Todd Gitlin, a former '60s radical who maintains many of his hard-left ideals, has written an article for Mother Jones that has me wavering between depression and schadenfreude. Depression, because he's on the mark, and no civilized person can be anything but sickened by what he's noticed. Schadenfreude because, as ugly as that emotion is when discussing such a vile subject, I take a perverse pleasure in seeing those still on that side of the political spectrum trying to come to grips with things others noticed long ago. What Gitlin seems to slowly be realizing is this: the hard left instinctively, if sometimes unconsciously, views being faithfully Jewish as inherently conservative, inherently counter-revolutionary. I believe that most of the far-Left has long held this view, and has thus viewed faithful Jews (yes, even the Reform-minded) with ambivalence at best, contempt or self-hatred at worst. In the younger generation, especially since the September 11 war began, this has only become more obvious.
In his landmark autobiography Radical Son, David Horowitz notes how Jews were expelled from many important civil-rights organizations in the 1960s, including some (like the NAACP) that Jewish people helped found. He goes on to note other problems within the movement that no one at the time had the courage to look at closely.
More than half the freedom riders who had gone to the southern states were Jews, although Jews constituted only 3 percent of the population...and indeed two of their sons...
--Schwermer and Goodman--had been murdered for their efforts. But, even while these tragic events were still fresh, the black leaders of the movement had unceremoniously expelled the Jews from their ranks. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by a coalition of Arab states calling for its annihilation, the same black leaders threw their support to the Arab aggressors, denouncing Zionism...as racism. Yet radical Jews like myself had continued our dedication to the black movement for civil rights--to their struggle and their cause. What was it that made us so willing to support those who would treat us like this, who would not support us in return? Why did we think it was all right--even noble--to operate according to standards so different from those that governed others?
Horowitz goes on to describe a university seminar he participated in during the 1970s. It was made up mostly of academic socialists and Marxists. He attended not long after the (Socialist) Black Panthers had murdered one of his friends:
Marx had written a notorious essay ("On the Jewish Question") identifying capitalist exploitation with Judaism. He had built his entire theoretical edifice on a concept--class--which was pointedly free of ethnic and national characteristics, in order to formulate the idea of socialism as a comunity liberated from these distinctions. Socialism would "solve" the Jewish Question by eliminating Judaism, along with all other ethnic and national identities. What we had to ask ourselves...was whether Marx wasn't a self-hating Jew, and whether socialism was anything more than a wish to be included."B-u-l-l-shit" boomed the voice next to me. It was Jeff Lustig: "We've heard this all before, and I find it boring." When he finished, I spoke again. "I'm glad that Jeff has settled these questions," I said, "but just out of curiosity I'd like to hear how the other Marxists in the room identify themselves ethnically." I knew, of course, that they were all Jews, and that not one would demean himself to acknowledge the fact. As the words left my mouth, and as if to prove my point, David Wellman began a tirade at the end of the table, his face turning apoplectic red: "I'm sick and tired of Horowitz's questions," he sputtered...
When Wellman finished, I offered to leave. I didn't want to interfere with the seminar's work, I said, and if everyone felt as he did, I would go. Vicki Bonnell, Kornhauser, and one or two others spoke up for me. The rest, including Gitlin...[yes, the same Todd Gitlin I mention above--Dean]...sat there sullen and silent. When it was over, no one except Wellman had said that I should leave. But at the next session, only three others besides myself showed up. The seminar never met after that. When I discussed this strange conclusion...with Kornhauser, he pointed out that...the seminar was financed by a foundation grant that had been given to Wellman....He also told me that Wellman was only half-Jewish, and had become visibly upset at a gathering two weeks before, when someone had referred to him as a Jew...
The seminar had provided an answer of sorts to my questions. If these issues could not be discussed in a left-wing institute, in a university setting, where could they be discussed?"
I can't be the only one who has noticed that it is people on the political left, not the right, who have been making angry denunciations of Israel, comparing Sharon to Hitler, or taking the "neutral" view that Sharon and Arafat are equally bad. I can't be the only one to notice that the political left's favorite international organization, the U.N., is reflexively anti-Israel, and that left-wing organizations often use terms like "ethnic cleansing" to describe Israel's actions in Palestine.
When Le Pen was making headlines earlier this year, it was noted by some observers that, whatever the anti-semitic grumblings of the party's leaders, Le Pen garnered a significant number of Jewish votes because of its denunciation of Synagogue-burnings as part of its strong anti-crime stance. No one on France's Left had done that. Indeed, anti-semitic outbursts are common all over the political Left over there--which is not something you'll hear in the mainstream press, but which has been well-documented in the weblog community.
In Israel and the Anti-Semites, Gabriel Schoenfeld documents in exquisite--and horrifying--detail the rise of anti-semitism in Europe, including numerous incidents of vandalism, beatings and even murders, and what political groups it most often comes from. The article is must-reading, although unfortunately you have to pay to read it. (I don't begrudge Commentary the right to make a profit, but I rather wish they'd make this particular article available as a public service. It's terribly important, and more people need to read it.)
The Jewish community in America has also slowly begun to discover something at odds with a common prejudice: America's Fundamentalist Christians, far from the stereotypes so commonly circulated by the cultural elite, do not view them as "Christ Killers." Indeed, almost any fundamentalist Christian will tell you he views that as a vile slander. Fundamentalist Christians are the most pro-Israel group in America, and are deeply respectful of Judaism and Jews. Some would like Jews to convert to Christianity, but none want to force the matter and most view such hypothetical conversions as theologically unnecessary and superfluous to their support.
It also seems to be increasingly noticed that George W. Bush, a passionate and devoted Christian himself, is the most pro-Israel President in American history, surpassing even Richard Nixon.
Does all this foreshadow a sea-change in voting patterns in the future? Hard to say. But the cultural elites have, I think, gotten away with vile and despicably bigoted attitudes about the right in general and Christians in specific for far too long. The cultural elite has also long supported the kneejerk assumption that if you're on the Left, you're a good person at heart, but if you're on the Right, you're nasty, mean-spirited, and bigoted at heart. Can that view, which still predominates in Hollywood and much of the press, continue to stand up as so many on the Left put the lie to that perception?
Hard to say, hard to say. But I believe this all foreshadows a fundamental political shift in the U.S. Where it will end I don't know. But I do find myself wondering at times: has the Jewish mentality left many Jews blind to the fact that they often wind up allying themselves with people who have no real respect for them?
It's interesting how this ties in with the falacious association of the left-wing and racial tolerance (which you blogged about before). Somehow the left has acquired, for reasons I do not fully understand, the mantle of "The Sole Defender of Minorities and the Oppressed" when, in actuality, they do not particularly work toward the advantage of minorities any more than the right and when racism and prejudice is no less prevalent in the major left wing political parties than it is in the major right wing parties. And now we are seeing increasingly clearly that the association was in error. I think one of the worst effects of this association has been that the left has often been given a "bye" on racial issues, which has, I believe, drained quite a bit of logic and critical thinking from much political dialogue.
Coupla things: The Gitlin piece is excellent. Good that it appeared in MJ, still a lefty mag even if slick. Thanks for the link. I think the left is suspicious of/critical of/worse? believing Jews for two reasons: 1) it regards all religion, still, as "the opiate of the masses." In this regard, its attitude toward Jews isn't that different from its attitude toward Presbyterians. 2) Because Israel is our ally and thus colonialist, imperialist, etc., and the Palestinians are "progressive," being actively Jewish is seen as a form of collaboration. It's also a form of deference to black militant allies, who have been anti-semitic for quite a while independent of the Palestinian issue (Jewish "exploitation" by the corner merchant, etc.). David Horowitz is perceptive, writes engagingly, but is sometimes over the top (on purpose, I suspect). He is quoted here as saying that civil rights leaders had unceremoniously expelled Jews, but as I recall it ALL whites were expelled, not just Jews. Unless DH is recalling something specific I don't remember. Finally, I don't like his comment to the effect we Jews were engaged in civil rights -- "to *their* struggle and *their* cause" -- to help "them" (my quotes on the last). I certainly was not involved to help "them," but because we -- they and us -- were right about what was right and what the Constitution required, or should require. Blacks deserve(d) equality because the country required it. If all it was about was helping "them," then there's nothing wrong with preferences, etc. Horowitz should be sad and disappointed that his former allies abandoned the cause of equality. He shouldn't take that abandonment as a personal rejection, a failure to repay a favor.
Horowitz notes in parts I do not quote (I had to trim a lot to get it down to manageable size) that black radicals had recently asked members of the seminar to denounce Russian Refuseniks and to support leftist efforts to denounce America as racist as a counter to recent press criticisms of Soviet treatment of Jews. That was a major part of the context of the above-quoted discussion, and maybe I shouldn't have left it out.
Horowitz also noted that it had been common for black radicals to say things like, "If you don't support us on this issue, we won't support you," but then completely refused to have anything to do with supporting Refuseniks or Israel.
Even for those who do not like Horowitz, Radical Son is, I believe, a very important work of history, and worth going out of your way to read. I view it as in the same league as The Autobiography of Malcolm X for its power and historical importance. Whether you liked Malcolm X or not is almost irrelevant. Same for Horowitz who, whatever your opinion of his rhetoric, posesses a fierce intellect and an equally-fierce intellectual honesty. He is clearly intentionally provocative, but is also honest to both his convictions and his failings.
Dean,
I haven't had time to read the Gitlin piece, but I'm looking forward to it.
However, I must make one observation:
I presume that you include David Horowitz and Malcolm X in the same sentence in order to point out that both of them abandoned their original belief systems as they evolved.
I guess if you want to look at it that way then you have a point. But to my mind David Horowitz will be forgotten in the fullness of time, whereas Malcolm X will not.
Why is that?
I read the Gitlin piece.
It's mostly a re-hash of stuff already said better and earlier by other writers, including your humble and faithful narrator here and here and here.
The deal is this: universtity students and liberals in general (but not this one) are wrong about Israel. In fact Gitlin is wrong as well, when he posits that the trouble between Israel and the Palestinians is a blood feud between Sharon and Arafat. It is no such thing. It is a battle in the war on terror.
Whatever the reason (and I suspect that it has its roots in some misplaced romance with anti-globalism) the students, the liberals and Gitlin need to stop thinking in terms of whether you are "for" Israel or "against" Israel.
You should, first, decide whether or not you can find ANY excuse for terrorism.
The rest will sort itself out accordingly.
OK, I just noticed that Gitlin's piece is dated June 17, 2002. That might be why it seemed a bit stale.
That said, it still has the whiff of Palestinian apologia about it.
Gitlin calls himself a progressive. I'm not overly impressed.
Sorry.
I believe that Radical Son is as important and meaningful a book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, that its importance and influence have only grown since publication, and that its influence will continue to grow. I believe that it will be regarded in the fullness of time as one of the most important political memoirs of the late 20th Century. Students of history will still be reading it long after we're all dead.
You aren't required to like Horowitz in order to agree. But you'd have to read the book before your opinion would be relevant. ;-)
No, thanks. I don't like Horowitz because I've already read (and seen and heard) plenty of him. And I'm not impressed.
sorry.
One can easily judge a book and its importance based entirely on one's personal opinion of the author. Reading it is completely unnecessary before rendering an opinion, as any right-thinking person can plainly see...
Frankly I don't think he (or "the left") is trying to get a grip on this, or many other ideas, at all.
His article contained the standard "left" content:
students should always dissenting about _something_
students should always have movements (please note I'm passing on the obvious shots here)
the comment about "scathing, but _warranted_ attacks" (emphasis added) on Israeli actions around & about Jenin
the later comment (again concerning Jenin) about "that hundreds of Palestinian civilians died" (I don't know of any reliable organization that has accepted that order of magnitude)
that all on the left are by definition "progressive"
And so on...
I could go on, but I think it's very obvious that Mr. Gitlin just can't grasp that this virulent anti-semitism is not an aberration of the Left, but an end result of the current ideology of the Left.
Casey,
I call myself a liberal. But I don't have much in common with Gitlin on the topic of Israel.
So...maybe I'm the aberration. If so, I'm proud of it.
You say:
"One can easily judge a book and its importance based entirely on one's personal opinion of the author. Reading it is completely unnecessary before rendering an opinion, as any right-thinking person can plainly see..."
If you are being ironic here, you can save it. It's wasted on me.
I've read plenty of Horowitz' stuff over at Salon.com. I've listened to him plenty of times on cable TV.
I have not met him personally.
Let's see...what other opportunities are there to sample one's wares?
In general I would make the following observation: I found him to be an arrogant, sour-faced, humorless, self-absorbed bully.
And if Ann Coulter wants to quote me on that, she's welcome to do so in her next book.
I have an instant aversion to people like that, left or right.
I don't want to turn this into a pissing match over Horowitz. I don't view him as a saint--indeed, I sometimes cringe when I read his work. But I will say that there is a difference between a bully and a man who swings back at bullies, between a man with fierce intellect, integrity, and often painful intellectual honesty---and a shallow twit with no real talent like Ann Coulter.
Many people hated Malcolm X. But in the end, they respected him. If you read Malcolm's autobiography, I don't see how you can't. And by the way, I'm lilly-white and have blue eyes--the perfect exemplar of the "devil" of his early epistomology.
All I can say about Horowitz--I will not defend everything he's said or done--is that if you've read some articles and seen a few interviews, you don't know as much as you think you do. Perhaps this deserves a discussion group of its own.
The problem with Jews on the left (which once included me) is no different than the problem with Jews in Hollywood, in gambling, in law. Wherever Jews distance themselves from their faith, they end up doing the strangest things. Take the invention of Hollywood. The values of Hollywood are a 100% violation of everything traditional Jews hold dear, especially the value of modesty. Modesty and humility are central virtues in Judaism. Even if you are alone in your room, you should dress and undress under the sheets because of this strong desire for modesty and humility. Hollywood tramples the values of modesty and humility and it was Jews, unfortunately, who encouraged much of the trampling. Or take the glorification of gambling, as enshrined in Las Vegas. Las Vegas was the brainchild of a Jew, Benjamin (Bugsy) Siegel. The Torah finds excessive gambling abhorrent. And the way the legal profession has attracted Jews makes me weep since law, the way it is practiced today, is nothing more than extortion, which is also an anti-Torah value.
That's why the anti-Israel sentiment of leftist Jews (remember: the patron saint of the left, Karl Marx, was also a Jew) is not shocking; it is the political equivalent of Hollywood and Las Vegas, Jewish inventions that are the antithesis of Torah. The original left, founded by Marx, Trotsky, and many other Jews, decried belief in G-d even though it was Abraham, the first Jew, who brought the attention of the world to G-d in the first place!
When Jews step away from their traditions and their faith, they do the strangest things. This is nothing more than a result of exile, a condition in which the Jewish people is out of sync with the divine plan. When the
Messiah comes, everything will be straightened out.
The problem with Jews on the left (which once included me) is no different than the problem with Jews in Hollywood, in gambling, in law. Wherever Jews distance themselves from their faith, they end up doing the strangest things. Take the invention of Hollywood. The values of Hollywood are a 100% violation of everything traditional Jews hold dear, especially the value of modesty. Modesty and humility are central virtues in Judaism. Even if you are alone in your room, you should dress and undress under the sheets because of this strong desire for modesty and humility. Hollywood tramples the values of modesty and humility and it was Jews, unfortunately, who encouraged much of the trampling. Or take the glorification of gambling, as enshrined in Las Vegas. Las Vegas was the brainchild of a Jew, Benjamin (Bugsy) Siegel. The Torah finds excessive gambling abhorrent. And the way the legal profession has attracted Jews makes me weep since law, the way it is practiced today, is nothing more than extortion, which is also an anti-Torah value.
That's why the anti-Israel sentiment of leftist Jews (remember: the patron saint of the left, Karl Marx, was also a Jew) is not shocking; it is the political equivalent of Hollywood and Las Vegas, Jewish inventions that are the antithesis of Torah. The original left, founded by Marx, Trotsky, and many other Jews, decried belief in G-d even though it was Abraham, the first Jew, who brought the attention of the world to G-d in the first place!
When Jews step away from their traditions and their faith, they do the strangest things. This is nothing more than a result of exile, a condition in which the Jewish people is out of sync with the divine plan. When the
Messiah comes, everything will be straightened out.
Truely tremendous blog!