Abe Greenwald botches the reason for Senator Bernie Sanders' rejection of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery's original language about President George W. Bush that included the language referencing,

“the attacks on September 11, 2001, that led to wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Greenwald claims,

So the attacks of September 11 now had nothing to do with the war in Afghanistan either. In a few (very few) generations our children’s children will be writing papers about that horrible day in the fall of 2001 when pilot error killed 3000 Americans and that more horrible day a few months later when the U.S. President firebombed Afghanistan to open up the first front in the Halliburton War.

But is that what Sanders is saying?

According to CNS News, which Greenwald references as the source for Sanders' complaint, Sanders was rejecting only linkage to the Iraq War, not linkage to Afghanistan.

Sanders objected to the sign's language because he believed it suggested a linkage between the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

And sure enough, this is clearly what the Gallery is appropriately responding to.

Our label was not intended to imply that there was a causal connection between the attacks that occurred on 9/11 and the subsequent U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Greenwald should retract his allegations immediately.

As a former culture blogger for Commentary, I used to think it was creepy but also amusing that there were certain ideological constraints on what you could say in the magazine's blog about non-ideological subjects. It was frowned upon, for instance, to suggest that W.H. Auden was a great poet even when he was going through a fitful and uneasy phase as a Communist. And did you know that the term "fossil record" is verboten in this once respected journal for New York intellectuals, even when used in defense of so worthy a figure as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and in defiance of so wretched a one as Osama bin Laden? I found that out the hard way, too. It's not that the editors are creationists, you see. They just don't like to upset the creationists.

So I don't know why I registered even the mildest shock upon spotting an advertisement on contentions for an organization calling itself NARTH, which sounds to me like the name M. Night Shyamalan would give the otherworldly creature who brought democracy to the Middle East. NARTH stands for the "National Association for the Research & Therapy of Homosexuality." It purports to cure gays, in other words, using methods that have been discredited by the psychiatric community for decades. This is its mission statement:

We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

I'd pay real money for a group that promised to end unwanted heterosexual attractions. But is this really what neoconservatism needs right now as ever breaker of misfortune crashes down upon it--pseudo-scientific bigotry?

Readers with long, macabre memories may recall that Norman Podhoretz, long-time editor-in-chief of Commentary, wrote an essay for Harper's in 1977, laying a heaping portion of the blame for the squalor of that era's antiwar movement at the feet of queers. Actually, there wasn't an Anglo-American conflict in the 20th century in which the Pod failed to find sodomites losing or debilitating the entire struggle. In World War I, he wrote, "the best people looked to other men for sex and romance," a compliment of sorts, but one that neglects that fact that Wilfred Owen and Sigfried Sassoon also found time for writing poetry. As for World War II, Norman's ultra-masculine slights of the rank-and-file English soldiery led one angry correspondent to write in that he "had not previously realized that Winston Churchill fought the Battle of Britain almost singlehandedly while England's ubiquitous faggotry sneered and jeered from below."

I've lost track of what numerical world war are we're up to now in the Podhoretz encyclopedia. But when McCain loses in two weeks, can buggery be too far down on the list of reasons why?

UPDATE:  Since this post went up, the NARTH ad has been removed from the contentions homepage.

Yiddish modernism: High design from Henryk Berlewi This week in Jewish media:

• Kickass Yiddish Modernism. [Jewschool]
• Commentary considers beards: “By forbidding Jews to destroy their hair, the Bible warns them away from seeking the siren song of eternal youth.” Yes, but eternal youth is sexy! [Commentary]
• Jewlicious is all over the story of Don Siegelman, the imprisoned former Alabama governor. Siegelman is serving seven years for bribery, but he might have been targeted by Karl Rove as the lone powerful Democrat in a heavily Republican state. [Jewlicious, 60 Minutes]
• LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Honorary Sephardic Jew. [The Forward]
  
• Did you know that Patti Stanger, Bravo’s “Millionaire Matchmaker,” is a third-generation yenta? Did you know that out of the reality show’s seven episodes, five feature Jewish millionaires? Bad, bad, bad for the Jews! [San Diego Jewish Journal]
  
• Remember that episode of My So-Called Life where Angela says she’s jealous of Anne Frank because she got to hang out in an attic with her crush? A photo of that crush, Peter Schiff, has turned up in Europe. [Yahoo, the Yada Blog]
• Remember that Dave Chappelle sketch about the blind African-American KKK member? (For some reason I can only find it online in German.) Pinchads Zlotosvsky used to be a Neo-Nazi. Then he found out his mother was Jewish, and now he’s ultra-Orthodox. [Ha'aretz]

Michael Chabon: He's trained to interpret communications from Bizarro World As Izzy noted yesterday and Michael followed up on today, Michael Chabon wrote a ringing endorsement of Obama in the Washington Post. Concerned that Commentary might lose its credentials as the most borderline-delusional magazine in the Jewish world today, Jeopardy champion John Podhoretz penned a reply to Chabon in which he referred to The Yiddish Policeman's Union as "a work of anti-Zionism so thoroughgoing that it makes Mearshimer and Walt look like Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion by contrast." Excellent piece of prose, John! It almost makes daddy's "World War IV" argument sound rational!

But with characteristic class, Chabon came back with a gentleman's knockout:

Dear Mr. Podhoretz,

Criticism from you is, as always, particularly sweet, though I am forever grateful for having been trained, by years of reading Superman comic books, to properly interpret communications from the Bizarro World.

So, thanks for the reassurance and endorsement of my views.

Sometimes I can’t not help not enjoying your writing, either!

Sincerely,

Michael Chabon

(I'm assuming it's the real Chabon who commented there, but obviously it could have been anyone.)

 

In 1963, the young editor of Commentary, Norman Podhoretz, wrote a strangely confessional article (the first intimation of what, full-blown, would become his style), which he called “My Negro Problem—and Ours.” Its disquieting point, made the year of the March on Washington, was that too much hatred attached to race for integration ever to succeed. Podhoretz offered himself as evidence, confessing to the fear, envy and contempt with which he had grown up in Brooklyn under the siege of “Negro gangs.” Those streets still seemed to him world-historical ground: “There is a fight, they win and we retreat, half whimpering, half with bravado. My first nauseating experience with cowardice, and my first appalled realization that there are people in the world who do not seem to be afraid of anything, who act as though they have nothing to lose.”

His solution was radical, and a little titillating, given his admitted weakness for blacks’ “physical grace”: racism could be ended only by mixed raced marriages, what was called (though not usually by people from the Upper West Side) ”miscegenation.” Ultimately, whites and blacks would pair off, have children, and raise up a new American type; “the Negro problem can be solved in this country in no other way.” Indeed, if his own daughter should wish “to marry one,” Podhoretz wrote, he would “rail and rave and rant and tear out my hair,” but then he would hope to have the “courage,” the manliness, to do his “duty” and offer his blessing.

What then of the future of American Jews? Podhoretz wasn’t sure, but then he also wasn’t sure why he should be sure. “I think I know why the Jews once wished to survive, though I am less certain as to why we still do. They not only believed that God had given them no choice, but were tied to a memory of past glory and the dream of imminent redemption.” Podhoretz thought it unnecessary to add that educated American Jews did not think this way anymore. Except for the (quaint) Orthodox—or except in the metaphorical sense—Jews did not really believe they had commandments to perform. The categorical imperative was to get a degree.

Indeed, Jews now had choices, not the least of which was how to make something interesting of Jewish origins once they had moved to Manhattan—to a world far removed from the Manichaean street fights of an immigrant childhood. This was a world where (as Podhoretz would put in his 1967 book, Making It) one might give orders rather than take them, have money rather than live in poverty, gain fame rather than die in obscurity. To call oneself a Jew was also a choice, of course. His childhood persecution—a tiny American token of the immense persecution just ended—made this somewhat daring and even cool.

But was it really interesting being, as Jonathan Miller put it, Jewish? Simply to spite anti-Semites? What would hold the next generation of American Jews together if organized synagogue life felt vaguely faked; if, for all the differences, one could feel oneself in a shared culture with James Baldwin—who admitted, at least according to Podhoretz, that all blacks hated whites; if the Ethics of the Fathers seemed okay, but not quite up to Whitman? “In thinking about the Jews,” Podhoretz wrote, “I have often wondered whether their survival as a distinct group was worth the hair on the head of a single infant.”

Podhoretz has grown ashamed of his article, I bet, but I always thought it qualified as poignant—not, clearly, for his extrapolation from schoolyards to public policy, or his creepily sexualized panacea, or the histrionic way he grasped intermarriage. Rather, I was (and remain) impressed by the open-spirited way he questioned the future of American Jews, indeed, the way he unselfconsciously seemed to confuse American Jews with open-spiritedness itself. For the up-and-coming audience Podhoretz knew he was writing for, it was Jewish to be ill at ease, to be for the underdog and against phonies. As Lenny Bruce had it, Ray Charles was Jewish, Eddie Cantor was goyish, fruit salad was Jewish, lime Jell-O, goyish. Making sense of these distinctions made us tortured. Tortured was also cool.

Was this Jewish culture? Well, it was culture made by Jews. We had Bernstein and Bellow. Roth had Bernstein and Bellow. As my late friend (and Podhoretz’s eventual foil), Dissent’s editor Irving Howe put it, American Jews lived on “the questions.” Israel, for its part, was providing something more like answers, something more resilient and demanding, rooted in Hebrew, there for the long haul if it could survive its siege. But for American Jews before 1967—whose Major Organizations had not yet turned Jerusalem into their Epcot Center—it was American liberalism that was the triumph. Israel’s victories were admired all the more because, after the European horrors, the country was seen as something that remained distantly valiant and progressive. The Weavers sang the songs of Jezreel Valley pioneers in a medley with anthems of Republican Spain. This made Israel a really Jewish state.

And those of us who were younger, who came into our own in the Sixties, also took for granted this amorphous, self-critical enlightenment that Podhoretz took for granted. It fit with the natural defenses of classical liberalism we experienced at the university. We were citizens, there was a commonwealth: nobody had—as JS Mill had written—a monopoly on the truth. No book was sacred, but the right to interpret books was. The constitution was our real Torah, Justice Brandeis, our Rashi.

Our parents loved Brandeis too, of course. They counted -steins and -bergs during the Nobel announcements; they circulated, half-conspiratorially, the real names of Jack Warner and Bennett Cerf. Which was fine with us. If Sandy Koufax wouldn’t pitch on Yom Kippur, then there wasn’t much we needed to add. Yet we, in contrast (or in spite), spoke also of Mill or Orwell or William James at the dinner table; we plotted a graduation somewhat more ambitious than the one our parents had planned for us. Some of us even thought to take our dream of civil society to, of all places, Israel, which Commentary’s articles by liberal young Israelis (e.g., Amos Elon) seemed to invite—but that’s another story.

Most of all, I suppose, we loved the civil rights movement, for all the obvious reasons, and not only because Rabbi Heschel marched with Martin Luther King. Actually, few of us knew who Heschel was except for the fact that he marched with Dr. King. Podhoretz tried to tell us, in his 1963 article, that our “abstract commitment to the cause of Negro rights will not stand the test of a direct confrontation,” that Jews would flee to the suburbs, send their kids to private schools, etc. But here he was missing his own point. The civil rights movement was not something we did for “Negroes.” It was the very way we defined ourselves, defined the civil society we fervently saw ourselves helping to shape. Our problem was not—as Sophie Portnoy (the real spiritual guide of the neo-cons) had it—that Jews were at fault for being “too good.” Our hunger was to live in certain kind of America. It would be spacious enough for “the questions,” for a sense of tragedy, for self-criticism, for anomalies like us, free at last.

I am recalling Podhoretz’s article now because there is something about the current presidential election that is teasing out a moment of truth for American Jews much like the one that article once punctuated. Specifically, there is Barack Obama, whose personification of integration in this old liberal sense can’t help but make Jews question not only what they want, but who they are.

It did not take long for the young Podhoretz to conclude that, instead of marrying African-Americans out of existence, it was simpler to push them around in ways that, as a child, he could not imagine doing. By the 1970s, his magazine was, among other things, challenging affirmative action and publishing tendentious articles about race and IQ, turning Stokely Carmichael and Ocean Hill-Brownsville into a new assault by Negro gangs. (I wrote about all of this at length in “Breaking Faith: Commentary and the American Jews,” Dissent, Spring 1981, from which some of these ruminations are borrowed.)

Still, Podhoretz’s real breakthrough came, not when he reimagined blacks as more or less permanent adversaries, but when he reimagined Jews as a more or less permanent interest group—when he reimagined the old liberalism as a trendy behaviorism and argued that “Jewish interests” (protection of wealth, “support for Israel,” etc.) required nothing more than a common sense use of power.

This may seem an academic point but its implications cut very close to the bone now. For what exactly do Jews (or all of us, really) mean by a society of choices? The liberalism we once knew assumed fallible citizens, skeptical of received wisdoms, struggling to come up with some common, provisionally defined good. Podhoretz assumed us to be atomized bundles of appetites, organized into “socialized” groups, getting what we can from a competition for inherently scarce goods (like money, power and fame). Old liberals were interested in rights; now we were right to have interests. Hannah Arendt once wrote that this behaviorism can’t be realistic, but it “can win.” More recently, Jon Stewart put things more sweetly when he told Chris Matthews that his world of power, interests, and manipulated perceptions (so much like the one Podhoretz embraced in 1970s), was “sad.”

What’s the Jewish interest? I’ll leave that to Podhoretz and (the latest tough he’s attached himself to) Rudy Giuliani to tell Florida today. But what if this was always the wrong question? What if American Jews are not an interest group but restless, loosely connected citizens—curiously proud of (what Aharon Appelfeld calls) their “fate,” not Christian but not unChristian, no longer immigrants, educated and well-off, to be sure, but still not quite comfortable, looking to make sense of themselves in an evolving America? What if, by choosing, they show themselves who they are?

This is, perhaps, a very roundabout way of saying that Barack Obama got me with hello. Pretty much everything he’s said and done since he started his campaign makes me proud to have voted for him (by absentee ballot, from Jerusalem). But I would be less than honest if I did not explain why voting for him makes me feel like a Jew in America, and in Israel for that matter, in a way I haven’t felt for a very long time. I think of Obama’s candidacy a little like the way I think of my first vote for Pierre Trudeau in 1967, or the emergence of the European Union in my lifetime. It is a kind of show-me-don’t-tell-me proof that the essential premises of liberalism, which Jews have championed since 1848—by which they have defined themselves since Heine—are, well, true.

I know there is something terribly uncool about this. I should, presumably, focus on the subtle differentiators of Obama’s policies, like Paul Krugman and the mandates. I would shrug off Obama’s attacks on anti-Semitism and at least take seriously that his church once honored Farrakhan, as Richard Cohen warns us. I would be skeptical about callowness, as Leon Wieseltier warns himself, plumping for the new McCain; I would, like Wieseltier, not be taken in by Obama’s suave, since Wieseltier (“I am myself not unsuave”) troubles to instruct us on “how much it accomplishes and how little.” I am old enough to know better, or certainly old enough to know how suave it is to show off that I know better.

Indeed, if I weren’t uncool I would just focus on Obama’s political virtues, his detailed progressivism, his efforts to run without polarizing electors, his hundreds of thousands of donations, his courses on the constitution, his intellect, his story, his cadences. I would, like Andrew Sullivan, want to see his as the face of America, as we try to redeem America’s place in a dangerously small world. Since I live half my life in Israel, I would emphasize his evolving approach to Middle East peacemaking, his hint that we all know what the deal is, that it is time to get it, his reliance on foreign policy people who seem both realistic and fair, his even-handedness, his cosmopolitanism, his willingness to talk with all parties, his insistence that the Israeli-Palestinian bloodshed cannot be ignored any longer.

But none of this gets at the big opportunity here. Imagine, by analogy, what it felt like for Frenchmen, a couple of generations after the Dreyfus Affair, to vote for Leon Blum in 1936. Don’t tell me that the only thing at stake was who was the most experienced Social Democrat to govern “on day one.” (And please, New Republic editors, if you are reading this, don’t respond that Blum had failed by 1938; Obama will have the first Congressional majority without Southern Democrats ever, not a tragic alliance with Communists following Stalin’s zig-zag line.)

Anyway, to those of us who’ve been heartsick since the assassinations, the debasement of commercial television, the political triangulations, the vaguely reciprocal threats of creationism and hip-hop, Obama’s voice sounds just prophetic enough. Der mensch tracht und Gott lacht, my father used to say, “Men strive, God laughs.” Fair enough. But I have, I’m afraid, a dream.

* Cross-posted at BernardAvishai.com

The Soviet refusenik par excellence dropped by Commentary's offices in midtown Manhattan to play chess and kibitz about Annapolis and Iran. My friend Sam Munson, Commentary's online editor, has video tape. (Jewcy brings you post office-party porn, they give you the former Israeli defense minister. Frankly, I'm torn.)

 

The leftist origins of neo-conservatism are frequently exaggerated but Joshua Muravchik is one of those neo-cons who really did cut his teeth in the radical left scene before heading rightwards – he was a member of the Young People's Socialist League who has ended up at the American Enterprise Institute. It is perhaps not so surprising then,in his overview of the current state of neo-conservatism, for Commentary Magazine, which is a must-read defence of neo-conservative foreign policy (“the only game in town”), he addresses the old question of revolution from above or below. Francis Fukuyama has explained his disaffection from neoconservatism on the grounds that, in contrast to his own, “Marxist” approach to democratization, his former friends and allies had behaved like “Leninists.” By this he means to separate his analysis in The End of History and the Last Man (1992) from the policies to which that analysis seminally contributed. In writing about the “end of history,” Fukuyama now says, he was only attempting to discover the historical laws that, sooner or later, would lead all nations to democracy. But just as Lenin took matters into his own hands when he tired of waiting for Marx’s predicted revolution, so had the neoconservatives tried, fatally, to force the pace of democratization. Muravchik argues against Fukuyama by showing that many of the advanced democracies reached that stage not due to some historically inevitable process but as a result of intervention – sometimes military. “It turns out that we are all “Leninists,” he says. Fascinating though such a discussion is (and who could argue with the writer’s point?) it is disappointing that Muravchik does not go further into this analogy and address what is surely the fundamental question facing both neo-conservatives and liberal interventionists in the wake of the Iraq disaster, namely what if interventions in favour of democracy in the Middle East end up producing something even worse than the status quo?

Continue reading...

In its June 2007 issue, the monthly magazine Commentary revives the genre of gullible travels.“My Saudi Sojourn” is Joshua Muravchik’s account of his recent trip to Saudi Arabia and a servile love letter to the most benighted of all Sunni Arab regimes. “My Saudi Sojourn” might as well have been titled “Walter Duranty goes to Arabia,” after the New York Times journalist whose accounts of life in Stalin’s USSR downplayed the great miseries inflicted by the regime. Duranty spawned a journalistic genre that could be described as “propaganda tourism,” cheerful travelogues that littered American newspapers and magazines in the 1930s and painted a benign picture of Stalin’s ...

Michael Oren's new book, Power, Faith and Fantasy, charts the history of American involvement in the Middle East, an involvement almost as old as America itself. Thomas Jefferson may have had his own conspicuous problems with domestic slavery, but he was a stalwart abolitionist when it came to protecting U.S. merchant vessels off the shores of modern-day Libya. These dirigibles were frequently plundered, and  their crews held as chattel, by Islamic Barbary pirates acting on Koranic prescription. (This seldom remembered episode of Ottoman rule gives the lie to anthropologists and post-colonial historians who claim that a tendency for belligerence and slave-holding does not cut evenly between East and West.)  Yet American resolve to take a muscular approach toward sharia marauders was never -- surprise, surprise -- a sure thing. Here is Hillel Halkin in Commentary:

And yet, as Oren shows, the war against the Barbary pirates was fought inconsistently, had its share of setbacks, and suffered from domestic criticism. Throughout most of it America continued to ransom captured sailors, to pay protection money to Muslim warlords, and sometimes even to build gunboats for them that were later used against American ships, just as did many European countries whose pusillanimity Americans scorned. Moreover, there were prominent politicians, including Albert Gallatin, Jefferson’s Secretary of the Treasury, who recommended calling off the military campaign and reaching an accommodation with the pirates. Such a course, Gallatin reasoned, would save both money and lives, and many Americans agreed with him, especially when the occasional disaster, like the loss of the frigate Philadelphia in 1803, made things appear to be going badly. Jefferson himself wavered at crucial moments and once, deciding at the last minute to negotiate, ordered the recall of a military force that was already fighting its way overland in order to depose the imperious Tripolitanian ruler, Yusuf Qaramlani.

Joshua Muravchik has a must-read essay chroncling the many hypocrises and lies of Jimmy Carter. Just to break with Jewish media tradition, I'll leave aside the paragraphs dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict and instead highlight Carter's warm regard for despotic rulers of slave states:

Accommodating contrary views was not Carter’s problem, at least when it came to the North Koreans. The real obstacle, as he saw it, was President Clinton’s strong declaratory stance against North Korean nuclear weapons, which he believed was counterproductive. Still worse was the stance of IAEA chief Hans Blix, who was insisting on upholding the rules of the NPT and on getting Pyongyang to account for plutonium it might have already recovered. To overcome these irritants, which only played into the hands of “hard-liners” in North Korea, Carter determined “to build a personal relationship involving trust” with Kim Il Sung.

This he did by telling Kim it was “tragic” that the IAEA had “brought to the UN Security Council a report saying that North Korea has violated its agreements.” Then he added, in a direct attack on U.S. policy, “I think this sanctions effort is a serious mistake.” Having thus built trust, he went on to assure Kim that “The U.S. desires to live in peace and harmony with North Korea. We don’t believe our different government systems should be an obstacle to full cooperation and friendship.”

For Carter, indeed, there appears to have been a solid basis for such friendship. Far from being the hive of fear and deprivation that other visitors had described—and from which masses had fled illegally into China at great peril—North Korea was just like home. He found the shops in Pyongyang to be similar to the “Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia,” and the neon lights of the capital reminded him of Times Square. Not only were the people “friendly and open,” but the regime reflected their popular will, which he discovered to be “homogeneous.”

North Korea makes is quite easy to show under what kind of suffocating thrall the regime holds its people. So for Carter to claim that love of the Kims is "homogeneous" is too stupid even for him.

Let's see, now:

1. Encourages Iraq to attack Iran in 1980;

2. Condones Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, instructing, on his own initiative, American allies Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to veto any U.N. authorization for war to halt this invasion;

3. Opposes the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in 2002, for which he wins the Nobel Peace Prize;

4. Defends the Stalinist thug ruling Poland, Edward Gierek;

5. Calls Joseph Broz Tito a "man who believes in human rights;"

6. Says of Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu: "We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people;"

He's yet another example of a messianic religious zealot paying credence to cultists and megalomaniacs who act as if on divine orders.

OK, I rescind my kybosh on Arab-Israeli talk: Carter's beef with the Jewish state is that it isn't governed by Solomonic laws. This is evidence of his regard for the unbending strictures of monotheism that well accounts for his sympathy for Islamist reactionaries.

Tell me why, again, we're still worried about this doddering old fool and his books?