The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Rachel Maddow's Racist Smear of Second Circuit Nominee Steve Menashi

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Rachel Maddow launched a disgusting smear of my Scalia Law School colleague (on leave) and Second Circuit nominee Steve Menashi. Ed Whelan has the details:

In a 2010 law-review article titled "Ethnonationalism and Liberal Democracy," Second Circuit nominee Steven Menashi argues that "ethnonationalism remains a common and accepted feature of liberal democracy that is consistent with current state practice and international law."

Menashi's specific purpose in the article is to refute claims that "Israel's particularistic identity—its desire to serve as a homeland for the Jewish people—contradicts principles of universalism and equality upon which liberal democracy supposedly rests." In fact, argues Menashi, "[p]articularistic nationalism and liberal democracy … emerged together at the same historical moment and persisted in symbiosis." Further, the "idea that a sovereign democratic government represents a particular ethnonational community has its root in the principle of 'self-determination of peoples' espoused at the foundation of the League of Nations and the United Nations." Surveying the laws of European nations, he further explains that Israel's Law of Return, which guarantees citizenship to Jews worldwide, is similar to kin-repatriation policies that are widespread throughout Europe. In sum, "[f]ar from being unique, the experience of Israel exemplifies the character of liberal democracy by highlighting its dependence on particularistic nation-states."

In a lengthy segment on MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow grossly distorts Menashi's argument and tries to twist it into "a high-brow argument for racial purity." (Video at 9:00-9:36.) She falsely claims that Menashi argues "how definitely democracy can't work unless the country is defined by a unifying race." (Video at 6:57-7:10.)

But Menashi's argument about national identity is clearly not about "racial purity" or a "unifying race." Indeed, the fact that Israelis from Ethiopia are black makes it impossible to take seriously the claim that Menashi is making a case for "racial purity." Menashi further states that it "is not even clear … that Israel's national identity can even be described as 'ethnic'" (in a narrow sense ofthat concept), as Israeli Jews come from "Argentina, Ethiopia, Germany, Morocco, Russia, and Yemen."

OK, it's a smear. But why racist? Well, Maddow and her fellow-travelers are inclined to call any criticism of Rashdia Tlaib they deem unfair "racist" because Tlaib is a "woman of color" based on her parents' Middle Eastern origin. Steve's parents were victims of state antisemitism, his paternal grandparents like my wife's family refugees from Iraq, where his family had likely lived for 2,500 years (and how dare he think that there might be good reason for a nation-state for Jews to ensure they don't suffer the fate of his family in the future?) So by the logic that Maddow herself has adopted, Steve is a "person of color" and her smear "racist." But it's a despicable smear regardless.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post suggested that both of Steve's parents were of Iraqi origin. His mom's family were rather refugees from the USSR. Regrets for the error.

FURTHER UPDATE: I have a busy schedule today, but found a few free moments to add this: Menashi's argument is a counter to those who argue that nationalism is inherently illiberal. He argues that multi-ethnic societies without a sense of shared national identity are prone to inter-ethnic conflict and a lack of social trust. The way to overcome this, he argues, is with liberal nationalism. This form of government will not just ensure everyone legal rights, but will provide a sense of national identity that will allow people to recognize that while their fellow citizens may be "different", they are part of the same national project/polity and thus can overcome those differences for the broader national good.

Is this right? It's highly debatable whether liberal nationalism "works" in this way. But there is nothing the least bit racist about arguing that nationalism, rather than being seen as inherently illiberal, can further liberal goals by creating a sense of national solidarity that would overcome particularist (racist, ethnocentric, chauvinistic) instincts.

I should also reiterate that this was published in 2010, well before the current Trump  related controversies over nationalism, and given the date, was not an related to the recent rise of Bannon-style conservatism, but was rather an explanation why Israeli nationalism doesn't render it illiberal.

NEXT: Massachusetts Voters May Finally Get a Chance To Repeal the State's Awful Cap on Beer and Wine Sales

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

149 responses to “Rachel Maddow's Racist Smear of Second Circuit Nominee Steve Menashi

  1. > Well, Maddow and her compatriots call any criticism of Rashdia Tlaib they deem unfair “racist”

    Speaking of gross smears, that’s just cranky horse shit.

    Bernstein used to be a bit better than this.

    1. You’d have a better case if Tlaib herself didn’t encourage this:
      Rashida Tlaib
      @RashidaTlaib
      The hardest part of serving in Congress as a WOC & as a “first” is how people hear you differently. No matter how much we take on the hate & stay true to who we are through our experiences, our voices are shushed and reduced. We aren’t perfect, but neither is this institution.

        1. Or you’ll go away forever?

          It’s not even controversial that Bernstein is right that the squad and their supporters pull out the race card gratuitously, remember when they called Pelosi a racist?

          1. How DARE you assume I took EITHER side?
            Libertarians don’t take sides, from blind tribal loyalty.
            Because Left – Right = Zero.

            You cannot refute my linked comment.
            And FAILED to show why his quote was NOT lame.

            Or you’ll go away forever?

            whooooooooooosh

      1. I’m not reading that quote the way you do.

        Tlaib and the others are in fact part of a small minority in Congress, and one which, in the case of her and Omar, has not previously held Congressional seats.

        They are also, whether you care to admit it or not, the objects of an unusually high level of attack, some of which is certainly racially or religiously based, and some of which is coming from Trump and others on the right – your allies.

        Why is it wrong to say that in their view they are heard differently, and have to deal with a certain amount of hate? Are those statements obviously false?

        1. While there are certainly some racists who criticize Omar & Tlaib, Omar & Tlaib certainly label ALL criticism of themselves “racist” . . . . they do not treat ANY criticism of them as “worthy” of a straight answer.

          If you have any examples of Maddow saying a discouraging word about Omar or Tlaib, I’d love to hear about it – this business in Israel was clearly a stunt intended to be provocative, and yet, Rachel & her crew are backing them to the hilt.

          1. Netanyahu was following Trump’s demand/request, then reversed from worldwide outrage.

          2. Omar & Tlaib certainly label ALL criticism of themselves “racist” . . . . they do not treat ANY criticism of them as “worthy” of a straight answer.

            Maybe you could prove this rather than just asserting it.

            If you have any examples of Maddow saying a discouraging word about Omar or Tlaib, I’d love to hear about it

            No you wouldn’t. And why does it matter?

            – this business in Israel was clearly a stunt intended to be provocative, and yet, Rachel & her crew are backing them to the hilt.

            Yes, Trump’s actions were clearly a stunt meant to be provocative, meant to stir up his base with some more hatred – racial or other – directed against these women.

            1. Claiming that she was just going there to visit her grandmom, and that meeting with the terrorist backers was just a side trip? Then refusing to visit her grandmom if she wasn’t allowed to meet with the terrorist backers?

              Yeah, that was a political stunt. No question about it.

              1. So you don’t deny Trump’s action was a political stunt, but that was OK because your hero did it.

                1. Seriously, are you demented or something?

                  If I was going to visit my elderly grandmom, and thought I’d make a side trip along the way, no way would I cancel the trip just because I couldn’t make the side strip.

                  By canceling when she couldn’t see the terrorist backers, she revealed that to be the primary, indeed overriding, purpose of the trip.

              2. Brett = Liar = again

        2. They are also, whether you care to admit it or not, the objects of an unusually high level of attack, some of which is certainly racially or religiously based, and some of which is coming from Trump and others on the right – your allies.

          These people make their race, their religion, and their gender front and center of the objectives and justifications of their policies; necessarily, any objection to their policies involves arguments about their race, their religion, and their gender. Claiming “racism” is their way to kill off rational objections to their policies.

          And these people receive “unusually high levels of attack” because they are unusually awful. AOC, Omar, Tlaib, and Pressley are socialists, racists, bigots, and utterly ignorant. They were put in by a progressive machinery for their PR value. They are some of the worst representatives in my lifetime. I’m glad people are attacking them, and I hope they will be booted out of Congress and go back to bar tending.

          1. Stop frothing at the mouth.

            These people have been in Congress for all of about eight months, yet you’re ready to declare them “some of the worst representatives in my lifetime. ”

            That’s idiotic, as is the rest of your comment. How closely have you followed them, aside from listening to rants by Trump and Fox News scumbags?

            1. These people have been in Congress for all of about eight months, yet you’re ready to declare them “some of the worst representatives in my lifetime. ”

              I’m going by the policies they advocate and the justifications they give. I sincerely hope that the rest of Congress can keep them in check and prevent them from putting their policies into practice.

              How closely have you followed them, aside from listening to rants by Trump and Fox News scumbags?

              I don’t listen either to Trump or Fox News. I do follow these four representatives on Twitter and have listened to them on YouTube so I have an excellent idea of what they stand for.

              1. As dangerous as Trump?

              2. I’m going by the policies they advocate and the justifications they give. I sincerely hope that the rest of Congress can keep them in check and prevent them from putting their policies into practice.

                In your lifetime, you’ve seen socialists galore in Congress. You’ve seen rabid anti-semites like Cynthia McKinney. Supporters of terrorism like Peter King. White supremacists like Steve King. What makes the so-called Squad any worse than these others?

              3. I don’t listen either to Trump or Fox News.

                Doubtful.

        3. She literally calls herself a woman of color in that quote.

          If she can consider herself one, it’s not inconsistent to consider Manashi one as well. And I believe that was David’s point.

    2. Nope, this is straight-up David at his usual hijinks. I suppose that, before, he used the VC more often to promote his “academic” work. I don’t think I’ve seen him do much of that since the move from WP.

  2. Maddow and her compatriots call any criticism of Rashdia Tlaib they deem unfair “racist” because Tlaib is a “woman of color” based on her parents’ Middle Eastern origin.

    Bullshit.

    Oh, and you might look up the word “compatriot.”

    Sample usage: David Bernstein is critical of his compatriot, Rachel Maddow.

    1. (laughing)
      (cheering)

      Haters be … haters.

  3. Funny how your racism detector is a lot more attuned when the victim is a fellow conservative.

    1. Your reading comprehension has failed you in this instance.

      1. Well, aren’t you precious?
        A disgrace to Volokh.

        Israel was not racist. But Trump’s demands are. Which is why Israel caved, Netanyahu having humiliated himself on the world stage..

        1. Trump recommended Israel refuse admitting two anti-semites. Good idea.

          1. Is that why Netanyahu jammed it up Trump’s butt, by reversing himself in response to worldwide outrage?

            1. Hiln, your sock puppets are so transparent. You’re like an incurable disease that won’t go away.

      2. It is totally inoperative otherwise,

    2. Well, derpy, I’m guessing* he’s pointing out the inconsistency of Maddows’ bullshit, rather than saying he agrees with criticism of either person being ‘racism’. Kinda subtle, I know, against the backdrop of shameless double standards adopted by the progtards for, lo, these many years.

      *-trans: “100% sure”

      1. Behold the raging conservatard.

        Left – Right = Zero
        Two sides of the same authorian coin.
        As libertarians have known for over 50 years.

  4. There once were 150,000 Jews in Iraq. Now there are almost ten.

    1. Self-defense. Educate yourself. After providing a link.

      1. Who knew that Hihn is also a raging anti-Semite! The truth comes out.

        1. Tell me which fact you challenge, so I can publicly humiliate you.

      2. Self defense by whom?

        1. (laughing) The Muslims, oh ignorant one,
          Jews NEVER had any right to that land, which they obtained by the ONLY mass genocide in human history, the Canaanites. Source:
          Genesis.

          Then they ruled it for fewer than 300 years, over 2000 years ago. Lost it ON THEIR OWN FAULT. Solomon had sold his on people into slavery, to build his temple. This caused a civil war at his death, creating two Jewish Kingdoms, Israel and Judea. When Israel was invaded by the Assyrians, THEIR FELLOW JEWS REFUSED tO HELP THEM. (This entire paragraph from Jewish Virtual Library: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-two-kingdoms-of-israel

          Now google the First Holocaust … committed by CHRISTIAN Crusaders, slaughtering thousands of “Christ Killers” in France and mostly Germany … on their way to slaughtering MORE Jews, and evicting them from Jerusalem.

          So ,… how did the Jews get back into Jerusalem? THE MUSLIMS ALLOWED THEM BACK … for which they were later FUCKED.

          You may also be ignorant that Israel STILL maintains a military blockade against Gaza — an act of war … plus ILLEGAL settlements maintained by military conquest …. after 20+ years of military occupation.

          Self-defense. ISIS and Al Qaeda recruit by claiming “a Judeo-Christian War on Islam” … which is FACT. And you are just another victim of religious bigotry.

          Any questions?

          1. There is so much wrong with your comment it is hard to start.

            First of all, actual archaeology shows the Hebrews didn’t actually commit genocide, it was just bluster. In fact, Hebrews ARE Canaanites, who started following a different religion from a variety of influences.

            The Assyrian Empire was much more powerful than the combined strength of all Hebrew states, and would have conquered them regardless of any civil conflict between the proto-Jews.

            Yes, Christians have been killing Jews for a long time. The relevance of that to this discussion is nothing.

            Actually, the Jewish population of Jerusalem in the centuries after Muslims conquered it was never particularly big. The reality is that nearly all modern Israelis who aren’t descended from post-WW2 immigration are the progeny of those who were encouraged to immigrate by the British during the time of WW1. It is a famous thing, look up the Balfour Declaration.

            Settling in areas acquired by military conquest is not illegal; it has been the policy of essentially every human civilization in recorded history. The country you are in right now has done it. Should they give up the land they stole? Who decides? Why is Israel’s policy uniquely unjustified? (Hint: It isn’t.)
            Also, I am pretty sure that Palestinians firing rockets at Israeli citizens just MIGHT count as an act of war.

            If there was a Judeo-Christian war on Islam, why would one of the closest allies of the U.S. be Saudi Arabia, the literal home of Islam itself?

          2. I have a question, leaving aside your assertion that Genesis is an accurate historical source. Assuming arguendo that everything else you have posted is true, why was it OK for the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks (Macedonians), Romans, Arabs, and Turks to conquer Israel, but not OK for the Jews to “conquer” it back?

  5. You’re both wrong. (All three?)

    The issue is not an ethno-centric nation, but how that nation treats other people. And that is where Israel fails, Massively. And where Americans are the worst informed in the world. And why ISIS style attacks will continue, as self defense.

    Google the “Rhineland Massacre,” aka the First Holocaust, where thousands of Jews were slaughtered by … Christian Crusaders, on their way to Jerusalem, mostly in Germany, some in France’ as “Christ killers.” The Crusaders continued to the Holy Land, where they killed and expelled more Jews.

    So how did the Jews get back in? Ummm, the Muslims allowed them back in. For this, they were rewarded … how? The Jews want MUSLIMS expelled from Jerusalem, have forced settlements on Muslim land, and have long maintained a military blockade of Gaza. A blockade is an act of war.

    That is why some Muslims reject Israel, on stolen land, by western nations seeking atonement for allowing the second holocaust … BUT mainstream Islam does support a two-state solution. You need not agree, but cannot deny the argument is legitimate. Israel ruled that land for fewer than 300 years, over 2,000 years ago, They lost it on their own. A civil war had created TWO Jewish Kingdoms, north and south, Israel and Judah. When Israel was invaded, Judah refused to assist their fellow Jews.

    Further history is found in the Old Testament. Jews acquired that land by committing mass genocide … against the Canaanites. So they never had any right to that land, even in antiquity.

    ISIS recruits, as Al Qaeda did, to defend against a “Judeo-Christian War Against Islam.” And point to news reports in the west, and Trump’s shameful actions re Jerusalem.

    We stuck our nose into a war that did not concern us, between China and Japan. Our famed “Flying Tigers” were shooting down Japanese war planes over China. And we suffered Pearl Harbor. (FDR had just moved our Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl, much close to Japan.)

    Then we stuck our nose into another war which was none of our business, a 2,000 year war in the mideast. And we suffered 9/11.

    Yes, liberals falsely equate race with ethnicity. But that’s not even close to the moral atrocities, which can be easily confirmed, by those seeking truth and justice

    Why punish Islam for the sins of Germany? Instead of a desert, I’d have give them land in Germany. But it was Israel who demanded a return to their “homeland” — which they never had any right to. Jewish settlements in Gaza, maintained by force, and their military blockade, are condemned by virtually every other nation on earth, justifiably.

    So, how many will screech anti-semitic below this, in raging hatred … thereby proving my point. Make my day.

    1. I see The Daily Stormer is leaking again.

      Take a good look, folks. This is what modern “not anti-Semitic” looks like. Are you impressed by the victim blaming, the whataboutism, and preemptive “just proves my point” persecution complex?

      1. Called it! Canaanites were victims!

        Hate the message? But FAIL to refute a single word?
        Shoot the messenger.

        1. I wasn’t actually talking to you, but pointing out your post as an example of an anti-Semites that have infested libertarianism for so long. But in case you actually think you are capable of participating in a discussion:
          You didn’t present an actual argument in that rambling mess of lies and distractions. Try again.

          Oh, yes – if you disagree with me, you just prove your racist bigoted anti-Semitic attitudes.

          1. Hihn isn’t a libertarian. He’s an escapee from a senility care center.

          2. I wasn’t actually talking to you

            Noe me TO you. My ridicule, documented, was for all readers.

            Typical psycho blowhard.

        2. It was actually the Amalekites, not the Canaanites, that were genocided; men, women, and children.

          1. SOURCE FOR JEWISH HISTORY DENIED BY ASSHOLE-BIGOTS:
            THE JEWISH VIRTUAL LIBRARY
            https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-two-kingdoms-of-israel

    2. I do not concede that the creation of Israel was unjust, but let’s assume that for a moment.

      In the 70-some years since its creation, Israel has built a first-world economy and a representative democracy. Even Arabs vote and serve in the Knesset. Israel is a positive contribution to the world community.

      In the same time, what have the so-called Palestinians done? They’ve built a death cult. Rewarding them for that makes no sense.

      If you want to set aside historical wrongs, why not start with the Norman Conquest or Ceasar’s conquest of Gaul?

      1. Why not the extermination of Neanderthal man by Homo Sapiens? We are all guilty of that!

        1. Speak for yourself, Homo.

        2. Why not the extermination of Neanderthal man by Homo Sapiens? We are all guilty of that!

          Only the Biblical God would punish innocents “unto the third and fourth generation, counselor. Or command “kill the infidels” — despite the psychotic lie, by bigots, that Muhammad said it. Deuteronomy 13

          Anything else?

      2. In the 70-some years since its creation, Israel has built a first-world economy and a representative democracy.

        Evasion,
        “I raped the 12-year old girl, butt do volunteer work at a homeless shelter

        In the same time, what have the so-called Palestinians done? They’ve built a death cult. Rewarding them for that makes no sense.

        Evasion, self-defense
        Tell me again, who allowed the Jews back into Israel.

        .

        If you want to set aside historical wrongs, why not start with the Norman Conquest or Ceasar’s conquest of Gaul?

        Two reasons.
        1) Only cowards and losers apply so many evasions and diversions,
        2) Not what this page is about. (lol)

        1. Correctes indents. Let there be no confusion on Pettifogger.

          In the 70-some years since its creation, Israel has built a first-world economy and a representative democracy.

          Cowardly evasion.
          “I raped the 12-year old girl, but do volunteer work at a homeless shelter.”

          In the same time, what have the so-called Palestinians done? They’ve built a death cult. Rewarding them for that makes no sense.

          Cowardly diversion. Irrational.
          Self defense . Tell me again, who allowed the Jews back into Israel. But w
          Wait until I stop laughing, which could take a week or more.

          <blockquote.If you want to set aside historical wrongs, why not start with< the Norman Conquest or Ceasar’s conquest of Gaul?

          Two reasons.
          1) Only cowards and losers apply so many evasions and diversions,
          2) Not what this page is about. (lol)

          And I’m onto your games, being literate

          pettifoggery
          [ˈˌpedēˈˌfôɡərē]
          DEFINITION
          VERB
          quibble about petty point.

          practice legal deception or trickery.

          You’re not very sliied a

        2. “Tell me again, who allowed the Jews back into Israel.”
          The UN, in 1948.

          1. longtobeslave LIES about when Jews were allowed back, after Christian Crusaders committed the First Holocaust in Germany, then slaughtered and evicted Jews from Jerusalem.

            “Tell me again, who allowed the Jews back into Israel.”

            The UN, in 1948.

            Muslims in 1210,
            https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/return_to_the_land_of_israel/
            For which they were FUCKED by the UN, over land Israel NEVER had any right to, had obtained by committing the ONLY mass genocide of an entire culture (Canaanites) … the ruled for fewer than 300 years, over 2000 years ago … then lost after their own civil war.

            Does he also believe the QURAN says kill all the infidels? It was Deuteronomy 13, Jews,

    3. For the sake of argument let’s just grant your criticisms of Israel are totally valid (I’m not weighing in on this here) and Menashi’s response totally wrong and invalid. It still doesn’t make his remarks racist or make him a defender of racial purity.

      Even people who are deeply wrong in their policies and views (and even those who are wrong about who is racist) don’t deserve to be accused of racism unless they themselves are racist so either way Maddow is totally out of line here.

      Maybe Menashi is an idiot but Maddow’s behavior is morally wrong and she owes Menashi an apology.

      1. To be clear when I say “defender of racial purity” I mean the sense that term has in the US today. In a certain sense anyone who defends the rights of native americans to offer tribal membership to individuals of tribal descent (and require that descent meet a minimum fraction) is a defender of racial purity but not in the sense that this term has in the United States today.

    4. Why are you posting under two different names? It’s obvious from the tone, style, and theme of this post that you are also NolanLibertarian.

  6. Misusing a word in a headline just because you think your opponent misuses the word debases the language.
    It even debases *me* (which is no small feat): Henceforth, when you use “racist”, I have to spend time deciding whether you mean it in the standard sense or in the expanded, Maddow-Berstein sense.
    I think to save time I’ll just blanket assume the latter. Heck, maybe I’ll occasionally use the word in that sense myself (but *responsibly*, always appending a superscript “M-B” to flag the nonstandard usage – and because I kind of like the juxtaposition).

    1. Berstein -> Bernstein, sorry

  7. She’s called “mad cow” for a reason…

    1. So is Trump. And no worse than Carlson, Ingraham, Hannity Perino and Doobs
      .
      Plus you (by your own words)

  8. After his experience with Mexican judges, why would Pres. Trump try to put an Iraqi judge on an American court?

    This guy must be a clinger, young and politically reliable.

    1. This guy wouldn’t be just an Iraqi judge . . . he’d also be a Russian judge.

      That explains the Trump love.

      Carry on, clingers. For about another 18 months.

    2. Trump has never faces a Mexican judge in US court and no Iraqi judges have been nominated or even mentioned, All the judges under discussion are a Americans at leas to people that are not bigoted scum.

      1. Cherokees?

      2. Unless you consider Pres. Trump (author of the “Mexican judges” slur) to be bigoted scum, Nelson Kerr, your comment is inexplicable.

  9. “Menashi’s argument is a counter to those who argue that nationalism is inherently illiberal.”

    This is such a stupid fucking argument. Who cares whether nationalism is inherently illiberal, or not. The concept of “illiberal” is too vague to inform the discussion either way. And if nationalism is good but inconsistent with liberalism, then so be it. And if nationalism is consistent with liberalism, but still bad, so be it.

    Why do people talk in code? Whether Israel’s not-really “ethnonationalism” is a good or bad idea doesn’t have anything to do with rating it on a scale of liberal/illiberal.

    1. Or denying it was entirely racist. Demanded by Trump.

      That’s why Netanyahu caved under worldwide pressure, and reversed the denial.

  10. Zionism started in the 19th century when ethnonationalism was hip and progressive. This is when Americans cheered Hungarian ethnonationalist rebels, and the up-to-date liberals praised the Risorgimento (sp?) in Italy and even the unification of Germany.

    Sure, every ethnic German should be in the same state, just as every ethnic Italian should be in the same state. If it took a bit of international aggression to achieve these dreams, well, only the clingers and left-behinders would whine about it.

    Even after WWI, when maybe they had some reservations about the Germany thing, Woody Wilson and his supporters cheered (at least in theory) new ethno-states.

    Finally, the idea of *European* nationalism got Godwinned after WWII, but ethno-nationalism in the 3rd world was still cool and hip. Like for the Palestinians. But maybe not so much for the Jews any more…

  11. I just don’t play attention to anything anyone says is “racist” anymore. We used to have a common understanding of at least some kind of idea of what actual “racism” constituted. But, now looking at a colored person the wrong way, and them not liking it, is “racism”.

    1. Spoken like a man who does not see what is shown in his mirror.

      1. You sound like a racist to me.

        1. Is this how you want to spend the time remaining before you are replaced, Jimmy?

          1. I thought the whole replacement theory was “racist”…? Are you saying that is actually the plan?

            1. It is not so much a plan as the natural, desirable order.

              Cranky old conservatives and Republicans take their stale, bigoted, reason-rejecting thinking to the grave and are replaced in our electorate by younger, better Americans.

              Among the consequences will be less intolerance; continuing diminution and putrification of our rural population; fewer catheter, gold coin, and Life Lock commercials; collapse of the Republican Party outside the most desolate backwaters; and a better America.

              1. So replacement was the plan all along. Gotcha. Thanks for verifying.

                1. And thank you for improving America by being replaced.

        2. Jimmy DOES what he SAYS he opposes.
          And Trump does a LOT worse than “look” at black persons,

          1. Oh please do let us in on your little secret about what Trump does with black people…

            1. it’s no secret. And you’re about to lose, BIGLY

              Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went full psycho, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof of shameful President.

              The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
              “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
              Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
              Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The bastards CAME for violence.

              Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry.

              These are Racists and Jew-Haters.
              Ivanka and Jerod are Jewish.
              Trump threw his own daughter under a bus. SHAMEFUL.

              Left – Right = Zero
              Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
              As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction, roaring like dinosaurs, chirping like dodo birds.

              ==========
              Anything else?

              1. You mad dude?

                1. I’m celebrating my victory!
                  And your loss. (Shoulda watched the video)
                  Dude.

                  1. A carefully edited video by one of the participants that actually includes clips from other times and places and does’t actually show what you claim, is your victory?

                    1. (snort) The video is not edited, and undeniable.
                      Any one why watched it saw proof of what Trump is, and what you are.

                    2. If your brain is so damaged as to not notice the constant cuts, jumps, and changes of perspective that resulted from the editing, you are simply crazy.

                      Since you can type, I don’t believe that – instead, you are simply a liar. An anti-Semite terrorist supporting liar.

                    3. You are SO full of shit.
                      Those are different scenes.
                      The initial assault has NO such edits, goober.

                      ANYONE can see your pathertic ass whipped here
                      https://twitter.com/ur_ninja/status/897566928314781700

    2. “I just don’t play attention to anything anyone says is “racist” anymore.”

      Trump supporters will spend the rest of their lives attempting to persuade others they are bigots, seething because they are perceived as bigots, claiming that “racist” and “bigot” have lost their bite, asserting that they are “color-blind” or “traditional values” fans, being dismissed consequent to their views, etc.

      The wages of appeasing bigotry should be severe.

  12. Man, what a whore Bernstein has become.

    I think this is his argument.
    1. Liberals (improperly!!!) call conservative people racist when those people do X, and this is wrong and unacceptable. I, of course, happily defend those people against accusations i think are wrong.
    2. Rachael Maddow just did X.
    3. So, by the standards of liberals, Maddow is a racist. And I’ll call her a racist and make it the main thrust of my post’s headline.

    What someone with actual integrity would have argued is:
    a. Liberals improperly call action X racist. I complain about this and defend those conservatives when this happens.
    b. Maddow just did X.
    c. Since I am not a whore, I will now defend Maddow just as much as I defend those conservatives, since it’s just as unfair to label her a racist as it was for the people on my side of the ideological spectrum.

    What is most disappointing about Bernstein’s actions is that he is a law professor. What everyone but he learned in law school is that each side of a dispute is equally entitled to a defense. His utter hypocrisy here makes me wonder if he skipped class each time this issue came up. Or, if–each time it was brought up when he was in class–he stuffed fingers into both ears and loudly hummed, “LA-LA-LA-LA” so that none of that wisdom could penetrate his brain pan.

    Just appalling

    1. Well thought and well-crafted. Left – Right does indeed = Zero.

    2. But consistent with Bernstein’s larger theme that liberals (aka radical left aka far left aka ultra left) victimize (a) those on the right, (b) Jews, and especially (c) Jews on the right. It’s not intellectual work so much as therapeutic work. It’s not difficult to read his posts about liberals as wanting a reassurance hug and/or someone to punch those meanies in the nose.

    3. The actions of certain law professors on this site inform my evaluation of students from their institutions, when I assist with the hiring process at my institution.

      Or, at least, they would. For whatever reason, GMU students never make the initial cut.

    4. We should exhibit some sympathy for Prof. Bernstein in this regard.

      How tough it must be to defend American conservatism and Israel’s right-wing belligerence these days, especially for one bright and informed enough to recognize the tide of American progress and the likely course and consequences of progress.

      1. Israel’s right wing belligerence:

        Military: 3 rockets fired from Gaza toward Israel
        ByTHE ASSOCIATED PRESS
        JERUSALEM — Aug 17, 2019, 2:52 PM ET
        The Israeli military says three rockets have been fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into southern Israel.
        Israeli aerial defense batteries intercepted two of the missiles Saturday, the military said.
        Israeli media reported that shrapnel from the Iron Dome defense system landed on the patio of a house. There were no immediate reports of injuries.
        It was the second incident of rocket fire from Gaza in the past 24 hours.
        https://tinyurl.com/yys8cwfp

        1. Argument by cherry-picked anecdote is a Volokh Conspiracy staple.

          No wonder conservatives can’t compete in the culture war.

          1. It is only one of thousands of such anecdotes. At some point anecdotes become ‘normalized behavior.’ This is certainly such a situation.

    5. To be fair to Bernstein the actual argument he is making isn’t that Maddow is racist but that she is a hypocrite because she would be racist by the standard that he imputes she uses.

      I think this is both awful as a rhetorical tactic and simply wrong as to the standard Maddow is applying but I don’t think he is saying he thinks she is racist…merely accusing her of being racist on her own standard.

      I agree Bernstein also deserves criticism here just trying to clarify what for.

      1. To be fair in this day and age everyone is “racist”.

  13. An article describing a smear that refers to the supposed smearer as “Maddow and her fellow travelers” seems to lack a certain sense of irony. I enjoy reading The Volokh Conspiracy articles, regardless of which perspective they take (getting different perspectives is what I enjoy), but this one does not seem to meet the normal standards for the articles included.

    1. ^^This

  14. I’m willing to allow that Maddow’s charge that Menashi’s argument is for a kind of “racial purity” in Israel is simplistic, at best. It is true that Israel’s founding principles apparently open the door to all of the world’s Jews, regardless of race. (Setting aside for now, of course, the very disturbing issues with race that modern Israel is now grappling with, as with the Ethiopian Jews, whose difficulties in Israel you (for some reason!) gloss over.)

    That said, Maddow is certainly not wrong in pointing out that Israel’s version of ethnonationalism is incompatible with modern liberal democracies and their pluralistic ideals, and has more in common with modern regimes we would typically describe as “illiberal.” Menashi may make an interesting historical point about ethnonationalism, but it is not really an “argument” in favor of it in modern times – to cast it as such is to commit the genetic fallacy (which is, to be fair, one of your favorite fallacies, David).

    Personally, I do not really understand why Israel can’t be a special homeland for the Jews while abandoning the “sine qua non” of Jewish supremacy within Israel. It seems to me that this principle – that Israeli Jews can never be permitted to lose control of Israeli politics – is the ultimate source for all of Israel’s most illiberal tendencies (and the underlying cause of its long-simmering disputes with Israeli and Palestinian Arabs).

    1. I can’t imagine why Jews wouldn’t wanna lose political control of their safe house on the planet Earth, either.

      I hate that! Someone should do something about them!

      1. I do not buy into the common perception that the Jews are uniquely and magically pursued by a boundless anti-Semitism that transcends time and religious belief. Accordingly, I do not believe that an illiberal, supremacist Jewish state is necessary for their safety and survival. I believe that they require only a strong constitutional and legal system that protects the rights and equality of religious minorities – like what we have here in the U.S. (and I am happy to admit that many countries, including Western European countries, simply do not have this yet).

        1. In other words, I do not believe in history.

          1. I’m familiar with the history. I just recognize that persecution of the Jews, when and where it has occurred, has features in common with systematic persecution of ethnic and religious minorities across the globe, throughout history. For virtually any other religious/ethnic minority, the solution has always been limiting state power, bolstering the rule of law, etc. – all absolutely in line with typical conservative/libertarian theories of the appropriate limits of state power.

            It is only a collective trauma and typical western myopia that has convinced us that the Jews are somehow unique in this regard, and it has led us to implicitly and explicitly support an ethno-nationalist state that can only continue to exist so long as Palestinian Arabs remain penned into the OT and refused entry into Israeli civic society. So, while a free and democratic Israel continues to tear itself apart under the pressure of this fundamental tension, partisans like David and simpletons like yourself will just continue to pretend that the Jews are somehow unique, spinning history to fit your narrative.

            1. One of the big complaints on this web site about the political attacks on Israel is that similar (and worse) situations than the Palestinians are ignored by those same people.

              So…of course Israel has no reason to feel attacked and singled out as special in a bad way, do they?

        2. I believe that they require only a strong constitutional and legal system that protects the rights and equality of religious minorities – like what we have here in the U.S. (and I am happy to admit that many countries, including Western European countries, simply do not have this yet).

          In other words, Jews don’t need Israel because something that doesn’t exist would be just as good.

        3. Try getting expelled from 100+ countries, having our entire history be a story of tragedy and loss, and telling me that the death of almost half our population doesn’t serve as motivation for saying ‘fuck the world, we’re in charge of our own destiny now.’

          As we always say, never again. No more platitudes. Anyone who tries to hurt us again will be met with extreme force. If there were a billion of us I wouldn’t worry so much, but it’s ~16 million of us against several billion hateful Muslims and Christians. There are very few places left in the world where we haven’t tried to exist and only a shortsighted goyim could possibly believe we have no reason to doubt the long term safety of America. I used to be naive too, but the unholy trinity of the alt-right, mass migration, and leftist anti-semitism are extremely scary. It’s entirely plausible this country will be flooded with tens of millions of people from deplorable countries who perpetrate the sort of violence against Jews we usually see in France or other Arab nations.

          1. And you think Jews will be safer in Israel, surrounded by Arabs who literally want to drive you into the sea, than in the United States, which has been friendlier to Jews than any nation not named “Israel”?

            1. Yes because in Israel, we will decide for ourselves whether we are worth defending. In America, we will never have such liberties. Also, with the increasing refugee flow from places like Somalia, the risk of us facing increased violence like the remaining European Jews currently do increases significantly.

              1. To reiterate, we’re not going to be sacrificial lambs on the altar of political correctness. If the majority of Americans are going to sacrifice us because the people with reprehensible and un-American values are black and brown, we will leave this country and you’ll all be worse off for it.

                1. You LIE about Jewish history, or are a victim of lies. Israel NEVER had a right to that land
                  1)Obtained by committing the ONLY mass genocide of an entire culture, Canaanites. See Genesis.

                  2) Ruled for fewer than 300 years, over 2000 years ago … lost by your own fault. 3) Solomon had sold his own people into slavery, to build a temple. Caused civil war at his death, two Jewish Kingdoms, Israel and Judea. 4) When Israel was invaded by Assyrians, Judea REFUSED to defend their fellow Jews. Source: Jewish Virtual Library.

                  3) Christian Crusaders slaughtered thousands of Jews in Germany — Rhineland Massacre, aka First Holocaust — on their way to slaughtered and evicting “Christ Killers” from Jerusalem.

                  4) Who did Jews get back into Jerusalem? MUSLIMS ALLOWED THEM IN ,., for which they were FUCKED, 700 years later,

                  5) Israel still maintains a military blockade, denying Gaza sea access … blockades are an act of war — after 20 years of TOTAL military occupation … now PARTIAL military occupation in ILLEGAL settlements..

                  6) ISIS and Al Qaeda recruit to defend against “Judeo-Christian War on Islam” — FACT.

                  You cannot fool all of the people, all of the time.

                  1. Nobody has ever denied that we killed the Canaanites. But they’re gone now and none of your stormfront tier opining will change that.

                    Israel didn’t rule for “fewer” than 300 years. It ruled for over 1000 years. You’re conflating the singular, united kingdom of Israel with the various kingdoms ruled by Hebrews.

                    Just fuck off with this /pol/ tier disinfo. Can’t believe you would actually try to cite Jewish sources as a means to turn us against one another. How dare you call into question our historical presence in the land.

                2. With all due respect, American liberal “Jews” are among the worst offenders.

    2. Ethiopians in Israel do not face racial issues. They face a variety of issues with cultural adaptation, namely that they speak very little Hebrew (Beta Israel texts are in Ge’ez), they came to the country 50 years after its founding, they’re coming from a generally lower socioeconomic status due to Ethiopia being awful, and on top of all that, their religious practices are very different from the majority of Jews.

      They’re most certainly Jews and I’m glad we were able to save them because they’re literally a time capsule of Judaism, but they face an uphill battle. That’s not because of racial animus. It’s just the nature of assimilation. This is why Israel is so important; the diaspora has transformed us to the point that even among our own blood brothers, Jews must assimilate to one another.

      1. It’s not that simple (I was going to say “not that black and white,” but, well…).

        The conditions you describe are accurate, but they aren’t mutually exclusive with racial bigotry, another real headwind faced by Ethiopian Jews.

        1. “The conditions you describe are accurate, but they aren’t mutually exclusive with racial bigotry, another real headwind faced by Ethiopian Jews.”

          Ipse dixit.

  15. I can’t imagine why Jews wouldn’t wanna lose political control of their safe house on the planet Earth, either.

    I hate that! Someone should do something about them!

  16. We all understand the implications of the term “Cry wolf.”

    You can only wonder when “Cry racist” will be similarly understood.

    1. Wolves did not invent an excuse for denying themselves.

  17. Menashi’s article is not particularly impressive. It’s sort of confusing as to whether he thinks “ethno-nationalism” is OK or not, or whether Israel is or is not ethno-national.

    Regardless, just pointing out that European countries in general have ethno-national origins and some such policies doesn’t prove much. The issue is how non-members of the dominant group are treated, economically, politically, and socially, and other such countries vary greatly in how they behave in this regard.

    IOW, “ethno-nationalist states” is a broad category that allows fro lots of variations in how much privilege the dominant group enjoys. In some cases it may be compatible with liberal democracy, in others not. It’s the details that matter.

    1. IOW, “ethno-nationalist states” is a broad category that allows fro lots of variations in how much privilege the dominant group enjoys. In some cases it may be compatible with liberal democracy, in others not. It’s the details that matter.

      Pretty sure that was the point.

      1. Maybe, though it would have been clearer if he hadn’t taken 66 pages to make it.

        1. Have you ever met a lawyer?

  18. What I love about this comment thread is that in one vein liberals talk about how the “replacement theory” is just “racism” but then express glee at the fact that white people are going to be replaced.

    “Racism” is really just code for “don’t want to talk about this inconvenient truth…”

    Black crime….racism!
    Islamist terrorism…racism!
    African migrant invasion…racism!

    1. Your low IQ has crippled you. And replacement is bullshit.
      Nobody says white people will be replaced, which is kinda crazy.
      Greater birth rates and/or immigration … add people. PERIOD.
      Your notion that ANYONE is “replaced” is hysteria for rednecks..
      So … obviously … it’s not replacement you fight for but …. white supremacy (in percentage of population) ,… which is TOTALLY racist. No different than Republicans forbidding new voter registration by Democrats.

      That was your fifth loss on the page, and the worst.

      1. So is replacement BS or, as you readily concede, happening right now? Which one is it? Or keep on posting and keep on losing. Either one works for me.

        1. A few weeks ago, one of my nieces gave birth to a beautiful bi-racial child. Is this “replacement” or just the future?

  19. I might be coming around partially to the left’s point of view that a lot of speech these days is tantamount a call for violence, even when not expressly so (the nutty leftists go even further and say soeech is violence). Unlike the left, though, I still don’t think such speech should be regulated (or suppressed by private cos with monopoly power). But the left routinely dishonestly smears others as Nazis, etc which really, if you think about it, would be a justification for violent uprising. So predictably, we have seen that very thing happen with ICE being attacked 3 times in the last 2 months, multiple mass shootings of police officers in the last couple years, and Republicans being shot up at a baseball game.

  20. The moral justification for Israel is simple; we were expelled 2,000 years ago and never stopped trying to get in. There are no Canaanites left with a prior claim. Arabs are not Canaanites. Jews have returned peacefully throughout the years. We sought a legitimate political remedy to nationhood. When that political remedy was met with armed resistance, we fought back. Never forget the collective sin of the Arabs via the Arab League/PLO.

    1. Your BULLSHIT is debunked here.
      https://reason.com/2019/08/17/rachel-maddows-racist-smear-of-second-circuit-nominee-steve-menashi/#comment-7902142
      Sources: Genesis, Jewish Virtual Library and elementary history.

      There are no Canaanites left with a prior claim.

      You SLAUGHTERED THEM to steal their land. So TOTAL mass genocide makes you … innocent … (OMFG) … of the ONLY mass genocide in human history,

      Arabs are not Canaanites.

      SHAME ON YOU … Is that why you BURIED your “comment” here, away from the facts? It was Muslims who allowed you back into Jerusalem after CHRISTIAN Crusaders killed and evicted you (and committed the FIRST Holocaust … for which you FUCKED them, stole theirs land and …. NOW WANT THEM OUT OF THE JERUSALEM THEY WELCOMED YOU BACK TO

      Never forget the collective sin of the Arabs via the Arab League/PLO.

      LIAR .. that was AFTER your moral hypocrisy … it was 1210 when THEY allowed YOU back.

      And MOSAIC LAW that COMMANDS YOU TO KILL EVERY INFIDEL (including MUSLIMS) EVEN ONE’S OWN BROTHER, SPOUSE, CHILD OR FRIEND. Deuteronomy 13.

      NEVER bullshit an educated man/woman/boy/girl.

      We suffered 9/11 for this. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

      1. Back to stormfront with you.

        1. I’m pretty sure this is just the same guy, back again after his first full-on Jew-hating loving account got banned.

          1. Tell me what you challenge, Punk, do I csn jam it up your pathetic ass

  21. The whole idea that Maddow’s criticism there is racist is absolutely ridiculous. Her tendency to find racism where it doesn’t exist is no excuse for you to be as dumb as she is. “She did it first” doesn’t work when children say it; it should work even less for law professors.

    1. I think it is arguably “racist.” These folks are deliberately lying for the purpose of inciting racial animosity and division for personal political gain. They are racism mongers.

      1. That’s as divorced from the commonly understood meaning of the term as the progressive “prejudice plus power” meaning is. It’s not assigning moral worth to a person based on race; it’s finding racism where there is none. It’s a bad thing to do, but it’s not racist. If reasonable people want to keep the public discussion as reality-focused as possible, this is the exact opposite way to do it. People who make these kinds of accusations of racism just make it harder to even know what someone means when they say that something is racist, let alone to have a productive conversation.

    2. The whole idea that Maddow’s criticism there is racist is absolutely ridiculous.

      TRUMP was the racist, by demanding it of Netanyahu, which this conservative lied about,
      That’s why Netanyahu caved, after his bigotry triggered worldwide rage.

  22. Do we even have the vocabulary anymore to say that someone is wrong but not racist?

  23. I cannot figure out which is sadder; Reason bothering to publish about Maddow, or the massive waste of data storage that follows in the comments.

  24. Who cares about anything relating to that shitty little country?

    1. Ossicle, circa 1944: Who cares about a couple million people in Europe? It’s just a shitty little group in a shitty little country.

      1. Typical conservatard HATER (vomit)