!) is now doing some fascinating work on baby boom Jews & their feelings about the Holocaust. She is looking at second generation Jews whose parents barely escaped with their lives–in other words, Jews who know, in some repressed corner of their psyches, that their own parents could have been the starving, frightened human skeletons of Auschwitz.
For my part, I have been thinking about Christian baby boomers: what are our deepest feelings about the Holocaust?
I was raised on the Holocaust.
Growing up on my farm in central Illinois I sat in my living room with my parents and my sisters & brother & watched the documentaries about the camps. In silence we watched the black and white photographs of the starving Jews, the barbed wire, the horror.
Each year, too, we watched the Hallmark Hall of Fame play about Anne Frank. Each year. And every child in town read her diary in high school.
Anne Frank was like a secular saint for us, a Jewish saint. She still is.
Today I believe that those Auschwitz documentaries were a formative moment in my childhood. Very probably, they were a mild & unrecognized trauma.
I’ve been wanting to know whether Jewish parents let their children watch those programs. I’m betting they didn’t, and I’m betting their decision was right.
I’m not sure how these things play out in the adult heart and soul, or how they affected the years of Vietnam, but I do think that baby boom Christians feel something akin to panic over Israel and its survival. And I think we feel, many of us, that it’s up to us to see that Israel does survive. My editor one day, a big brassy gal from Texas, actually said something to me like, “If anything happens to Israel that would be the end. Nothing can happen to Israel!”
This remark came out of the blue; we were just shooting the breeze at the time. My editor is a Kerry voter, a woman quite a bit younger than I who can’t stand Bush—-and yet the thought that “something could happen” to Israel is apparently one of her worst fears.
I think we post-war babies grew up believing that we fought World War II to save the Jews.
We didn’t, of course, but to a child, that’s the way it looked. We watched the Auschwitz documentaries, and we concluded that the war was about Auschwitz. There weren’t any TV documentaries about Pearl Harbor, none that I remember at any rate.
I believe that all of those forgotten child’s feelings have now been activated, by this new war.
I don’t know how or why such feelings push a middle-aged person towards Bush instead of Kerry, or towards Kerry instead of Bush.
And I don’t know how the different psychology of a post-war Jewish child affects him or her today, or where it “pushes” him or her.
But I have felt, many times, that my “Red Stateness” has been awakened at last.
And a big part of my Red Stateness–and I didn’t know this about myself–turns out to be about Israel and the Jews.
Like my editor, I feel that Israel must survive.
I never knew a thing about Israel until 9-11, but within a few weeks of 9-11 I was a flaming Likudnick. (Not quite, but close enough.)
It’s no surprise to me that Bush I wasn’t a particular friend to Israel, while Bush II is. I’m sure George W. saw the same documentaries I saw.
I think it’s possible that for people my age, losing the war on terror would also mean losing WWII, after the fact.
Anyway, these are “preliminary thoughts”; I don’t know what’s going on, frankly.
I do know that these are passionate times. People are working out of the deepest corners of their histories, and anyone who thinks the election is about “issues” is nuts.
The election is about survival, manhood, honor, character, strength . . .
If you doubt this, look at the post-debate Gallup poll.
53% say Kerry won; 37% give it to Bush.
Then we get to the internals:
“Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job”
Bush 54/ Kerry 37
“On Iraq: Before Debate: 54 said the president would do a better job handling Iraq than Kerry (40) After: 54/43″
Oct 1, 2004 - 10:07 am 17. Catherine:This book, which I haven’t read, might be interesting to look at for your own book:
I know little about Jewish religion and politics, and all of this may sound like bunk to you.
But from my own vantage point, this made a lot of sense.
I’m curious what Samuel has to say about this, so Samuel, if you’re around, let us know!
(Sending special bat cave signal . . . )
Oct 1, 2004 - 10:51 am 18. Old Grouch:A few thoughts, neither complete nor conslusive…
We probably won’t be able to write that “good book on the 60s” until we come to terms with what went on in the 30s.
Specifically, the behavior of Stalin’s poodles in the American Communist/socialist movement who first lined up with Charles Lindbergh and other fascists/isolationists (different people with different reasons for the same position) to try to keep the United States out of the war, then, after Hitler invaded Russia, spun 180 degrees to push for American involvement. The failure to oppose Hitler from the beginning remains one of the American left’s big unresolved issues, especially once postwar revelations confirmed the horrors of the Nazi regeme. Those who followed the Moscow line were revealed as having acted neither in the interest of their own survival (socialists and Communists were among the first against the wall under any Nazi regime), nor in the support of the traditional socialist positions of equality and brotherhood (in the interests of humanity, as they professed them). Instead, they had behaved like paid (or unpaid) agents of Russia. They claimed to be idealists; it turned out they were sellouts. And many of them were Jews.
Denial. They were good people (hadn’t they always said so?), they were idealists (so they told each other), they were intellectuals, they couldn’t have been sellouts. It never happened. It was all propaganda. They never (ahem!) supported Hitler. (And, by the way, don’t examine the reasons for that support, because that might lead to questions of whether “supporting the Soviet Union” was a manditory component of “supporting international socialism.” Dangerous territory!)
And so, fingers firmly in their ears (and denying what had gone before), the left marched off to “do it all over again” in the 60s. This time their support for the Soviets produced the boat people, Pol Pot, and a host of other miseries.
What mindset produces behavior like this? While it’s idealistic to act against your own interests, but what about acting against your own survival? And when your action toward the “greatest good” turns out to have produced unimaginable horrors, why do you do it again? And what part has denial of past and present evidence played?
[I'm out of time, anybody else want to take it from here?]
Oct 1, 2004 - 11:14 am 19. jerry:Catherine:
Your signal the bat-cave attracted the wrong bat. (I actually do work in a cave like vault in a section of the Pentagon that is underground.
A few years ago I read a comment by Irving Kristol. He was speaking at [I believe] a synagogue event on the subject of helping the poor. After the event a 50 something lady in a fur coat came up to him and ask him what she should do about this poor homeless man in her neighborhood. He said “invite him up for dinner.” Of course the woman was aghast and went on her way. Kristol’s point was that Jewish religious law doesn’t tell you to find some part of the government to help the poor, it calls on you to help the poor. This confirms Berger’s assessment.
As a Christian, I feel I have some proprietary right to the entire canon both Jewish and Christian. My reading of the older canon brings me to the same conclusions. The bible enjoins you to treat the poor, widow and orphans fairly, but it also enjoins the authorities not give them special consideration either. When the Hebrew people ask for a King, God asks them why do you want a King since all he will do is tax you and end your sons to war. The bible is non-political but it does have a good grip on human nature. [no surprise there] When the central government acquires power it is always at the expense of liberty. Sometimes we must make the trade but centralized power is always in danger of opposing the will of God.
Oct 1, 2004 - 11:17 am 20. jerry:Grouch:
An observation:
The leadership of international socialism is just as obsessed with the will to power as the Nazi leadership. However, what is often overlooked is that the rank and file brown shirt is as motivated by romanticism and idealism as the most dedicated communist party member. So why would anybody be surprised at the outcome of last great hope of mankind.
Oct 1, 2004 - 11:23 am 21. Catherine:Jerry
Hi!
(And btw, I’m happy to have the Special Bat Cave signal summon up anyone at all!)
I’m intrigued by your comment.
The other day I was trying to post something I think is consistent with what you’re saying, but TypeKey stymied me.
It’s off-thread, but I think I’ll post part (or all) of it now.
(Can’t quite see how to edit it down . . . )
In a nutshell, when I first began to learn something about conservatives & also about market economics, just in the past couple of years, it struck me that the conservative belief in the market is quite similar to a religious person’s belief in God . . .
By that I mean the conservative’s belief in the market is similar to a religious person’s belief that “God’s in his heaven’s and all’s well with the world,” even though things might be demonstrably not well with the world at any given moment. A religious person continues to have faith when things are bad. Not just when things are good.
Heck.
I can’t find the words to say what I mean.
I’m talking about a “market faith” or a “religious faith” that somehow things are alright even if they aren’t alright.
This led me to a thought about why the Republican Party is steadily gaining religious voters, while the Democratic Party is steadily losing religious voters, and gaining secular voters.
I’m thinking–this could be all wrong, but it’s what I’m thinking at the moment–that if you are an atheist, if you think there is nothing out there but other people, then you’re going to be inclined to think Government has to manage things.
Because otherwise we live in chaos.
If you think there is Someone (God?) or Something (the market’s Invisible Hand?) out there, maybe you feel some things can be left to “fate” or to “destiny.” Maybe you feel government isn’t needed at all times, in all places.
Here’s my original post. The last two sentences are the ones that reminded me of your comment.
Hi Roger!
(I can’t wait to read your book—)
I’m straw-manning the attitude of liberals towards capitalism, and I shouldn’t do that. Obviously Robert Rubin doesn’t think Wall Street is evil!
There’s a semi-famous book by Irving Kristol (which I haven’t read) called Two Cheers for Capitalism by Irving Kristol
I heard about it on NRO, where the writer said the new generation of neoconservatives had gone past Irving Kristol and were now giving capitalism the full 3 cheers.
That’s what I’m talking about.
It’s not that liberals are against capitalism.
It’s that they give capitalism two cheers at best.
Liberals think capitalism is either an amoral system (an impersonal market determines all) or an immoral system (”greed is good”) that works better than the alternatives.
As a result, many liberals think of government’s job as protecting ordinary people from the winner-loser nature of capitalism, business, and markets. The government evens things out through progressive taxation.
Europeans are especially intent on making up for capitalism’s inequities. Here’s Irwin Seltzer in WEEKLY STANDARD:
I’ve seen that kind of thing in lots of places: Europeans commenting on the bloodiness of American capitalism.
Kaus’s book END OF EQUALITY directly tackles these issues. It’s great.
There seem to be a zillion articles out there on “capitalism and morality,” not one of which I have read, though they all look interesting. (I’m guessing this one is worth reading: “Capitalism and Morality,” The Public Interest, Number 121, Fall, 1995.)
In any case, my point isn’t that liberals aren’t capitalists; they are.
My point is that they are see capitalism as morally problematic, and thus probably don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the wonders of the market in terms of creating wealth, improving standards of living, producing cultural evolution, etc. (That’s my guess. I certainly never hear liberals talk about “the market” in glowing terms–or even talk about it at all.)
Since liberals aren’t wowed by the wonders of the market, they’re probably not going to be thinking about the wonders of the blogosphere’s “hive mind,” which is a market concept, either.
Liberals just don’t seem to think about, believe in, or appreciate “invisible hands” in any way, shape, or form.
Liberals believe in the visible hand of government.
Oct 1, 2004 - 11:49 am 22. Ken:“But answer me this: Why are so many American Jews so unconcerned with the survival of Israel? ”
Maybe because they’re more concerned with the survival of the nation where Jews (and everyone else) are safe from anything like the Holocaust ever happening again – the United States of America.
Israel is useful as an ally, and I have no use for the people blowing up its busses and pizza shops. But it is the United States that is the last best hope of mankind – including the Jews.
Oct 1, 2004 - 11:55 am 23. Catherine:Jerry
And did you catch the vignette about how he ran into some “returnees” (I think that’s what he called them–National Guardsmen who’d been in Iraq) in a line outside the auditorium who told him, “We need you in there, we’ve got to get some help”?
Someone should send this guy to screenwriting class.
I don’t know huge numbers of National Guardsmen personally, but the ones I have known did not say things like, “We need you in there.”
Does he make stuff up constantly?
In every speech?
Every conversation?
I mean . . . I’ve moved on to a basic question concerning frequency.
Oct 1, 2004 - 11:55 am 24. holdfast:“Kerry seems to be everywhere, Suwon airfield for the ceasefire, Christmas in Cambodia, etc. He seems to be at every important location in recent history. Kind of like RADM Victor “Pug” Henry in Winds of War/War and Rememberances.”
Run Forest, Run!
Oh, he’s already running – I guess that’s like when Kerry says “Bring it On” but really means “please make the bad men stop”
Oct 1, 2004 - 2:11 pm 25. Terrye:Catherine:
Liberals think of the market as a necessary evil. It exists to create wealth that can be taxed and redistributed in a more equitable way and anyone who does not agree with their view of the market is a cold hearted robber baron who chains children to industrail sewing machines in the garmet district.
Of course as far as many conservatives are concerned liberals are either naive or in league with organized crime aka the Sopranos.
I think Kerry has a rich fantasy life. I want the names of those Guardsmen. I don’t believe that anymore than I believe that he and Chirac have a special relationship. But I do think that performance last night was for the international community as much as for us. Kerry is undermining a president in time of war. so what is new??
I thought Kerry was slick and won it on style. Typical politician. Bush is not a typical politician, he is human.
Bush seemed a busy man who had neither the time or the interest for this nonsense. I think it was all he could not to look at Kerry and say “You don’t know what you are talking about you stupid son of a bitch”. And so he said as little as possible while Kerry talked about Moscow and Iraq and the Europeans coming to our rescue and Allawi lying and Bush lying and war is bad and Kyoto is good.
The truth is Kerry looked good because he had nowhere to go but up. He wasn’t orange.
Oct 1, 2004 - 2:51 pm 26. Yehudit:“I’ve been wanting to know whether Jewish parents let their children watch those programs. I’m betting they didn’t, and I’m betting their decision was right.”
I watched them. I don’t think I was unusual.
But the Shoah was traumatic for an entire generation, you did not have to be Jewish to be affected by it. I like your theory.
I’m one of those 2nd Gens whose parents escaped with their lives and not much else; If your shrink friend is looking for more material, I’ll be happy to talk to her.
I grew up wondering how it could be that good-hearted liberals – Jews, even – could watch Hitler’s power growing and keep rationalizing not doing anything. Watching the liberal left – Jews, even – since 9-11, now I know. That’s the creepiest part of the times we live in. My own people ought to know better by now. They should be able to recognize appeasement when they see it.
I think my fellow liberal Jews just can’t face the fact that “here it is again.”
Oct 1, 2004 - 3:56 pm 27. Yehudit:“Does he make stuff up constantly?
In every speech?
Every conversation?”
A friend I watched the debate with says yes, that’s what he does in debates. Just makes shit up.
Oct 1, 2004 - 3:58 pm 28. Mark Poling:Richard McEnroe:
Actually, ordering the wine is one thing I would trust Kerry with. Only if he was paying, of course…
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:08 pm 29. Terrye:I just watched Fox Special Report and the consensus among the talking heads was that Kerry won and Bush lost a chance.
I dunno. I watched the same debate and I still don’t know what Kerry thinks of the war in Iraq or if he feels even slightly responsible for voting for it or whatever and I don’t think the president’s facial expressions were any worse than Kerry taking notes and just blowing off.
eye of the the beholder I guess.
They said if it were going to effect the polls we would know it by the middle of next week.
I will be so glad when this is over.
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:11 pm 30. Occam's Beard:Roger, for some reason I’ve never understood, left wing politics has historically exerted a siren call to Jews that long predates the 60s, as Joshua Muravchik points out in his history of socialism. Even the late unlamented Felix Dzerzhinsky mentioned in passing above was Jewish.
Hence, from the historical perspective the prominence of Jews in left-wing politics in the 60s was not anomalous, and no Holocaust-related etiology need be invoked to explain it.
The puzzling part is why the attraction exists in the first place.
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:19 pm 31. Catherine:Terrye
Right on, as usual.
Liberals think of the market as a necessary evil
Right, exactly.
And that really is different from thinking the market is wonderful.
It doesn’t make them socialists; they’re capitalists like everyone else.
But they aren’t enthusiastic. (I’m not talking about liberal economists here.)
I think it was all he could not to look at Kerry and say “You don’t know what you are talking about you stupid son of a bitch”
I’ve been thinking about that. All the conservative pundits were freaked out that Bush looked ticked off.
Conservative pundits were also freaked out about Zell Miller’s speech, and about Arnold’s economic girly men.
I always thought politicians weren’t supposed to show anger, that “losing your cool” meant losing the debate, etc.
But I’m beginning to realize there are different categories of public anger.
Bush’s public displays of anger work for some reason.
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:23 pm 32. Mark Poling:Catherine:
Catherine, that’s what monster stories are for. Later you can say “ah, but there aren’t really monsters” but you still have that gut-level wariness when things get spooky. Probably useful on dark city streets, unfamiliar hiking paths, etc.
IMHO, letting kids know the monsters can be real, and can be human, isn’t a bad thing. Harsh, but not bad.
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:27 pm 33. Rick Ballard:Occam’s Beard,
Some consideration should be given to the support framework for Jewish immigrants extant in New York during the late 1800’s. A high number of those drawn to social work in those days were definitely drawn to the work by exposure to socialist concepts. As Yiddish speakers, the social workers were often the first Americans that a Jewish immigrant had contact with, the first to explain the American system and the first to teach the newly arrived how to speak English. It is entirely unremarkable that immigrants proved to be easily indoctrinated given the gratitude that many must have felt for the reception that they received. The existing Jewish community in New York in the mid to late 1800’s had one of the very best networks in place for new immigrants. The community system complemented the social worker system and provided reinforcement for the indoctrination. This is not the sole explanation but it does provide a rationale for how socialism became so widespread in the Jewish community.
Other immigrant groups were indoctrinated as Democrats in the same manner by the political machines in the cities where they arrived. It’s wise to remember that the “social worker” in many instances was employed as a reward in the spoils system and owed obligation to the party above all else.
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:47 pm 34. Terrye:Catherine:
Maybe Jews get involved in left wing politics because they know what it is like to be the despised group and lefties, true or false, always portray themselves as fighting for those who can’t fight for themselves.
Perhaps it has to do with survival on some subliminal level. Republicans are individualists and Jews have learned that there is safety in numbers and the ACLU.
Just a guess. And I read Anne Frank also and watched those films. That is why I believe the Islamists are as bad as Bush says they are.
I have seen the pictures and read the accounts and know that there is nothing hatred will not drive people to do.
Even shooting fleeing children in the back.
I still think Bush held his own. I know he repeated himself but the entire debate was redundent. And Kerry is just so frikking weird. Surely I can’t be the only person to see this. I think the pundits kind of thought it was a draw and then got some early polls back from the networks and talked themselves into seeing things differently. I know Mort Kondracke said one thing last night and something else today.
Maybe they just want it to be a race.
Oct 1, 2004 - 4:48 pm 35. Rick Ballard:“Maybe they just want it to be a race.”
They may want it to be a race and we may discuss it as if it is a race but history pretty well says that the race was over when Kerry got a negative bounce out of his convention. Although the talking heads give Kerry a win in the debate and the snap polls confirm it, the win was on style rather than substance. The internals from the polls were terrible for Kerry and there’s a fair chance that he will lose ground in the actual voting polls that will come out shortly. Kerry only does well when he is kept out of sight. To see him and to hear him is to realize that he failed his “How to Fake Sincerity” class very badly. When W projects anger he comes across as being honestly angry (as Catherine noted). When Kerry projects anger one is reminded of a poor actor always searching for the “right” gesture or intonation.
Where Clinton was a master, Kerry is no more than an overanxious understudy. He’s never going to see his name in lights.
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:07 pm 36. Catherine:Yehudit
Great!
I’ll write down your blog name . . .
The Center for Jewish History held what looked like a terrific conference on European anti-semitism last year that’s relevant to what we’re talking about.
I’m not sure I can find a transcript, but Alain Finkielkraut made an observation that’s relevant to this discussion.
He said (this is from memory) that for Europe, all reminders of WWII are guilt-inducing, whereas for America reminders of WWII are “reinforcing” (that wasn’t the word) . . . his point being that Europe killed 6 million Jews while the U.S., ultimately, fought and defeated Nazi Germany.
I think this is profoundly relevant to the question of: Could it happen here?
My friend, the psychoanalyst, said to me that Absolutely, yes, ‘it could happen here.’
I think she’s wrong.
I believe the Holocaust could not happen here.
I think that any kind of violent anti-semitic political movement would directly violate the American “civil religion,” which encompasses the belief that America defeated the Holocaust.
In continental Europe, the psychological situation is vastly more complicated, ambivalent, and as a consequence, potentially more dangerous.
I think the two histories also dictate a fierce U.S. preference for Israel for many, many generations to come.
At a deep, mostly unconscious, entirely “psychoanalytic” level, abandoning Israel, or even deciding to be “evenhanded” between Israel and Arab states, would be blasphemous.
It would be unAmerican.
I could be wrong!
But I don’t think I am.
. . . .
I’ve just found what is probably a decent write-up of the conference.
Here is what it has to say about Finkielkraut’s talk:
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.05.16/news6.html
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:31 pm 37. Catherine:Rick B
I’m interested in hearing more about Bush-being-angry.
I only said what I did because I’d read the same polls you did.
While I was watching I kept thinking, ‘Oh s***. He’s looking angry. He’s losing.’
It wasn’t ’til I read the internals on Gallup, and instapundit’s post on his wife’s reaction, that I thought: Wow.
The rules don’t seem to apply to this guy.
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:35 pm 38. tioedong:As a Gentile, I don’t have the right to comment.
However, back when Barry Goldwater ran for president, Humorist Harry Golden commented:”Barry Goldwater? I KNEW the first Jewish President of the United States would be an Episcopalian”…
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:44 pm 39. Occam's Beard:Rick,
True enough, but doesn’t that explanation just move the phenomenon back one step? Namely, why were those drawn into social work by exposure to socialist concepts Yiddish speakers (and therefore presumably Jews themselves)?
The same sort of argument could be made for the political uniformity of many immigrants (which, as you pointed out, explains the strongly Democratic leanings of first-generation immigrants). But few other groups went in for socialist politics with such enthusiasm, and it’s never been clear (to me, at least) why.
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:48 pm 40. Catherine:everyone
You can listen to the “Old Demons, New Debates” conference here:
http://www.cjh.org/about/old_demons.html
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:56 pm 41. Terrye:Catherine and Rick:
Tonight on Fox the ‘experts’ said that Bush’s performance would catch up with him and those internals would fall, probably by the middle of the week.
Exactly how they know this when they did not even think Kerry won big last night I don’t know.
They said if you were there Bush looked better but they thought the split screen worked against him for the folks at home. They got that from a couple of snap polls.
So now we have to wait for days to know. Why?
If people watched it last night and still gave high marks to Bush despite the fact that Kerry had a good night why would they be talked out of that by pundits or anyone else just because the DNC makes some snotty commercials about Bush’s facial expressions? We have been listening to them call Bush Hitler for months why would a pissy look matter?
I thought Bush held his own. I thought he was too repetitive but given the nature of the questions that was hard to avoid if he was going to remain consistent. He is not Kerry, he doesn’t just make stuff up to liven things up.
I thought he looked irritated because Kerry was being obtuse and obnoxious. It is hard not to register emotion when you are being attacked. Kerry just looked like a rich prick, took his notes and said whatever came to mind.
But when Bush talks about the troops or Allawi he seems engaged in a way that Kerry only displays when he is talking about France or unilateral disarmament.
I dunno.
Oct 1, 2004 - 5:57 pm 42. photoncourier.blogspot.com:Catherine…”I believe the Holocaust could not happen here. I think that any kind of violent anti-semitic political movement would directly violate the American “civil religion,” which encompasses the belief that America defeated the Holocaust.” I *think* you are right, and fervently hope that you are right. However…..how many kids who have gone to school in the last 10-15 years have had any serious exposure to this American civil religion? I do not think we can assume that our understanding of WWII and its meaning is being propagated.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:01 pm 43. Catherine:Occam’s Beard
I’m not sure whether the argument of the book Public Policy and Social Issues: Jewish Sources and Perspectives by Marshall J. Breger (review posted above) also moves it back a step . . . but the review made me wonder whether Jews were earlier than other groups to shift religious fervor to secular fervor (I’m talking about the “church of the left”).
I’ve read & heard that Jews don’t tend to believe in God as frequently as Christians do, and if that’s the case it makes sense that Jews would transfer their religious commitment to social justice to the secular, political realm.
Of course that begs the question of why Jews would begin to lose belief sooner than Christians, assuming that is the case.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:03 pm 44. Catherine:from The Church of the Left Finding meaning in liberalism
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:07 pm 45. Catherine:Terrye
If people watched it last night and still gave high marks to Bush despite the fact that Kerry had a good night why would they be talked out of that by pundits
Well, that’s what I think, too–Rick B & Samuel—any thoughts?
I guess what I’m thinking is that Bush’s “mad face,” like his National Guard service, has already been discounted by the market.
Everyone knows he has a lot of horrible, off-putting facial expressions; they were nothing new.
For better or for worse–and I inend the pun, because we’re “married” to the buy–it was the same old Bush.
Is that wrong?
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:11 pm 46. Catherine:Mark Polling
That depends totally on developental stage.
I can’t imagine letting my kids watch those documentaries in those days if I had been a Jewish parent.
I don’t know what I think about my parents having us kids watch them, or whether I would have done the same.
I’m not sorry; I just don’t know what to think, or why they did it.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:14 pm 47. Catherine:This morning my “typical” son, who is now 10, found out that the terrorists in Baghdad had killed children who were waiting for candy.
He started crying.
My husband said that for this generation terrorism will be what the bomb was to our generation.
(Does this mean we’ll see a terrorist freeze movement 15 years from now?)
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:15 pm 48. Catherine:photoncourier
Probably all of them!
It’s amazing how powerful & all-pervasive American civil religion is.
Our school district is so liberal the nurses at the elementary school felt perfectly comfortable putting up the George-Bush-Curious-George printout on the wall in their office, and yet immediately after 9-11 classes were not only saying the Pledge of Allegiance, but by fourth grade a couple of years later they were starting every day singing Lee Greenwood’s “I’m proud to be an American.”
“I’m proud to be an American / Where at least I know I’m free”: that’s American civil religion.
This idea snuck up on me with my husband.
We were doing all this political battling, and meanwhile he was gobbling down books on Roosevelt in WWII & taking our son to baseball games.
Baseball games are the church of American civil religion, and when I finally got to go to one with the two of them–on a Sunday, no less–I realized my husband had “got religion.”
He has, too.
He himself says baseball games are religious experiences: he feels this consciously.
He was always a left-liberal college professor; now he’s a civil co-religionist.
Probably all Americans have civil religion, whether they want to or not. They might react against it, but they’ve got it. That’s probably the reason why dissenting liberals are so often defensive about their patriotism. Nobody’s calling them unpatriotic, they just feel unpatriotic.
The reason they feel unpatriotic is that the things they’re doing and saying go against their religion.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:25 pm 49. Mark Poling:Catherine, I think there’s a lot more about human psychology that we don’t know than that we do. Just a feeling, and in the hunch department my track record isn’t so good, but there it is.
I grew up in farm country, deep in the hills of West Virginia. The first time I had the term “free range chicken” explained to me I laughed for five minutes. The things many urban dwellers find shocking I still don’t understand.
To me it sounds like your son has his head on straight. I wish I had kids, even though I know there’s a lot of heartache leavened into the joy of raising them. One of those heartaches is probably seeing your kid getting a grip on the idea of evil. But my gut tells me it’s best they learn in a safe environment rather than first-hand.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:34 pm 50. Samuel:Catherine
So sorry, my bat signal got crossed and I missed the call. I have not read all the comments and will do so, but I will leave this first.
I will say that no doubt the Jewish sense of helping the less fortunate is very strong, but it is strong in all Americans, this is a very generous society we live in. I’ll add that the term “Judeo-Christian Ethic” is a very relevant term. I must say that David Dalin has a lot of it right. But I also believe the big government aspect of Jews today is based on many things. First empowerment, they can leverage much more through the government especially with their small numbers, they have followed such since FDR. But still I have some other unique angles I would like to add.
For the most part it is not merely a Jewish thing. It is more a cultural thing somewhat exacerbated by events and circumstances unique to Jews, but we are as subject to change with time as any. One aspect is the fact that Jews disproportionately reside in “Blue States” and even further, they tend to reside in the more urban areas and have for a very long time. This has actually been more the reason then anything as it weakens the prospect of diversification. Protestants and Christians are found in more evenly distributed in diverse areas of the nation Red State and/or Blue State. However we Jews by and large have a much more weighted unique urban influence. The effect of such can not be overlooked or underestimated
Now in my case there are some interesting angles. First my own father likes George Bush, he has said since 9/11 on many occasions, “I’ve got no problems with George Bush, I actually kind of like the guy.” Now make no mistake, he will vote Kerry but I have said before, I almost believe he hopes Bush will win. My mother is a different case, in a certain sense they could find more to argue about then my wife and I, even though they both will vote for Democrats while my wife and I and we are voting differently. The difference? Very simple, if one follows Jews that grow up in the South, they tend to more reflect those values. My own father by nature is much more conservative then my mother and it is not merely a gender thing. Catherine, my father grew up in Atlanta and my mother in Northern New Jersey. One of my father’s favorite movies was “Driving Miss Daisy” because he really could relate. I mean he was Dan Akroyd for heavens sake! My father does wonderful with African Americans (as do I) but more because of his Southern background then patronization. I have come to appreciate the differences. From my standpoint my own Father unwittingly taught me a perspective of life that made my move from Democrat to Republican quite easy.
My Father was also very different from my other Jewish friend‚Äôs parents. He was polite, extremely charming and he still carries a slight southern drawl (most claim it is still strong, maybe I am used to it). He uses the term y’all along with other Southern terms, I have picked up on many of these. He demanded me to show a respect, and he was very different from the average “New York Jew”. He often found such people to be embarrassingly off putting at times. He raised me to understand the importance of honor and respect. He always demanded I respond “yes sir” or “no sir” when addressing him, other adults, or people in authority. Is that a Jewish thing? No! In fact my father has a line, “A New York Catholic is more Jewish then I am.” You see Catherine the cultural aspect of the stereotypical American Jew is as much due to “Urban Blue State Ways” than any other factor and I feel this is often overlooked. He would also say “Jews aren’t pushy, annoying, and obnoxious it is damn New Yorkers that are that way!” Honestly, I believe he is more correct in that than not.
My mother and her side of the family are a whole other story. Want to know what my mother looks and acts like? Look up in the dictionary under the term “Jewish Mother” and you will find her picture, along with all the stereotypical definitions, that is what she is. Her parents spoke to me often in Yiddish, especially in times of high emotion. My relatives down south are very different from the ones up north, again a much overlooked aspect to Jewish culture in America. My Grandparents from both sides came from Europe, my mother‚Äôs to New York and my father‚Äôs to Atlanta, the difference is night and day. I guess in a certain sense when I switched affiliation to Republican Party recently I really just turned to my more Southern roots. Like I have said many times, I‚Äôve had many opportunities for my change being easier to make then most, and I am grateful. I expect my relatives down South to follow my path a little sooner then those up North.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:35 pm 51. Terrye:Catherine:
Yes the terrorists have graduated from mean to baby killer. The bastards.
I think the pundits changed because the DNC was telling its loyal followers to vote in the on line polls, over and over again and spiked the results. Who, the Democrats cheat??
That gave the pundits the impression they were wrong and so they began to go from draw to Kerry win.
As Cici Connoly said on Fox tonight, people like a winner and so after a few days they will hear this over and over and will begin to change their thinking.
Some of those polls were just ridiculous, like 83% Kerry, 7% Bush, or 70% Kerry 27% Bush. I mean come on. Gallup was not that bad.
Cici thinks we are sheep, I guess because the press is.
Bush was up there for 90 minutes. How long does it take to get a look? And the looks were not strange or weird, they were just annoyed or disgusted. I did not think much of it.
I was watching Kerry for a lot of that time and I thought the incessant writing was strange. It was as if he stopped paying attention the minute he stopped talking. rude.
Kerry will have to deal with the commercial which has him going through the tortured reasoning that passes for his stands on the issues.
I said the war was a mistake before I said it wasn’t.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:38 pm 52. Rick Ballard:Occam’s Beard,
Wrt “moving back one step”, I would note that socialism in its many flavors was a peculiarly 19th century phenomenon. A comment section doesn’t allow the room (and I don’t have the inclination anyway) to explore Jewish involvement in the development of socialism but I will note that it was heavy and widespread. London, Paris and various German cities were intellectual centers for the development for various brands of socialism and Jewish intellectuals were instrumental in the propagation of whatever flavor they favored. I believe that Catherine has a point in her comment about socialism being a substitute for traditional religious faith. Socialism has been faith based since inception with reason being worshipped in lieu of a more distant deity. I realize that this is not an answer but I believe that the answer does lie in Jewish participation in the development of socialism from its genesis.
Catherine
You type much faster than I can think. W’s anger is real and most people perceive it as being appropriately directed at the terrorists and the fools (your cue, John) who misunderstand the seriousness of the situation. Most Americans really do perceive terrorism as the most important issue of the day and most of them understand that Kerry is a poseur willing to say anything for advantage and lacking in the most rudimentary principles. That is at the center of granting Kerry the style points for the debate but giving W the substance points.
It’s coming down to a matter of trust and the percentage of people dumb enough to trust Cap’n Cut’n Run will not exceed 45% on Nov. 2. I think that Bush can well afford to show even more anger – staying cool in the face of child killers is not a plus.
Oct 1, 2004 - 6:53 pm 53. Terrye:Rick:
I mean sheesh, the man was asked what the most serious problem facing America was and he said nuclear proliferation and then proceeded to say we should be disarmed.
These monsters are killing children who line up for candy and Kerry is worried about America having a bomb.
Oct 1, 2004 - 7:07 pm 54. jerry:terrye:
I am not sure what the experts meant about catching up to him. Do they mean that people will mull over the result and move to Kerry or that people will change my mind about the who really won?
My own opinion has changed since yesterday. I think Kerry is the big loser. People rated him on style more then content. He looked better. But once you start reading the text Kerry has far more negatives then Bush and few positives. He scored on Bush because in the immortal words of the University of Illinois political scientist Milton Rakove the key to political success was stated by Richard J. Daley, i.e., “don’t make no waves, don’t back no losers.” Presidents must make the decisions while Presidential aspirants make statements. Presidential errors are more serious then candidate errors.
Here’s what you walk away from with Kerry. He feels more threatened by Russian Nukes then Al Qaeda terrorists; he thinks you can sign agreements with NK and Iran; that building a low yield nuclear bunker buster puts a democratic society on the same plane as Kim Jong Il; that he will put the opinions of dictators ahead of the interests of the American people; and finally that he believes that our allies the Poles are beneath contempt. [note: More Polish soldiers died in Normandy then French] There are no Bush negatives of that magnitude in the text.
I have reassessed my pre-game appraisal. I think I nailed it after all.
Oct 1, 2004 - 7:35 pm 55. RogerA:A long time ago on a thread far far away I asked Samuel why American jews are liberal–and his resonse was as always a gem.
More to the point, I think we need to let the situation in Iraq play itself out. The takeover in Samarra will replicate itself in other strongholds in the Sunnie triangle. Wretchard has long ago spelled out why the Sunni die hards cannot win. Allied military power will eventually prevail–Assuming the president wins the election.
Jerry is spot on–and I think the internals of the Gallup poll give the security hawks reason to cheer. We can all, when the time comes, criticize the President’s other agenda–but these pale in light of the immediate threat. We on this thread have often been accused of being an echo chamber–I reject that–we are focused on the war on terror which is the prime threat facing our way of life. When that threat is confronted we will, I suspect, differ widely on the other policy that face our nation.
Kerry, and the liberal “progressives” offer only warmed over and ill thought out prescriptions; none of which are viable in light of what other nations are on record as saying.
The debate did not illuminate those issues. But, I am encouraged as I read what people thought in the Gallup internals. The American public has much more good judgment that the MSM “analysists.”
They are full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.
Oct 1, 2004 - 8:08 pm 56. Yehudit:“The Center for Jewish History held what looked like a terrific conference on European anti-semitism last year that’s relevant to what we’re talking about.
I’m not sure I can find a transcript, but Alain Finkielkraut made an observation that’s relevant to this discussion.”
I was at that conference. You can listen to audio files of all the panels.
There was very little at the conference I didn’t know already, and I found the academic nature of it frustrating (so what are we going to DO about it??) but it was reassuring to see all those global pundits agreeing on the problem and naming it.
Oct 1, 2004 - 8:16 pm 57. Terrye:jerry and samuel:
I think you are right, at least I hope you are. I was referring to the people on the panel I was listening to. For some reason they think the internals are going to change, but not the win lose numbers.
I think they don’t know, how can they? I think they had their ideas of how things went and then they saw all those call in polls and that made them reposition themselves and then the internals on the Gallup poll were not consistent with the win/lose numbers and so they decided people would change their overall opinions to match the win lose numbers in time.
Bullshit. I am not going to change my mind because a bunch of people on an internet poll think Kerry has better presentation or expresses himself better. I don’t think most other people will either.
Oct 1, 2004 - 8:32 pm 58. richard mcenroe:The pundits? Hey, if they ain’t typing in pajamas, they ain’t squat…
the online debate polls were totally corrupted. The Kerry campaign made a huge e-mail push to “stuff” the digital ballots. I know, I got the e-mail. The links I posted here the night of the debate came from it. I even forwarded it to Roger.
I don’t look for a big move in the election polls based on the debate.
Oct 1, 2004 - 9:16 pm 59. mrp:After reflection during the last twenty-four hours, my appreciation for the President’s performance has steadily increased.
While watching the debate itself, I felt that W. was playing it safe and cool. He was never flustered; he didn’t raise his voice or denigrate his opponent.
The conventional wisdom before the event was that ‘foreign policy’ topic was Bush’s strong point. It was – specifically – as a source of support conferred by the voters – but not as a relative position of strength for debate purposes.
There is a reason why the Kerry campaign decided last week to make the WoT-Iraq its main focus.
The War on Terror with its Afghanistan and Iraq components offered a number of vulnerabilities that were open to a skilled opponent willing to make accusations based on second-guessing, hindsight, deliberate obfuscation, and duplicity. John Kerry employed all of those weapons, knowing that his enablers in the MSM would ignore his deceptions and contradictory statements. The evidence that his trust was well-placed is overwhelming.
Senator Kerry also laid a trap (or two). Roger was right that the ‘bunker-buster’ nuclear topic was off the radar until now. So why did Kerry bring it up so late in the campaign? I think it was a deliberate ploy (with a secondary purpose of encouraging the aging nuclear freeze activists). Kerry was hoping that W. would defend the ‘bunker-buster’ program as a means of deterring Iran and NK, allowing Kerry, or better, Jim Lehrer to immediately follow-up with a direct question on whether the Bush administration was planning a pre-emptive strike on the Axis of Two’s nuclear facilities (which would then be followed by the charge: Warmonger!).
President Bush, to his credit, didn’t rise to the bait. He stayed on message; he allowed Senator Kerry to continue flip-flopping on matters of national security. And with his extraordinary demonstration of self-discipline, the President left Kerry to make the take-it-to-the- bank ‘global test’ soundbite gaff.
Furthermore, by keeping on message and by not allowing Kerry to drag him into an unpresidential accusatory shoutfest, Bush’s unwillingness to hammer Kerry has provoked the administration’s supporters in talk radio and the web to spend the last 24 hours explaining in exquisite detail every falsehood, ‘mixed message’, and contradiction uttered by John Kerry during the debate.
Very nice work. Joe Lockhart claimed it was a consensus draw. That – Joe- was a nice try. Heh.
Oct 1, 2004 - 9:29 pm 60. Sonetka:I know so little about Jewish history that I’m afraid to comment at all, so I’ll stay simple on that score. Since the Jews, historically, seem to have emphasized education in far greater proportion than their non-Jewish counterparts, any sort of movement which is university-based (as a lot of protest movements are) is going to see what looks like a disproportionate Jewish presence.
Re Treblinka/Lubyanka: Actually, while it may have been called Dzherzhinskii Square before the collapse of the USSR, it isn’t now – it’s plain Lubyanka Square, and the statue of Feliks that once stood in the center has gone to an obscure and unregretted end. So had Kerry referred to it as Lubyanka Square it would be correct, in the same way that referring to “St. Petersburg” would be understandable even though it’s changed names a few times this century as well.
As for Kerry and his psychological issues re the two names; I’d also be inclined to his simply getting them two Slavic names mixed up (”They all sound alike to me!”) And I agree that if Bush had done it, we’d still be awash in the lame witticisms stemming therefrom – that is, as soon as every MSM had hastily looked up “Treblinka” and figured out the difference
. I’d be inclined to give him a pass on the genealogy thing too, though that’s a personal inclination since my mother’s family (with the exception of my mother) are also from that part of the world and have so little curiosity about their background that it’s truly amazing. My mom once tried to ask one of her great-aunts about their family, if she had any memories of earlier generations, and the great-aunt just looked at her and said “Is this some sort of joke?” I could be descended from Ivan the Terrible for all my ancestors bothered to check things out. So I’d argue that it may just mean Kerry is just incredibly…noncurious. The Irish thing bothers me, though; I mean, it’s one thing just not to care where you come from, but putting on the Son Of The Auld Sod act for votes…ugh. This whole worshipping of the Irish in politics business should have been buried with Jack Kennedy. (I’ve got Irish ancestors as well, so I can say that without immediately being plagued by snakes, or whatever 
).
Oct 1, 2004 - 10:59 pm 61. blogaddict:I know I’m late to the party, but I have a LOT to say (hope someone is still reading this thread!!)
On the subject of Kerry and Treblinka, I’m sort of with Roger on this, except with a twist. I think it does have quite a bit of significance and that it has to do with his Jewish past, but for a slightly different reason than Roger has stated.
I read a really long article a while back (can’t find this particular article right now, unfortunately, so I can’t link it) that discussed how Kerry learned that he was Jewish. I do believe he didn’t know; it was a DEEP dark family secret, and I believe it is a key to some of his psychological problems, of which he has quite a few.
His paternal grandfather was the convert (converted to Catholicism back in Europe, before he came here), and was a self-made and very successful man who committed suicide in 1921, in his late forties, by shooting himself in the men’s room at the Copley Plaza in Boston.
Not only were the Jewish roots a secret, but the suicide was a secret also. Kerry only learned of the suicide from his father on his father’s deathbed (in the early 90s, I believe–I’m doing this from memory), but still didn’t know about the conversion, although he had somehow learned earlier that his grandmother had been a convert. Then, in the mid to late 90s, with the help of Boston Globe reporter Kranish, he tracked down the fact that the grandfather had been a convert also.
Here is Kerry, describing his reaction on learning of the suicide, “That explains a lot. It connects the dots. My dad was sort of painfully remote and shut off and angry…” http://www.othmar.at/archiv/kerry/docs/bosten_globe_surprising_history.html
The point I’m making is this: I believe that Kerry was deeply affected by the secrecy about the conversion AND the secrecy about the suicide. He was brought up with a lie at the center of his family, and probably sensed it in some way. I think this is at least part of the source of his propensity to lie and his need to puff himself up.
I think the story he told during the debate about the KGB files in “Treblinka Square” was a lie, or at least an exaggeration of some sort–not just the “Treblinka” part, but the story itself. I don’t think it happened, at least not the way he said it. I don’t think he can help himself–lies and puffery are just part of his nature. I think the “Treblinka” slipped out as a sort of clue that he was lying–almost like his tongue gave him away. And I think the fact that he gave the name of a death camp in which Jews were killed is a very veiled, significant, and Freudian reference to the family lie with which he was raised: the suicide of his converted Jewish grandfather, who was born in Europe.
Oct 2, 2004 - 12:27 am 62. Terrye:Blog:
I had no idea that Kerry’s grandfather killed himself. That explains a lot about the secret nature of his family. To talk aobut one thing, would lead to the other. And Catholics do not hold with suicide.
I just hink he is weird. I can’t help it, the man gives me the willies.
I know how bush felt. I had to give talks in front of rural groups for years when I did volunteer work for the Citizens Action Coalition here in Indiana. Once I had to speak at a Lodge and I had a headache. I was launching into the talk and out there in the audience I encountered a look so baleful and that it threw me off. I just lost the thread and for the life of me I could not get it back. I had the material down pat, but it was gone.
It was awful. I thought of that experience when I watched the debate the other night and I felt sorry for Bush.
Oct 2, 2004 - 4:30 am 63. Jamie Irons:Probably eveybody’s gone, but…
Rick
The New York Times and WaPo debate post mortems cited by Hugh Hewitt really depressed me. If these articles are fair indicators, Kerry fooled a lot of swing voters.
Catherine
I love the way you think things through. Your notes on your childhood exposure to the Holocaust really awakened some memories in me. Like you, I grew up in Illlinois farm country, was raised protestant, and married a Jew. (I converted to Judaism.) When I was 11 or 12, for some reason I started checking out books on the Holocaust from the public library (in Wheaton, Illinois). I think these books changed my life. I knew no Jews in childhood (I don’t think there were any in Wheaton at that time!) but at Yale my closest friends were all Jews. I think it was the Jewish respect for, and tradition of, scholarship, coupled with the “outsider” aspect of being Jewish, that resonated for me. Anyway, your post made me remember those early books, which I hadn’t thought of for a long time.
All
I had a dinner party last night and my very good friend, David, an engineer who is pretty naive about politics, told me about having read the NYT piece last weekend on bloggers. I had to set him straight on how terribly distorted that account had been, and he was fascinated to learn the details (which we are all “expert” in) of Ra^[th]ergate.
Maybe one more person will be moved a little further off the MSM schneid.
Jamie Irons
Oct 2, 2004 - 9:42 am 64. Terrye:Jamie:
I will not read anything in the NYT but I scanned the Wapo article and anyone who was glad that Kerry jumped the president for tying together 9/11 and Iraq was not going to vote for Bush anyway.
I still think that Bush did ok. I know other people may not have seen what I did, but Bush looking annoyed when I am scraming at the TV myself does not bother me. I am not undecided.
I think anyone who is in that so called place at this point in time can not even be counted on to show up and vote.
If Bush does really well on the next two debates will these same people do an about face? If that is all it takes then I don’t think that is very fair to either candidate.
I really think that people had come to think of Kerry as such a dufus that all it toook was one good night and they were impressed.
Oct 2, 2004 - 12:46 pm 65. Jamie Irons:Terrye
Yes, thanks. I think you’ve nailed it with this:
I really think that people had come to think of Kerry as such a dufus that all it toook was one good night and they were impressed….
Jamie Irons
Oct 2, 2004 - 1:44 pm 66. richard mcenroe:Mark Poling — Let Kerry order the wine? Not me, baby. He’s the kind of poseur who’d wind up with a bottle that had corked and would try to tell you the ‘63 was supposed to taste like that…
Oct 2, 2004 - 3:10 pm 67. bruce:Catherine:
I really like your posts too. It is rare to find such careful thinking-out-loud in blog land, and I am glad that this blog welcomes it.
I think some of the Jewish “lefy-ness” comes from the whole idea of Tikkun Olam – that God created the world, but it is up to US to perfect it. That is a responsibility, and when you have a responsibility, that means you have to actually do stuff. It is not enough to “let the market take care of it,” which is the more right-wing way to go at social problems. The Jewish tradition is also as much focused on the responsiblity of the community to take care of people — more so than the Christian tradition, which focuses much much more on personal responsiblity/personal salvation. The community, in the modern context, pretty much means the government. Hence, support for social programs, etc… the lefty agenda.
With respect to the question of the left and capitalism… I think you have it just right when you say the market is a necessary evil for lefties. There is no better way to organize the production and distribution of goods than capitalism… but if left unchecked, the powerless and weak will be crushed, and left to die at the side of the road. (That is nature’s way too, with evolution…)
But what about the flip side of the question — the attidude of the right-wing to government involvement in the economy? Maybe government involvement is the right wing’s necessary evil. One of Marx’s points in the Communist Manifest was that workers should have a 40 hour work week… something we take for granted now, but that at his time was… revolutionary! Don’t most republicans think the government is a “necessary evil” in things like regulating monopolies to preserve real competition; the SEC’s oversight of the securities markets so that investors have, at least, good information; creating uniform regulations so they don’t have to follow rules on a state-by-state basis…
bruce
Oct 3, 2004 - 3:35 pm 68. MD:A pedantic point. Treblinka was not a “concentration camp;” it was an extermination facility. It did one thing and one thing only: it exterminated Jews on the day of their arrival. The Germans constructed only 5 such camps, all in Poland: Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Chelmno, and Majdanek. Treblinka was the destination of the Warsaw Ghetto. In the summer of 1942, the Germans liquidated 360,000 residents of the Ghetto in about 60 days in Treblinka, or about 6,000 per day. Treblinka was a little east of Warsaw, just south of the River Bug and Siedlce station — the main line east to Minsk and Smolensk. The only Jews who survived Treblinka were “work Jews,” imprisoned at Treblinka by the Germans to perform tasks in the camp; when the camp closed these Jews were also killed. Just as at Sobibor, the work Jews contrived a break-out near the end of the camp’s life, and some did escape and survive the war (a very small number, less than 10). Treblinka’s commandant, Franz Stangl, was extradited from Brazil in 1970 and tried in Germany. He died in prison from a heart attack. He was the only extermination camp commandant who was ever brought to justice. It is estimated that 800,000 to 1,200,000 Jews were exterminated at Treblinka in less than a year of operation.
Oct 5, 2004 - 10:41 am 69. Asparagirl:Roger-
I’m a Republican and thus perhaps disinclined to like Kerry. But I’m also an amateur genealogist, and I have to say in all fairness that Kerry probably *didn’t* know about his paternal grandparents being Jewish.
What’s more, there is no evidence in the US vital records (as far as I can find) that would have indicated their true origins–his grandparents covered their tracks pretty well. I wrote a blog post about this back in February, 2003, when Kerry was just one of several candidates for the nomination:
http://www.yuppiesofzion.com/archives/000670.php
Screenshots of his ancestors’ census records and Ellis Island records are included.
Oct 6, 2004 - 5:24 pm