The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Who Are the Least and Most Antisemitic Americans by Ideology?
It's probably not who you think.
I happened across this very interesting and provocative paper by Fordham political scientist Jeffrey Cohen.
Cohen starts by noting the two dominant theories of antisemitism and poltiical ideology in the United States. One theory holds that antisemitism can be found on the extreme right and the extreme left. A second holds that people on the left are least antisemitic, and are more likely to be antisemitic the further right one goes.
Cohen has a third theory. I can't do justice to his methodology in a short blog post, but essentially he criticizes prior researchers for relying on self-declared political ideology, and for excluded "don't knows" from their analysis.
The uphot is that the least antisemitic Americans are mainstream liberals and conservatives. The most antisemitic are the extreme left, the extreme right, as one of the theories noted above suggests, but also low information voters, who skew survey results by often self-identifying as "moderate."
Cohen's explanation for these results is interesting. He argues that the mainstream elite in the US has been philo-semitic since the 1950s. People who have mainstream political views and take their cues from mainstream sources follow that mainstream consensus. But those who take their cues and get their news elsewhere are, obviously, less influenced by this consensus and thus much more likely to hold antisemitic views. This includes far leftists and far rightists, but also, crucially, people of inchoate ideology who are alienated from the mainstream.
Cohen doesn't get into this, but the upshot isn't a happy one for American Jews. Increasing numbers of Americans don't trust the "establishment" and take their cues and get their news from extremists or demagogues just looking for clicks. Consider how many young people rely on TikTok, of all things, for information. This helps explain the rise in antisemitism in recent years. It also helps explains why so many Jews were intuitively uncomfortable with Trump and his blowing up of the Republican mainstream, which has indeed helped cause a rise in antisemitic nonsense proliferating on the right (I'm looking at you Candace Owens). It's also why Biden's failure to articulate and implement a defense of the Democratic mainstream from the far left has left many Jews--especially many Jewish liberals who find themselves under attack in Progressive circles that seek to exclude "Zionists"--extremely uneasy.
I suspect, though, that Trump and Biden are more symptoms than causes. The establishment, often (but not always) for good reasons, lost the faith of large swathes of the American public. And it's not clear what the "mainstream" is anymore in the current media environment. NPR, for example, once an exemplar of mainstream liberalism, has taken a hard turn to the left since 2016 and especially 2020. Meanwhile, social media has allowed the media environment to fracture such that successful media outlets generally are ones that appeal to people's pre-existing prejudices rather than challenging them. Further evidence, I suppose, for Frankin Foer's thesis that the golden age of American Jews is ending.
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
Wild guess, but for "most" I’d say Moose-lums, followed by the Black-Moose-lums, followed by (the) Blacks, the rest of you Goyim aren’t even in the running (OK, the Germans were for awhile) Least? surprisingly (or not) the Revolting Reverend’s Slack Jawed Klingers of Hey-Zeus worshipers
Frank
… low information voters, who skew survey results by often self-identifying as “moderate.”
What is your definition of “low information voters,” and what evidence is there that they “skew survey results by self-identifying as ‘moderate’?”
I think that it is mostly that highly partisan voters are biased in how they use information, while people who invest less of their identity into a political party or ideology are also less motivated to seek information. That is what I would expect any research into this area to find. It becomes easy, then, for partisans to dismiss voters and citizens that don’t vote as “low information.”
Really, my opinion is that our system of choosing our government is what skews our politics. It puts more emphasis and more influence toward election results on people that are highly partisan. Those in the middle are only relevant in the general election, so candidates play to the most strident part of their party’s base in the primaries and then moderate their rhetoric for the general election. Then they go on to act in ways that please their base more than the moderates. It is no wonder that they tend to not bother finding out more information before voting, if they vote at all.
[Edit: I responded to that quote before I read the rest of the article, bad on me. You seem to be taking a lot of this from Cohen, so I assume that he defines "low information" in his work, and provides some basis for that and claims about them. I stand by my opinions about how our system emphasizes partisanship.]
Shrinking the government down IMMENSELY would remove a lot of that.
These problems aren't nails. They will take more than the libertarian hammer to change them.
There is no other fix.
If the Feds can dictate a massive number of things in your life, partisanship is an inevitability. If the Feds cannot do much, then there are far fewer things to stress over.
The stakes are too high for people to just let things slide.
Yeah, back when the Federal government was smaller there was no partisanship in America.
It is like he doesn't realize that how much the government should do to solve various problems is one of the primary things people debate in politics.
Meanwhile, social media has allowed the media environment to fracture such that successful media outlets generally are ones that appeal to people’s pre-existing prejudices rather than challenging them.
Social media has accelerated that process, but it is hardly the beginning of it. I’ve seen some people commenting on blogs, like this one, and elsewhere claim that the end of the Fairness Doctrine was the start of media tailored to narrow ranges of opinion. Supposedly, that allowed the rise of political talk radio. And it was conservative talk radio hosts that were highly successful in that format, such as Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe that played a part in it, I don’t know. But whatever the cause, once the syndicated talk radio hosts started showing the size of the demand for political commentary that reinforced existing views and opinions…well, we know what came next.
You a fan of Thom Hartmann? He’s the most prominent proponent of the Fairness Doctrine theory I know. Although I don’t watch cable opinion programs, so there might be others.
I am not a fan. I have started to watch a couple of his YouTube videos when they showed up, so I know who and what you mean. It could have been one of those that I am remembering most, but I know I've seen it elsewhere as well.
Fairness doctrine or not, I saw partisan cable news grow into what it is throughout my adult years. The prime time all-opinion, personality driven line up on Fox that has existed for 20+ years, in particular, seems to be obviously derived from the talk radio format.
So antisemitism rises as one gets away from the center, along the usual two axes.
But it rises quickly along the capitalist-Marxist axis, and in one direction only.
It's a question of degree -- it's the left burning Synagogues, not the right...
Looking at Wikipedia, it appears that almost all the attacks outside the United States are motivated by antipathy to Israel among various Middle Eastern groups or sympathizers. But the ones in the United States are heavily slanted toward white supremacists and other right wing types. (I'm not inclined to accept that Islamic terrorism is actually left, but the numbers are clear even without that.)
Who again has been attacking synagogues in the US?
"It’s a question of degree — it’s the left burning Synagogues, not the right…"
Does shooting up a synagogue full of Jews mean nothing to you?
--- Robert Bowers
The majority of the serious attacks in the US, even with Wikipedia's bias, are either Black radicals or Islamic radicals.
And a lot of the people that Wiki declares to be "white supremicists" are actually just plain crazy.
Aye Laddie, he's No True White Supremacist, just a Crazy Trump Follower!
This is an utterly useless game to play.
Awww, it's not the result you wanted.
No, my main issue is that its only practical upshot independent of result is partisan fuel.
That’s what I meant by useless game. See also what ideology has the most mass shooters, and other exercises in straining to blame a broad ideology for this or that bad thing.
I will also note that paper is also not particularly clear on what ‘far’ and ‘moderate’ mean, from my quick readthrough.
This is also a longstanding issue with Prof. Bernstein’s past criticisms of ‘far left’ antisemitism – when pressed he retreats to a really extreme definition, but in his OPs he leaves it loose (and thus useful as a partisan cudgel). Though now that he's calling npr far left...well, we all see where this is going.
But thanks for your cynical assumption of outcome-oriented bad faith. Says a lot about how you see the world.
What "Ideology" does have the most "Mass Shooters"?? (actually the way the Lame Stream Media defines "Mass Shootings" its your typical Saturday Nite in South Chicago "Ideological" Group)
Some of the more notorious recent ones were Transexuals, who certainly consider themselve(s, get it?) to be an "Ideology". The Gay Dance Club in Florida? a Moose-lum who apparently didn't like Gays (or Dancing)
Frank
What are you talking about? Don't you remember when Bernstein -- and Blackman, and Volokh, and even Kontorovich -- called out Harrison Butker for that "Christ killer" comment? Or when those guys went after Elon Musk (and Bill Ackman) for the antisemitism?
Are you honestly trying to contend the Volokh Conspirators' antisemitism squad only goes after antisemitism (real or perceived) these clingers figure they can try to blame on liberals . . . and that these conservatives are customarily and conspicuously silent with respect to blatant, recurring right-wing antisemitism?
LOL. First, "here's a study that shows that mainstream liberals and conservatives have equally low levels of antisemitism, and people are more antisemitic on the far left, the far right, and who have inchoate low information-based views." Sarcastro: Partisan.
Second, Sarcastro: "what's the point of knowing the origins of antisemitism? It can only be for partisan gain." Well, unless you actually want to understand it for purposes of combatting it. But I think you have basically demonstrated over the years that you don't really care, so of course if you don't all you could see is partisanship.
As for NPR taking a hard turn to the left, it's been widely commented upon among people who follow the media, including the very well-publicized recent controversy involving a 25 year NPR veteran who later resigned after talking about this. You may disagree based on who-knows-what, but at least don't pretent it's some idiosyncratic thing to me.
‘Second, Sarcastro: “what’s the point of knowing the origins of antisemitism? It can only be for partisan gain.”’
I’m having trouble finding that quote in Sacastr0’s post. Perhaps you don’t understand English and what a quote is supposed to be?
If you wish to paraphrase, do so. If you want to quote, do so. Have some integrity.
Scholarship, Volokh Conspiracy-style.
1. I didn’t say it was partisan, I said ‘its only practical upshot…is partisan fuel.’ I’d say this comment thread is good evidence for that postulate.
2. Not even your OP claims the study is about the origins of antisemitism, that’s silly for an article that's pure correlation.
3. Yes, an NPR guy did a noisy exit. You seem to be taking that as dispositive. That says a lot more about you than NPR. And how the shapelessness of your definition of far left is beneficial to your own partisanship, whether intentional or not.
"I didn’t say it was partisan, I said ‘its only practical upshot…is partisan fuel.’ "
Oh, gee, that's totally different. Especially in conjunction with "This is an utterly useless game to play."
"Yes, an NPR guy did a noisy exit. You seem to be taking that as dispositive. "
How does he seem to be taking that as dispositive? That's not what he said, Sarcastro.
Origin as it "where it comes from" not origin as in "where in the deep mists of time"
As for NPR, like I said, many people have noticed its sharp turn to the left, but the only one who has used the term "far left" to describe NPR is you.
Really David? If NPR was (let’s say) moderate before [and most would say that it was probably actually center-left before], and you say that it then took a sharp left turn, is it *really* a stretch to interpret that as you saying that NPR is now far left?
If you had said that “…NPR has nudged to the left” or even “…NPR has moved to the left” then I’d agree that you haven’t suggested that it’s currently located in “far left” territory. But I think it’s silly for you to protest about how we’re interpreting your words–I think that our interpretation seems to be a reasonable way for your dear readers to use our understanding of how English works.
Ummm…Why is it useless to know about who people with particular views are? It’s rarely useless to find out more about what’s going on with any problem.
No idea how good the study involved is so can’t speak to its conclusions. But while studying problems often doesn’t help with solutions, sometimes it does. So it isn’t useless to try.
.
Make support of Israel's right-wing belligerents a left-right divider in American politics?
Compound that mistake by aligning with the losing (bigoted, ignorant, religious, backward) side of the American culture war.
Fuck around and find out.
Even on Sunday you're revolting, Revolting.
If your own country (if you have one) was run by people whose politics you didn’t like, would you really advocate it and its people being wiped off the face of the earth, as you’ve been doing here with Israel?
Are you nothing more than a sort of anti-Trump, a Trumpista of the political left? If you don’t get your political way, everybody else can just eat shit and die as far as you’re concerned?
In 1940, George Orwell wrote an essay entitled “My Country Right or Left.” You might want to consider reading it.
I want my country to stop enabling, arming, and appeasing a bunch of war-criming, superstition- and bigotry-driven, selfish, violent, right-wing jerks. I want my country to welcome the better residents of that country. The others, who have turned partisan and chosen the wrong side, deserve no support.
I don’t like right-wing assholes — especially the religious and bigoted ones — anywhere.
I’m certainly not supporting everything the Israeli government does. And I don’t know what Hamas is paying Ben G’vir, but whatever it is he’s done more than enough for them to deserve a raise.
Nonetheless, Israeli is fighting a war no different from the wars the United States fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which involved a lot of bombing and urban warfare and civilian deaths. And Israel has at least as much justification. The United States mostly wiped out ISIS, and sought for years to wipe out Al Qaida and the Taliban, fighting numerous urban battles in the process.
After September 11, the United States’ war aim was rhe unconditional surrender or destruction of ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. After October 7, Israel is entitled, so far as international law and the law of war is concerned, to seek a similar objective by similar means. Pursuing such an objective to its end may or may not be wise or politic or feasible. The United States effectively destroyed ISIS but stopped short of destroying the Taliban. But whether or not Israel should stop or continue is not a question of international law.
What the United States did is not genocide. What Israel has been doing is no different, and isn’t genoicide either. It is simply what war is. Attack another country that’s able to defend itself, and hell breaks loose on yours. That was true of 9/11. It is true of 10/7. If you don’t want that to happen, don’t attack.
Israeli is fighting a war no different from the wars the United States fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, which involved a lot of bombing and urban warfare and civilian deaths.
1. Israel is in trouble for starvation as a tactic, denial of humanitarian relief, and deliberately targeting civilians. We did not do any of that.
2. Israel seems a fucked as we were in both of those foreverwars. Though that might be a feature for Netanyahu, or at least he has no plan for exit, as argued by the recent resignations of his ministers seems to indicate.
Israel has not deliberately targeted civilians. Hamas has, however, rather consistently, both Israeli civilians and its own. It uses human shields extensively. The use of human shields, deliberately placing civilians in the line of fire to get propaganda value from their deaths, is the intentional targeting of civilians. That’s solely Hamas’ responsibility.
Also, look up the Wikipedia entry for Siege, read what it is, and take a look at the list of modern examples.
The UN and World Court have been in existence for about 80 years.
Could you please identify a single other instance when a use of siege tactics in war has been declared to be an act of genocide? One? What makes this use of siege tactics different from any other?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege
"Israel has not deliberately targeted civilians." "The use of human shields, deliberately placing civilians in the line of fire to get propaganda value from their deaths, is the intentional targeting of civilians."
In other words, any time Israel targets civilians, they were placed there as human shields by Hamas. Therefore, Israel's targeting of civilians can also be blamed on Hamas.
" Israel has not deliberately targeted civilians. "
You're a lying piece of shit.
Why?
"Israel has not deliberately targeted civilians."
The West Bank?
What precipitates your stupid comments? Partisanship? Superstition? Tribalism? Or just stupidity?
I have a problem with a universal definition of antisemitism.
Take Richard Nixon who said a *lot* of anti semetic things, we have this on tape. And yet it was Nixon who saved Israel's bacon in the '73 war with his promise to replace whatever equipment Israel lost in the war (so Israel didn't have to keep any in reserve).
As to who is more likely to say something offensively anti-semetic, it's clearly the populist right and that is MAGA. But that's a lot more ignorance than actual bigotry, and it's not a very deeply held emotion -- in no small part because Jesus was an observant Jew and true Christians know that, 3/4 of our Bible is an English translation of Jewish holy books.
The other thing in dealing with the populist right is the mistake of forgetting the social class issue and not seeing some of the antisemitism as that. A good example is Hitler seeing all the Communists as being Jews when (a) they weren't all Jewish and (b) their being Communists was independent of their being Jewish -- Hitler reportedly would then see all Americans as being Jewish as well because of the collapse of the Wiemar Republic.
On the other hand, the left truly does hate Jews, but not because they are Jews as much as the Jewish values they have. Family, individualism, individual merit -- that stuff doesn't go well with the collective...
There are a lot of Jews on the collectivist Left.
Jews have as much power and influence as ever. Both major Presidential candidates are very pro-Jewish. Jews hold many prominent positions the government, news media, entertainment, other institutions, etc.
“Jews have as much power and influence as ever.”
Sure, that’s why Jews are the only minority group you can attack (even physically!) with impunity on elite college campuses. Tell me another one!
I hate how all those leftists refuse to see people as individuals!
heh
"As to who is more likely to say something offensively anti-semetic, it’s clearly the populist right and that is MAGA."
...oddly, they ARE NOT doing that.
The populist Left, however, very much is.
I'm not sure there still is a populist left.
The populist Left becomes the mainstream in extremely short order, yes. The Palestinian loving community is becoming a large swath of the Dem voter base.
...then again, blatant racism/bigotry is a long tradition for that party.
We already know anti-semtism and pro-Israel is not uncommon.
'but not because they are Jews as much as the Jewish values they have. Family, individualism, individual merit'
This is just cut-and-pasted from any number of old Republican condemnations of the left and their opposition to Family Values and Merit. They all went on to vote for Donald Trump.
"NPR, for example, once an exemplar of mainstream liberalism, has taken a hard turn to the left since 2016 and especially 2020."
If conservatives fly from reality, and you continue to report on reality, it will look like a "hard left turn".
Broad accusations of antisemitism by the American right serve to devalue the term. Partisanizing support of Israel does Israel no favors in the short term, and is absolutely alienating to American support in the longer term.
It's domestic politics over any kind of actually useful defense of Israel's right to exist.
+1. Some time ago, I remarked on another of DB's posts that the problem with Netanyahu's actions is that he was making support for Israel a partisan issue in the United States.
This has always been a bipartisan issue- and allies should support, and also be able to criticize, their friends.
The younger generation no longer remembers Israel as the scrappy underdog fighting off larger and more powerful enemies bent on its destruction, but only sees the current pictures and reality.
(I truly hope that a global deal which provides for peace and security and normalizes relations all of its neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, occurs, so that we see them act in concert against Iran and its proxies. But the current issues in Gaza seem to preclude that happening.)
I see Israel as the scrappy underdog RIGHT NOW -- trying to defend itself without being able to do what is really necessary to do that.
If any of you “Conspirators” have any real-world skills, i.e. Medicine/Nursing/Law Enforcement/Firefighting/Electrician/Plumbing, Israel could still use some Volunteers, I’m going back and not just because Haifa is beautiful this time of year (well partly) the IDF has the “Universal Service” (I know, except for those Ultra Orthodox fucks) everyone supposedly thinks is so great, which means when Moshe the Plumber is in Gaza driving his Tank he can’t come by and unclog your toilet, same with Saul the Dentist, Levi the Butcher, or Ezra the Candlestick maker. Sure it's dangerous, but once you get to your shithole US City airport you're home free.
Frank
And of course that goes for the XX’s out there also (yeah, like there’s any XX’s on this Sausage Fest of a blog) Rachel the Nurse, Chaya the Teacher, Shoshana the F-16 Pilot, Chedva the FA-18 Pilot,
Just the other day National Pubic Radio had an in-depth piece (you can say that again) about the "Service" "Coyotes" do in smuggling Illegal Immigrants across the border. Wouldn't bother me so much if my Tax Sheckels weren't paying for that shit. At least when Howard Stern went woke I could cancel my Sirius subscription.
Frank
captcrisis, of all the crap Professional Victim Bernstein pulled out of his ass, the NPR blurb stood out to me as well. As a lifelong listener I enjoy that they just report the facts and never, ever offer opinions (the guests might, but the hosts never). Now then, the rubes probably don't like the subject matter they present which is often ethnic/african american/queer/alt music/healthcare/environmental etc. But I have never, ever heard an antisemitic word from hosts or guests. Never. Perhaps Bernstein is irked that they don't do Jewish/Israeli content as much as he would like. That's his problem.
It's weird that both you and Saracstro seem to think that I accused NPR of being antisemitic, even though I said no such thing. I said they took a hard turn to the left since 2016 and moreso since 2020. Everyone who follows media is aware of this.
As for the idea that NPR just reports the fact without opinions, well, I have a libertarian friend who does a running series on obvious questions for any sensible reporter are either ignored in news stories, or when interviewing guests. It's quite amusing, actually, because neither they nor their overwhelmingly liberal audience members such as yourself seem to notice.
Bernstein, your entire second paragraph makes no sense no matter how it is read. Perhaps you can rephrase it.
Should he, uh, use smaller words? It seemed clear to me.
He could try standard English.
Or not.
both you and Saracstro seem to think that I accused NPR of being antisemitic
Where do I say this?
I am pulling this quote-
"Dinnerstein (1995) argues Americans have become increasingly positive toward Jews over time, stating in 2016 that 'antisemitism is too minor an issue to think about' (p. 59)."
Oops. As I have remarked before, the increase in anti-Semitism on both the left and the right, and the open tolerance for same, is worrying. Obviously, there are different reasons for it (the extreme right has a Christian/Racial purity problem, and the extreme left has a Palestine/Israel problem that increasingly is highjacked into an anti-Semitism problem). That said, I think that the issue of the "Don't Know" voters is troubling. It would be good to find out more about that cohort.
I believe that it should be possible to criticize Israel as a country without devolving into anti-Semitism. But I am extremely concerned about what is happening. Anti-Semitism is an evil that must be persistently fought until it is removed, root and branch.
Remember, if you are allowing it on "your side," you are part of the problem.
When Israel chose to align with America's right-wingers, I lost interest in Israel's interests. The bigotry, superstition, and war crimes associated with Israel's current government and conduct have not improved the situation.
I still hope better Israels -- reasoning, non-wingnut -- move to America. After that, it's hard to find any good guys in this context. I would gladly ditch Israel and Saudi Arabia simultaneously. I don't wish to support superstition-fueled, bigoted, war-crimey right-wing belligerence anywhere on earth.
"(the extreme right has a Christian/Racial purity problem"
WHAT?!?
Do you know anything about any real Christian faith??
I am not the one you should be directing that question too.
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
But yes, I do think it is unfortunate that so many Christians act in remarkably un-Christian ways! After all, it's not like there has been any bad history there .... or that there are any people currently using it as a justification for their own vile beliefs.
As opposed to the unChristian things that Catholics and Protestants do to each other and have for centuries?
Think about that for a minute. And I'd argue that in Massachusetts, Protestants are discriminated against worse than Jews.
" And I’d argue that in Massachusetts, Protestants are discriminated against worse than Jews."
I am sure you would!
Case in point, Elizabeth Woodward...
In what ways are Protestants particularly discriminated against in MA?
An an addendum, has anyone ever noticed that when something factual is pointed out (here, for example, that there is an element on the extreme right that justifies anti-Semitism through Christianity), people immediately pop up about #notallChristians.
Which is both fair, but also not the point. I am not saying that this is an aspect of all Christians, or most. Just that this has been popping up with some extreme right-wingers.
However, these very same people are the first to act as both authorities on what other religions require (such as Islam) and to make broad generalizations about them?
That would be the faith that goes all in for the murder of Gazan civilians, illegal immigrants, and prostitutes?
That would be off-duty Hamas Combatantants, illegal alien Criminals, and sucks-to-be-you prostitutes.
Right, the exact sort of people whose deaths Jesus celebrated.
He did...
Sometimes, I wonder if you truly lack any and all self-awareness.
I mean, no one can be this stupid, right?
Right?
But right after talking about how it isn't fair to talk about Christianity, he immediately pivots to saying that Jesus was all about killing people you don't like. That must be the special "Dr. Ed" version of the good book.
Not to mention demonstrators who block streets.
Subversive terrorists...
The biggest subversive around here is you.
And the only reason you're not a terrorist is because you're afraid to be.
You want to attack those who disagree with you politically, and, let's be blunt, kill them out of hand. That's your idea how things should be done, and you've expressed it often enough to make any denial ridiculous.
You haven't, I hope, taken it on yourself to drive a car into a crowd, or shoot up a church or synagogue, but given your views I assume that it's only cowardice that stops you.
"Do you know anything about any real Christian faith??"
Do you know anything about real Christian White Evangelism??
I agree with this just about 100%.
One aspect you omit, though, is the "Paranoid Style" in American politics. IMO, Richard Hofstadter mistakenly attributed this solely to the Right. In actuality, it seems to flow in waves. So at the time, you did see it more on the Right with McCarthyism/HUAC, water fluoridation and other "commie plots." But then it faded from the Right and emerged more on the Left, beginning with the "Don't trust anyone over 30" slogans and the paranoid thrillers of the mid '70s, and maturing into the original anti-vaxx movement (Thimerosol) and especially 9/11 Trutherdom. During that time, the paranoid style of the Right seemed to be gone, but in fact it was just hibernating. COVID woke it up in a big way.
One thing all paranoid conspiracies seem to have in common, though, is that sooner or later, it is the Jews that are responsible.
I think there is a fascinating book to be written on this subject.
Why would anyone think it is a good idea to raise this point at a white, male blog that publishes vile racial slurs habitually, weekly, and with relish?
Carry on, clingers.
When this blog starts banning vile commenters, you will the first to go.
"Vile" is a little strong (not inaccurate, just strong) I think "Revolting" sums it up well, and the Revolting Reverend is thoughtful enough to have that adjective in front of his name each and every time he revolts us.
Frank
This discussion will continue to be nonsense until we can separate prejudice against the Jewish community from support or condemnation of Israel. Too many who engage in this discussion equate support or dislike of Israel with support or dislike of Jews. That is simply incorrect. Support of Israel does not equate to support for Jews and opposition to Israel does not equate to Antisemitism.
Those of us in the Jewish community have long known that support for Israel in the hard right religious sector is solely for the purpose of masking hatred of Jews.
As for which side of the political spectrum is more Antisemitic I would note that historically Antisemitism has had a home in conservative Republican politics, and the most Antisemitic movement today, Christian Nationalism lives well entrenched in Conservative politics.
"Those of us in the Jewish community have long known that support for Israel in the hard right religious sector is solely for the purpose of masking hatred of Jews."
Bullshyte.
I'm not even going to dignify this with a reply beyond that...
"As for which side of the political spectrum is more Antisemitic I would note that historically Antisemitism has had a home in conservative Republican politics,"
Including the right-wing Republican named Franklin Roosevelt who sent Jews back to die in Nazi Germany. Oh, wait, he was a left-of-center Democrat....
"and the most Antisemitic movement today, Christian Nationalism lives well entrenched in Conservative politics."
Bullshyte.
Saying that this is a Christian Nation (which it is) does not diminish from either the ability of others to practice their faiths here, nor in saying that Israel is a Jewish nation where others (i.e. non-Jews) can practice their faiths.
That's odd, turning refugees away fits right in with current Republican ideology.
With the possible exception of Rwanda (thank you Bill Clinton), there's a wee bit of a difference. Like no Holocaust...
The bit of a difference clearly meant and means nothing.
Death camps in Venezuela? North Korea, yes and we have pictures of them. But not Venezuela....
You'd have cheered as they were turned away.
You ARE a moron...
Nobody who wants to drop a nuke gives a shit about the Holocaust.
Some argue we should have bombed Auschwitz.
I think you bombed your brain.
It fit in with RW ideology under FDR as well.
Anyone who imagines that there was any significant support from the right for admitting Jewish refugees, before, during, or in the years immediately following WWII is living in a fantasy universe.
It was not until Truman, in 1948, signed a bill admitting 200,000 refugees - still in DP camps - that the US accepted any significant of these refugees.
Saying that this is a Christian Nation (which it is) does not diminish from either the ability of others to practice their faiths here, nor in saying that Israel is a Jewish nation where others (i.e. non-Jews) can practice their faiths.
Well, we all know that some pigs are more equal than others, so that makes sense.
After you finish identifying all the antisemites are all on the left, tell us more about how liberal Jews are not 'real' Jews, Ed.
It's not antisemitic to hate them for being Communists....
Actually, it is.
Because they are not Communists, except by your insane dfeinition under which any non-Trumpist is a Communist.
Just how many actual Communists do you think there are in this country? CPUSA claims 5,000 members. Let's call it 50,000 to be generous to your stupidity.
There are 7.6 million Jews. Even if all the Communists are Jewish, you are justifying hating Jews based on the political beliefs of less than two-thirds of 1% of American Jews.
No antisemitism there.
It's more than 0.67% but that will do.
I don't hate, per se, but I think it is fair for me to hold Jews For Hamas in contempt, not because they are Jews but because they are For Hamas...
It’s more than 0.67% but that will do.
I multiplied known figures by ten, and made wildly unrealistic assumptions in your favor, but yet you claim "It’s more than 0.67%" without one iota of data to support your claim.
And then you say even .67% "will do." Will do for what? What do you have in mind for the 99.33% (+) of us who are not Communists?
Anyone who ascribes to Marxist thought is a de facto communist, because that is where it will lead in the end.
What does Marxist mean for this purpose?
Ask Doriane Coleman.
What a twit.
It is not; indeed that is a wildly antisemitic comment. Jews are not guests who "can practice our faith" here. We are Americans, as much a part of the nation as you are.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…"
Bullshyte -- that is just plain ignorant.
Each of the 13 states had a state-sponsored Christian religion.
Massachusetts was Congregationalist until 1855.
George Washington disagreed with you, Ed.
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
Emphasis added.
That only meant that we had to stop hanging Quakers on Boston Common and we did. We still made them pay for the Puritan Minister.
Fuck you. It meant nothing of the sort. Do you even recognize the quote?
It's from a letter Washington sent to the Jewish congregation in Newport, which I imagine most commenters recognized.
What it means is plain. And it has zip to do with hanging Quakers, which last occurred in 1661, seventy-one years before Washington was born, and thirty-three years before his father was born.
The letter means Jews can be citizens.
Did you read the bold part of the quote? Seems to be saying something culturally rather deeper than a formal grant of citizenship.
Each of the 13 states had a state-sponsored Christian religion.
Roger Williams would say something about that. Rhode Island was famously tolerant of religious traditions. I couldn't find anything that definitively says that Rhode Island did not have any one church supported by government, but the variety of religions practiced there and its founding story suggests it did not.
re: "that is a wildly antisemitic comment."
I guess someone should tell Dennis Prager he's an antisemite...
https://dennisprager.com/video/why-jews-were-better-off-when-america-was-a-christian-nation
Religious Fundamentalism remains religious fundamentalism, whether the religion is of the Islamic, Christian, or Jewish variety.
Oh gee. Dr. Ed and his pals are fine with Jews having Seders and what not.
Very comforting from a complete asshole who thinks attacks on synagogues are coming from the left.
Sorry but 1.7% of the US Population makes you an outlier.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/the-size-of-the-u-s-jewish-population/
And I said Blacks and Moslems.
What does that have to with anything we're talking about.
And where in the 1A is there a quota a religious group must satisfy in order to enjoy its protections? Must be in invisible ink.
The 1A was intended primarily for Christians.
.
Bernstein, Blackman, and Volokh are not going to like that one bit. Are you trying to get banned?
Pinning your definition of anti-semitism to opposing the conflict at its current pitch and savagery makes a climbdown impossible, a more moderate and thoughtful approach anathema, and requires a commitment to a level of death and destruction sustained for unimaginable periods at unimaginable costs, all the while demanding that all Jews be implicated in the violence. Unless of course, if such a thing were to come about, you pivot to full support of that, regardless on your previous insistence on the necessity of savagery and its intrinsic relationship to all Jews.
Meanwhile, anyone who doesn’t support the killing is an anti-semite.
Further evidence, I suppose, that the golden age of American Jews is ending.
Israel's treatment of Palestine over the last 50+ years isn't helping.
Giving them their own Country? Not driving them into the Sea like they want to do with us? I knew everything I need to know about Palestinians in September 1972,
Frank
Except that the Arab treatment of Palestinians has been ignored, leading one to suppose that it's not really about the treatment of Palestinians
Didn't half the Palestinians used to be Christians???
Sure, before the 7th century or so. Of course, those people were primarily a different ethnic group than modern Palestinians are.
A) It's not being ignored B) they aren't occupying and doing war crimes against Palestine.
"Who are the Least and Most Antisemitic Americans by Ideology?"
Some would say there are very fine people on both sides.
And would get yet another partisan pass from the shit-rate culture war casualties who operate and adore the Volokh Conspiracy.
Some would say there are very fine people on both sides.
This nails it.
The odd thing is how staunchly that comment is defended, along with dinners with Nick Fuentes, Nazis at CPAC, "replacement theory," Soros hatred, etc.
"Unified Reich."
Because "reich" is an offensive term and not, in fact, part of the actual German vocabulary.
You DO know Hitler did not invent the word, right?
You do know words have connotations and historical overtones, and that people who use words taken from a foreign language quite often fully intend for them to include those connotations and overtones.
Right?
This has shut Bernstein up
What a hack.
He didn’t invent the swastika, either. Nor did he write Deutschland Deutschland Uber Alles. I think he coined ‘lebensraum,’ though. Wonder when they'll turn up in Trump campaign materials.
The Nazis were kicked out of CPAC.
Now as to the gay sexual harassers…
The fine people on one side were saying that the pulling down of statues would invariably end with the pulling down of other statues, like those of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln because it was never about the specific statue, it was always about the erasure of historic figures. Even discounting the ones pulled down by leftist rioters since you have had multiple statues pulled down like this.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/19/1047258467/thomas-jefferson-statue-removal-new-york-city-council-chamber
The fine people on one side were saying that the pulling down of statues would invariably end with the pulling down of other statues, like those of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln because it was never about the specific statue, it was always about the erasure of historic figures.
Nice manufactured excuse, ravenshrike, but that's not what happened. The people who wanted to leave the statues up were mostly saying these were fine figures, worthy of being honored as noble Americans. Which is BS on its face, and even morte obviously so when you consider the leaders of the "leave them up" faction and the organizers of the rally.
Now, it may be that some "fine people"opposed removing the statues, for reasons of their own, but once they saw who was behind the rally any such fine people ought to have left in horror.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-we-lose-when-we-lose-thomas
The fine people on one side were saying that the pulling down of statues would invariably end with the pulling down of other statues, like those of Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln because it was never about the specific statue, it was always about the erasure of historic figures.
Yeah, that's dumb.
The confederate statues that were the main focus were statues specifically erected as a response to black civil rights movements as a message that white supremacy still ruled.
There's a second movement regarding statues of historical figures who were either fairly racist, or responsible for some racist policies. This is less clear cut, some of these figures were pretty nasty&harmful and shouldn't be honoured anymore. For others, they were products of their time and had important contributions that had nothing to do with racist policies, and they should probably still be honoured.
"Consider how many young people rely on TikTok, of all things, for information. This helps explain the rise in antisemitism in recent years."
Indeed let us consider it, without a shred of evidence, and then let us make a conclusion about it!
If you want to wave your hands and make loud proclamations, you should become a magician.
Yeah. Not exactly a well-supported assertion.
There are plenty of studies out there showing that young people get much of their information/news from Tik Tok, feel free to google it.
No doubt, David, but that's half of your assertion.
Where is the support for the other half, more significant in the context of your post, that "This helps explain the rise in antisemitism in recent years.”
They’ve also been getting images from Gaza, inclusing stuff posted by IDF troops, which is the same as anti-semitism, apparently, and whch is presumaly why the banning of TikTok is getting little to no attention from certain scholars with an interest in free speech.
Re NPR, here's a good example of the way they slant their stories. Story on Columbia encampment. NPR: "In the background we hear students chanting 'Ceasefire Now' and 'Free Palestine'."
Other news outlets reporting on the same demonstration report students chanting "Globalize the Intifada," "From the River to the Sea," and so on.
Very typical NPR these days. It's not what they report that's necessarily inaccurate, it's what they don't report in the way they curate the news.
What 'other' news outlets? And did the 'other' outlets cover both sets of chants? Or did they selectively curate as well? The world is full of bias, David. Not everyone can rationalize it the same way you do.
Yes, the world is full of bias, and NPR Radio never has a fair treatment of any story.
If NPR has lost Roger S and Bernstein, NOR deserves credit.
Carry on, clingers.
Look at where "Let's Go, Brandon" started.
(They actually were chanting "Fuck Joe Biden.")
You said hard turn to the left.
I also don’t know which story you refer to but here is one from late April about the Columbia protests that covers from the river to the sea and saying Zionist’s don’t deserve to live. Not sure I’m seeing a coverup.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/29/1247741663/there-have-been-clashes-at-pro-palestinian-protests-across-u-s-campuses
I was loosely recounting this one, if you want the exact citations, I happened to have tweeted about it at the time. Here is the only mention of the chants in the NPR story:
A MARTÍNEZ, HOST:
Major escalations in student protests against the war in Gaza at college campuses across the country despite the risk of arrest, academic suspension, and police force.
UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: (Chanting) Free, free Palestine.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/30/1248014447/protesters-at-columbia-university-are-now-occupying-a-campus-building
By contrast, hre is the Free Press:
The Free Press
@TheFP
·
Apr 30
Last night at 1 in the morning, student demonstrators at Columbia University shattered windows to take over and occupy one of Columbia’s academic buildings. Students can be heard chanting, "we will honor all the martyrs,” “long live the intifada,” and “Israel will fall."
Relatedly, in my experience there is a strong correlation between being someone who gets his news primarily from NPR and not knowing that there were riots across urban American in summer 2020, and thinking that the only violence that summer worth noting was of police against protestors.
It's not so much that NPR lies, is that, like I said, they curate with a narrative in mind, fail to ask progressive guests obvious questions, and the like. As a longtime listener, I would say this was always done to some extent, but there were efforts to at least appear to be fair and to be at least somewhat balanced (like having 3 progressive interviewees and then one consevative) until the late 2010s (when you are more likely to have 3 and zero).
This evokes a song.
Bernstein is among those who believe that criticism of Israel is de facto proof of antisemitism. He therefore doesn’t bother himself with the additional effort of finding out if the critic actually dislikes Jews.
I tried to engage him about this on YouTube, and he was unwilling to respond forthrightly. But eventually conceded this was theoretically possible for someone to be an Israel critic who is not antisemitic, but that he had never met such an animal. I am such an animal, bur he didn't inquire further lest hour encounter destroy his assumption. I would not include him among the intellectually honest.
Not true and never happened.
I largely agree, though the criticism of Biden seems a bit forced given that he won the primary by resisting the progressive wing of the party, and he hasn't wavered much from that.
The conflation of antiSemitism with criticism of Israel is also problematic. The October 7th attacks were horrific, but it's increasingly hard to justify the death toll in Gaza (well over 1% of the population) with no clear objective. Not to mention the constant settlement expansion in the West Bank.
I will say I'm very worried about trends in the long term.
Remember, probably the biggest grievance of the 9/11 hijackers was Israel/Palestine, how many future terrorists are being radicalized by current events? It takes a long, long time for folks to forget about things.
Not to mention the old "Jews control everything" tropes that got re-invigorated when a bunch of University Presidents got fired, protestors got blacklisted by major employers, and police went in to break up campus protests. In isolation those actions may make sense, but if you're worried about antiSemitism it plays up some really nasty narratives .
tyu8
Look at where “Let’s Go
As Yoram Hazony has shown, America was built on values taken from the Hebrew Bible. Those around the center espouse those values while interpreting them slightly differently. The extremes despise those values. Hitler, in fact, wrote explicitly that his antisemitism was based on the fact that Judaism brought ethical monotheism to the world.
Yoram Hazony is a superstition-addled, right-wing dope. A fundamentalist kook.
Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.
Here is an an illuminative report on morality, superstition, and depravity.
I am in the market for recipes and tips concerning assembly of a celebratory meal whose current menu is:
Shrimp cocktail
Crabmeat Hoelzel
Bouillabaisse
Bacon cheeseburger
Candied bacon
Lindemans Framboise
I am leaning toward Emeril Lagasse’s fish soup, not only because the French-Orleans connection makes it a natural but also because I once enjoyed a magnificent, impromptu evening at the chef’s table of Emeril’s flagship restaurant.
Nominations are closed with respect to crabmeat Hoelzel; there is just one recipe.
Alton Brown’s candied (“lacquered”) bacon looks good.
Suggestions concerning the bacon cheeseburger and shrimp cocktail would be specially welcomed. Maybe someone has a wine pointer (to complement, rather than replace, the Lindemans)?
Thank you!
In the late 1800s, German social-democrat August Bebel described antisemitism as "the socialism of stupid people" ("der Sozialismus der dummen kerle").
Try to get Bernstein to acknowledge the expulsion and brutality involved in the founding of Israel. Palestinian life unworthy of life, brought to you by Reason.
https://youtu.be/upmrOAwfSsU?si=bJNKNTIDcAdmNFOz