The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
When in Doubt, Consult the Bible? [UPDATE: Added Response from Amity Shlaes]
Writer Amity Shlaes had an interesting review of Ken Burns's The U.S. and the Holocaust in City Journal; I have no informed opinion on the review generally, but I was puzzled by one item:
It is in the second episode that the filmmakers turn to Franklin Roosevelt, the only president forced to contend with the Third Reich while in office. Roosevelt himself was capable of bigotry. During his first election campaign, Roosevelt allowed himself a kind of casual but nasty xenophobia, as in a San Francisco speech in which he assailed the Chicago electricity magnate Samuel Insull, who was taking his employees down with him as his firm failed. Roosevelt spoke against "the Ishmael or Insull, whose hand is against every man's," a line so creepy one can only ask, "What does that mean?" In his March 1933 inaugural address, just weeks before Hitler opened his first concentration camp, Roosevelt channeled Henry Ford on international capital, claiming that "the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed" and that "practices of the unscrupulous money changers"—code for Jewish Wall Street—"stand indicted." Burns covers none of this.
Roosevelt apparently did hold some anti-Semitic sentiments (which were of course quite common at the time). And the line about "the Ishmael or Insull" might indeed yield a "What does that mean?" reaction. But a bit of quick Googling led even Bible-ignorant me to Genesis 16:11-12:
11 And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction.
12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
This seems to fit with the Roosevelt sentence that the review was quoting:
Whenever in the pursuit of this objective the lone wolf, the unethical competitor, the reckless promoter, the Ishmael or Insull whose hand is against every man's, declines to join in achieving an end recognized as being for the public welfare, and threatens to drag the industry back to a state of anarchy, the Government may properly be asked to apply restraint.
The theory is that Insull (who was apparently not Jewish, but the son of a lay preacher) was just out for himself, rather than working harmoniously with others, which connects to Ishmael, whose "hand" was "against every man, and every man's hand against him." And my guess is that Roosevelt's 1932 audience knew the Bible enough not to react with "What does that mean?," or view the line as "creepy."
In any case, I thought I'd pass this along. Perhaps I myself am mistaken on this; again, I'm no history writer (while Shlaes is one) and certainly no Bible expert. Still, I wonder whether this item is an illustration of how easy it is for people to miss the extent to which Biblical references have been common in Western life.
UPDATE 3/3/2023: I had reached out to Shlaes before posting this, but hadn't heard from her in time. She has since gotten back to me, and wrote,
Ishmael is an important figure in the Bible. Abraham loved him. It was not the name Ishmael but the particular description of Ishmael that Roosevelt selected to make a comparison to Insull that caught my attention: Genesis 16:12, " And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man…" Sam Insull was the innovator who wired Chicago. He could be a rogue, but he was hardly evil. By the choice of that line from Scripture FDR appeared to make clear that he would not hesitate to smear his targets and escalate class war. To the public the comparison was doubtless disconcerting.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey, stupid troll: Professor Volokh is defending Roosevelt and criticizing Shlaes here.
Well the stupid troll part is right, but I don’t think EV is doing either, but rather trying to understand the comments in the context of the time they were made.
As for Roosevelt's possible anti-Semitism, read the linked article
Well, Nixon said some quite antisemitic things, but he also saved Israel's butt in 1973 -- promising to replace (item for item) everything Israel lost in combat so that IL could commit all its equipment without having to worry about keeping any in reserve.
It's called "walking the walk" and FDR didn't do it.
Kirkland saw the word “bible” and had a dissociative episode. Cut him some slack
RAK, like Roosevelt, is/was not always guided by the better angels of his nature.
By quoting someone calling Roosevelt a nasty xenophobe, then adding his observation that Roosevelt was antisemitic?
Stop spreading disinformation. EV neither defended derided Roosevelt; only questioned how his comment should be understood.
He did not add an observation that Roosevelt was antisemetic but rather linked to an LA Times article that raises questions about Roosevelt's feeling for Jews.
--Eugene Volokh, 2:56 p.m.
--The bigoted Mr. Bumble, 5:14 p.m.
Watching these sycophantic clingers vie for the chance to kiss Prof. Volokh's ass evokes the carp at Pymatuning.
(Yes, that is video of gawking hayseeds tossing doughballs and white bread slices at thousands of carp, which crowd the feeding area at a spillway in a manner than enables birds to walk on the backs of the fishes.)
Kirkland with some "60 Minutes" level editing of quotes here.
Arrange the quotations any way you wish, if you believe it will rehabilitate the commentary of Prof. Volokh and/or Mr. Bumble. The other deplorable culture war casualties who assemble at this faux libertarian, bigot-hugging blog are welcome to do the same.
Carry on, clingers. Guys like me will establish how far, though, and you will continue to comply with the preferences of better Americans.
not me apparently decided to quit while behind. There is a lesson in that for most of this blog's fans.
Cut Jerry S some slack, he's had a few TBI's over the years.
and hurls a vile racial slur roughly every three weeks
"hurls" as in "makes reference to in a news story that concerns absurd woke reactions to a contextual reference"
See how people lie, boys and girls?
Keep trying to put a white, male, right-wing law professor's habitual uses of a vile racial slur -- which customarily induces his bigoted followers to wield that vile racial slur repeatedly in the comments -- in a "better light."
It's entertaining to watch you clingers flail counterproductively.
Why don't you clingers start emailing the UCLA law dean, too, demanding a stop to the public denouncements and apologies with respect to those perfectly benign vile racial slurs?
IOW, all you have is your usual flailing and ad hominem attacks, with no substance.
I like mocking and correcting Republican racists, slur-slinging faux libertarians, conservative xenophobes, obsolete misogynists, chanting right-wing antisemites, disaffected and drawling hayseeds, and other clingers.
Does no one read Moby Dick any more? "Call me Ishmael", anyone? The most famous opening line in American Lit, and deservedly so. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Roosevelt received the following percentages of the Jewish vote in his four presidential campaigns, 82, 85, 90, and 90. I guess most of them thought he was a pretty decent goy.
Surgeon in med school used to say "Call me Ishmael" every time he'd walk into the OR with an Obese (in the 80's it wasn't "Morbid" yet) patient on the table. Took me a while to figure it out, well, didn't really figure it out, just asked one of the Residents what it meant, you know, there are such things as stupid questions.
Frank
And Ishmael wasn't even in the Jewish lineage, which was through his half-brother Isaac.
Thanks! -- I'd forgotten that....
Of course I must admit that as a Protestant, some of the Jewish law stuff and family lines doesn't always quite make sense.
And as to Jesus and the moneychangers -- I know they were violating Jewish law, and cheating people, but exactly *what* Jewish law were they violating?
It’s not that the moneychangers were breaking a Jewish law. If you had asked them, they would have told you that they were helping the people keep the law.
They were using the temple practices to cheat people who wanted to be faithful, by requiring money offerings to be made with particular coinage, or by accepting sacrifice animals purchased only from particular vendors.
The best modern equivalent I can think of is the $15 beer at the ball park.
Ishmael is sometimes held to be the forebear of the Muslims. This wasn’t antisemitism, it was anti-Islam.
Arabs. He's the progenitor of Arabs. Muslims were much, much later and aren't all Arabs.
The audience would probably get the reference - I did - and I also think that it would be taken as an antisemitic dog whistle, because while the audience would know that Ishmael was, strictly speaking, not of our tribe, he's close enough FAPP.
I don't think it is quite the dog whistle you do. To me Ishmael connotes a wandering outcast, but not necessarily a Jewish one. Hence "Call me Ishmael" at the beginning of Moby Dick,
Also, IIRC, Evelyn Waugh (not the most philosemitic of inter-war Britons) used "Ishmaelia" as a stand-in for Ethiopia.
You also gotta understand that there is a distinction between being opposed to bankers (who are plurality (majority?) Jewish and being opposed to Jews in general.
You also gotta understand that there is a distinction between being opposed to bankers (who are plurality (majority?) Jewish and being opposed to Jews in general.
I don't think you know much about antisemitism.
You could have ended that sentence two words earlier.
Indeed you could have, bernard!
Burns is a left-wing Democrat who has a worshipful view of Franklin Roosevelt and is simply incapable of objectively criticizing him. One of his previous documentaries, The Roosevelts, was essentially a hagiography of FDR.
He has no problem condemning other world leaders, particularly Churchill, for not doing enough to stop the Holocaust, but Roosevelt is blameless. Herbert Hoover is excoriated for his role in allowing the rise of the Third Reich, even though Hoover left office March 4, 1933, barely one month after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor. Roosevelt is, again, blameless. And, of course, no modern documentary on the Holocaust would be complete without tortured, twisted analogies to "Trump's America".
Ken Burns is a once-gifted documentarian, now completely captured by the scourge of modern left-wing totalitarian wokeness. (Can anyone imagine him making The Civil War today?)
Burns is a left-wing Democrat who has a worshipful view of Franklin Roosevelt and is simply incapable of objectively criticizing him.
I have no idea if this is true or not, but it is worth noting that Shlaes is a right-wing Republican who despises Roosevelt, so perhaps neither one has an objective view.
Shlaes is a partisan, faux academic clinger who earns a handy livelihood by incessantly sniping at Democrats and flattering Republicans -- she may still be the president of the Calvin Coolidge fan club. Look it up.
Mee-Yow!!!! Klinger Kat Fight!!
Well I have to say, my grandmother who was a grown woman when Roosevelt was elected, and got a Federal job under his administration just despised him.
She was OK with Kennedy, and Eisenhower but she didn't like Nixon or Johnson so it wasn’t a party thing.
Ken Burns is a Hampster -- a graduate of Hampshire College.
Need I really say anything more?
He has stupid hair?
Not really. It's blindingly obvious you are more successful than he is.
I grew up fundamentalist Christian, now Anglican. I got the reference right away. And I agree with SRG that it would be recognized as a slight, although the church I grew up in was more anti-Arab than anti-Jewish, so calling someone an Ishmael would be worse than calling them a Jew.
Insull was notorious at the time of the speech.
The big issue with electrical power is that you can NOT run DC through a transformer (the Model Ts had a vibrator, and we had points before electronic ignition to boost the 6 or 12 volts up to spark plug voltages. But you can run AC through transformers, and hence ship it long distances at high voltages.
What Edison did was wire everyone at 240 volts (DC) and then wire their houses in series with a shared neutral so that they actually only had 120 volts and that's why we have 120/240 today. (The 120/208 Wye is something else entirely.)
There were a lot of quite nasty robber barons involved and memory is that Tesla, Edison, & Westinghouse were all personally out of this by 1932. A central station would have had to be AC.
You sure about that?
You'd need copper wire as thick as your wrist to wire a house in 120v DC.
Actually, pretty good advice whether you are in doubt or not.
I would strengthen the qualifier here, not weaken it. For example, the Bible, despite much beautiful and even profound prose, is of such variable quality as a *moral* guide that an unindoctrinated 10 year old given a plain-English Bible could greatly improve it by just weeding out some its most egregious exhortations to barbarism. These improvements would of necessity be grounded in extra- (and supra-) Biblical morality, but that is plentiful in today’s 10 year olds due to the very low bar set by the bottom decile or so of the Good Book’s moral teachings.
What does "the only president forced to contend with the Third Reich while in office" mean? Truman became president before V-E Day, so didn't he have to contend with the (admittedly just about destroyed) Third Reich? Obviously I'm not a student of history, either.
Truman had to deal with Imperial Japan which wasn't a whole lot nicer -- they just tended to kill other races of people.
Rape of Nanking???
I also noticed that. I can't imagine the book left out the fact he died.
The book _The Jews Should Keep Quiet_ (by Rafael Medoff; available via Amazon and other sellers) is useful to underscore the understatement that "Roosevelt himself was capable of bigotry." A discussion of the book is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0Esqn90RQ
Yes, Biblical references are common in western culture and yes, Roosevelt was a bigot. But Roosevelt was also a deliberate holocaust denier, going to his grave never "formally aware" that concentration camps existed: the most thorough American censorship is the whitewashing of Democrat Roosevelt's agenda.
Shlaes should have done some research. As Eugene showed, it was easy to look up. And FDR was addressing a more Biblically educated audience than would be true today.
And Wall Street was not seen as particularly “Jewish”. He was simply pointing out that the investor class had failed the country. Which was obvious in 1933.
FDR thought that the post-war world should be dominated by three cooperating powers: the US, the Soviet Union, and (Nationalist) China. Thank God for Harry Truman!
And he thought he could trust Stalin, while being happy to sell Britain down the river.
Churchill also thought he could trust Stalin. He deceived himself into thinking that Stalin was not a free agent, beholden to shadowy hardliners. Or maybe he thought there was no way to avoid thinking this. People don’t realize that Chamberlain was in a similar situation with Hitler.
Truman too.
As I read about the era I begin to realize Stalin was kind of sui generis for the time.
There was nobody like him, nobody as crafty in diplomacy, or as successful at accomplishing his aims, evil as they were.
I'd agree with that S_O
Shlaes’s assertion that Roosevelt’s “unscrupulous money changers” was “code for Jewish Wall Street” reminds me very much of the claim that Ted Cruz’s condemnation of Donald Trump’s “New York values” was an anti-Semitic dog-whistle. I am disposed to give little credence to either claim.
In general, I’m inclined to reject the concept of dog-whistling. As Scott Alexander’s pointed out, it’s ludicrous to claim that an utterance is intended to convey hidden messages to someone’s chosen audience, but that every reporter and pundit knows the secret code.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/
Oh, dog whistles are real. But the thing to remember about dog whistles is that if you hear a dog whistle ... you're the dog.
What about wolf whistles?
Yeah, if you see someone put a dog whistle to their lips, blow, then see the dogs come-a-runnin', you're the dog.
I'm with you about the New York Values thing was a stretch, but the "money changers" was just too spot on with "money changers in the temple", and they don't actually change a lot of money on wallstreet.
The holocaust killed 11 to 17 million people, not just 6 million jews. Thinking people should be revolted just on the basis of humanity. Pro or anti-Semitism is beside the point.
To continually mention the 6 million Jewish victims, with no mention of the others is anti-something, although we don't have a specific word for that.
The Nazis killed those millions, but the word Holocaust in context originally applied to Jews specifically, though quite reasonably the term was later extended to the mass murder of the Roma, and more recently still, the Nazis' killing the disabled. But the difference between the Holocaust of the Jews and the general mass killing was that one of the primary goals of the Nazis was the killing of all European Jews - so much so that war resources were diverted to that aim.
No, we do not ignore or forget other Nazi victims, but the Jews were uniquely singled out for extermination.
Wikipedia says “The first recorded use of the term holocaust in its modern sense was made in 1895 by The New York Times to describe the massacre of Armenian Christians by Ottoman forces.”
It also says, "As non-Jewish groups began to include themselves as Holocaust victims, many Jews chose to use the Hebrew terms Shoah or Churban."
Where is your evidence that the word in context referred only to Jews?
"Where is your evidence that the word in context referred only to Jews?"
From the very first line of the Wikipedia entry:
The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah,[a] was the genocide of European Jews during World War II
Roosevelt channeled Henry Ford on international capital, claiming that "the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed" and that "practices of the unscrupulous money changers"—code for Jewish Wall Street—"stand indicted."
One of the things the Nazis and the Soviets had in common was their belief that production was honest toil, but distribution and most particularly exchange were parasitical. Nazi propaganda art is amazingly similar to Soviet propaganda art, on the subject of what kinds of toil are honest and what kinds are dishonest.
Both totalitarian lunocracies were big on heroic pics of manly, or womanly, peasants harvesting away, and manly fellows thumping away in factories with big hammers. Meanwhile wholesaling and particularly anything to do with finance was conducted by caricature villains, ugly, fat cigar smokers, or (for small scale wholesaling) ugly, dirty, weaselly men - the only distinction being that in Nazi art, the parasites had big hooked noses.
It's hardly surprising that Nazis, Soviets and FDR shared the same gut revulsion against the distributors and exchangers - it's an almost universal contempt. Most people have very little clue about the value of distribution or exchange. Production looks like honest toil, but all this other stuff looks like preying on other people's hard work.
It doesn't help, obviously, that exchange (inc finance) has large economies of scale. So exchange fat cats tend to be fatter than production fat cats.
Anyway, I think we can simply attribute FDR's remarks to the normal, very common, prejudice against distribution and exchange. Unfortunate in a US President contending with a Depression, but par for the course.
Well, I’m going to defend FDR against Schlaes and against Volokh’s initial reaction.
Nothing creepy about invoking a Biblical reference pretty much everyone in his audience knew – back then even the atheists would have recognized it.
When Ambrose Bierce, in his *Devil's Dictionary,* defined "Flesh" as "The Second Person of the secular Trinity," he and his audience would have recognized the phrase "the world, the flesh and the devil." Bierce was a full-on atheist but knew his Bible - how else could he mock it?
And not only is the story of Ishmael in the Jewish scriptures, it’s in the first book. Were Schlaes and Volokh just skimming?
Now, as for the standard defense of FDR – “he *wanted* to let in more Jewish refugees but the people wouldn’t let him” – again, that demonstrates his power to make everyone think he was on their side, even when he was doing the opposite of what they wanted him to do.
He could have chosen to risk his third term to let in more refugees, and the torch might have passed to Willkey, a fellow-interventionist if you’re worried an “isolationist” would have replaced Roosevelt.
Then Roosevelt would have “only” had two terms, same as Washington. The horror!
Or Bierce may have been a pantheist.
And the world, the flesh and the devil is a theological commentary, not the Bible itself, but must have been almost as well-known as the Bible for Bierce to reference it so casually.
(deleted comment; meant for another thread)
Yeah, Morfyd is pretty hot.
I accidentally hit “flag comment,” yet your joke wasn’t nearly bad enough to deserve that. I beg your pardon.
Oh the times they are achanging!
Just now, on our long three day drive to bicycling vacation, we have a hundred hour long audio book reading the entire Bible. My ears caught the verse of Professor Volokh’s quote.
Perhaps only tangentially relevant, but 3 items worth comparing:
Matthew 5:14: Jesus there says, as the King James Version renders it: “Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.”
John Winthrop, from his sermon, "A Model of Christian Charity:
For wee must consider that wee shall be as a citty upon a hill. The eies of all people are uppon us. Soe that if wee shall deale falsely with our God in this worke wee haue undertaken, and soe cause him to withdrawe his present help from us, wee shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. Wee shall open the mouthes of enemies to speake evill of the wayes of God, and all professors for God's sake. Wee shall shame the faces of many of God's worthy servants, and cause theire prayers to be turned into curses upon us till wee be consumed out of the good land whither wee are a goeing.
Ronald Reagan, endlessly:
A shining city on a hill.
Who is the plagiarist among the three?
Let’s remove the moralizing and racial undertones and look at the substance of Roosevelt’s claim:
“Whenever [the businessman] declines to join in achieving an end recognized as being for the public welfare, and threatens to drag the industry back to a state of anarchy, the Government may properly be asked to apply restraint.”
In this view, Government is the enforcer of society’s rules for good behavior. Its task is to resist the strongman with the strong arm of public institutions. The ethical basis for this is the belief that the strongman wants anarchy and is opposed to the public welfare.
Sure sounds good, doesn’t it? What we’ve learned since then, however, is that the strongman absolutely hates anarchy, he vastly prefers to capture Government. For example, he would like nothing better than to get the Government to tax people $130 per dose of an experimental vaccine his company manufactures, and then force everyone to take it multiple times or lose their livelihoods.
The part that is still quite true, however, is that the Government desperately wants to be the only agency who can declare when something is in the public’s interest. When that happens, even declining to join the Government is an act worthy of penalty. The strongman doesn’t even need to actually cause harm, he just needs to not agree to do what Government wants.
But these contradictory impulses cannot live together. Government can’t be both captured by business and dictating its behavior. In my opinion, what happens is that business winds up capturing Government even more completely, dictating to Government what it wants Government to dictate to itself. As the saying goes, “no one hates competition more than a successful capitalist.” Government can be a very useful tool for keeping out the small fry. It can write laws requiring 300 hours of training for people to apply false eyelashes.
So, sad to say, President Roosevelt’s ideas just don’t work out in practice. There’s no nice way to be a dictator.
We keep hearing about the government vs. corporations, but it would be better phrased as the government and its corporate allies vs. other corporations, and the public at large.
Maybe FDR had some anti-semitic tendencies, but something FDR said about a gentile, quoting a biblical reference to Ishmael (traditionally regarded as the ancestor of the Arabs, not of the Jews (that would be Abraham's other son, Isaac) is not very indicative of them.