Why I Am Resigning from the Heritage Foundation (Guest-Post by Adam Mossoff)

[DB: This is a guest post from my Scalia Law colleague Professor Adam Mossoff, reprinting his letter to Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts resigning his position as a visiting fellow at the Foundation. As Adam says, this is a time for choosing on the political right: you either abandon conservatism and stand with Tucker Carlson and nihilism, collectivism, Nazism, and Jew hatred, or you stick up for (conserve, if you will) the American traditions of individual rights, religious and ethnic pluralism, and the rule of law.]

Dear Dr. Roberts,

It is with a heavy heart that I am resigning my Visiting Fellow position in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. My resignation is effective immediately.

Please know that I did not come to this decision lightly, as it has been truly an honor to work for John Malcolm in the Meese Center for the past six years. John represents the best of Heritage, and he has inspired me. I have been tremendously proud of my legal memoranda on intellectual property law and innovation policy, and of the Intellectual Property Working Group that has been my charge. I am even more proud of my chapter on the Copyright and Patent Clause in the new edition of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution, an impressive monograph representing the fruits of a multi-year productive effort by John and his co-editor, Josh Blackmun.

Unfortunately, your October 30 video, and your subsequent interviews, videos, and commentary, have made it clear to me that Heritage is no longer the storied think tank that I was proud to join in 2019.

I waited two weeks to send my resignation notice because I did not wish to act in haste, and I wanted my decision to be the result of a considered judgment, not a reaction based on the passions of the moment. Thus, I have been following closely the follow-on commentary and discussions by you and others, both externally and internally. From these observations, I have concluded that your October 30 video, as confirmed by your subsequent comments, interviews, and meetings, was not a mere mistake; rather, it reflects a fundamental ethical lapse and failure of moral leadership that has irrevocably damaged the well-deserved reputation of Heritage as "the intellectual backbone of the conservative movement" (your words in your October 30 video).

Your October 30 video was indefensible. So were your purported explanations and backtracking in subsequent interviews and social media posts. The October 30 video was worse than a poor choice of words or a mere mistake; it was a profound moral inversion to use the language of ancient antisemitic blood libels, such as "globalist class" and "venomous coalition." It was especially loathsome to use this same language to defend Tucker Carlson.

Tucker is quickly following Candace Owens down the very dark path of Jewish conspiracy theories and defenses of Nazis. (After Candace's "explanation" a couple years ago of Kristallnacht as a burning of communist books and not an attack on Jews, this was the final straw for me and my judgment has been repeatedly confirmed by her in the ensuing years.) Similar to Candace's "just asking questions" strategy, Tucker is increasingly hosting friendly, head-nodding-in-agreement interviews with people who explicitly praise Nazis and are unrepentant in their antisemitic slurs of Jews and Israel, such as his interviews of Darryl Cooper and Agapia Stephanopoulos. Tucker's friendly, smiling interview with Nick Fuentes, an avowed Nazi, was simply the nadir of Tucker's increasing number of friendly interviews with nihilists and antisemites.

In all of these interviews, Tucker has blatantly refused to challenge any of their calumnies, propaganda, and falsehoods, despite your subsequent claim in a follow-on X statement on October 31 that we should "challenge them head on" in open debate. This bears emphasizing: Tucker has never challenged one of these evil guests on his show. For example, in a two-hour interview with Fuentes, Tucker never asked Fuentes a single question about his Nazi views or even his Nazi slur of Vice President JD Vance as a "race traitor" given Vice President Vance's marriage to Usha and their "brown" children (to quote Fuentes). This is neither debate nor critical engagement with ideas with which we profoundly disagree. This is toleration of or agreement with evil ideologies and ideas. This is made even more clear by Tucker's contrary treatment of anyone he deems to be a "zionist." Unlike his interviews of Fuentes, Cooper, Stephanopoulos, and many others, Tucker engages in skeptical interviews with pointed, hard-hitting questions of Senator Ted Cruz and others about their "zionist" or "pro-Israel" positions.

All of this makes it absolutely clear that Tucker gives credence to his millions of viewers that evil ideologies — collectivism, nihilism, and antisemitism — are consistent with conservativism and the America First movement. Tucker's friendly and laughing conversation with Fuentes signals to his millions of young viewers that it is permissible to give a pass to such evil. Even in the best light possible, Tucker makes clear we at least should tolerate such evil, because, as you said in your October 30 video, we should not be "attacking our friends on the right."

This is a massive moral inversion. This is the opposite of what the Heritage Foundation has consistently stood for over many decades in American political discourse: the ideals of the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, our inalienable natural rights, limited government, the rule of law — and the free markets and flourishing society that results from these ethical and political commitments. This is the eminent think tank I first joined.

Although you told us in the townhall last Thursday that you made a mistake in your October 30 video, you have not retracted or withdrawn the video. It remains on your X account with more than 24 million views to date. Thus, it remains unclear precisely and specifically what you regard as your moral mistake and failure in leadership. This is compounded by the mixed messages you have been giving to us and to the world about the lesson you have learned. You have continually reiterated, for example, your claims in your October 30 video that we should not "cancel" our "friends," and that Tucker "always will be a close friend of the Heritage Foundation." As far as I'm aware, you have not disavowed this claim. But you falsely conflate here the struggle sessions and cancelation campaigns that the woke left inflict on their apostates and heretics with the proper and steadfast moral condemnation of nihilism, collectivism, Nazism, and Jew hatred.

Aristotle observed in his seminal treatise on ethics that, in a choice between truth and friendship, it is to truth that we must always give our primary allegiance. Even with your mixed messages, one thing is clear: By your words and actions, Heritage is wedded to Tucker and everything he has come to represent on the periphery of the Groyper movement created by Fuentes. Instead of the truth, you have chosen a false friend of the American ideals that Heritage has represented.

In the abstract, this profound failing of truth and justice would give me serious pause and I would still ultimately resign, but it's even more pressing today to call out this moral failing and to take a stand. It is still shocking to me that the worst single-day slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, the invasion and attack of Israel on October 7, 2023, has unleashed a tsunami of violent antisemitism that has swept Europe and the U.S. In the past two years, woke Brownshirts have been screaming genocidal slogans in the streets and on university campuses (including my own university). They have been doing much worse than merely screaming slogans like "Free Palestine!" and "From the River to the Sea!"; they've acted in harassing and assaulting American Jews, firebombing and vandalizing homes and business, and murdering American Jews in DC, Colorado, and California. This has never before happened in the U.S.

This nihilism and collectivist bigotry has driven woke leftists into frenzies unseen in the West since the original Nazi Brownshirts terrorized Jews in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, and it has now reared its ugly head on the American political right. Now is the time to differentiate the right from the left, not to join the left in embracing this toxic fusion of collectivism and antisemitism. Since October 7, I have been stating on X: antisemitism is just the tip of the spear of a collectivist and nihilist ideology that seeks the destruction of Western Civilization. Your videos and statements have made it clear that we embrace as "friends" those who embrace and proselytize these evil ideas under the guise of a big tent on the right in which self-proclaimed conservatives can have friendly and cheery conversations with modern Nazis.

To employ President Ronald Reagan's iconic phrase from his justly famous 1964 speech, today is "a time of choosing." Notably, "a time of choosing" is the same adage used by historians and scholars to describe the 1930s when Germany raced headlong from social exclusion of Jews to political and legal discrimination against Jews, and then in the 1940s to the first industrial genocide in human history. The rise to prominence of the same nihilism and antisemitism on both the American political left and right has made it clear that today is again a time of choosing.

You have made clear your choice: endorsement and toleration of false friends of freedom, rights, liberty, and the American ideals of the Founding Fathers, despite their Orwellian claims to the contrary that they are advocates for America First or represent conservativism. Worse than false friends, they have proven to be advocates for the evil ideologies that seek to destroy these achievements of Western Civilization, as represented by the United States of America — what President Reagan beautifully referred to as the "shining city on a hill."

It is one thing for you to make this choice as an individual, but you have made this choice for the Heritage Foundation. I cannot stand by in silence. It is a time of choosing. I choose to resign.

Sincerely,

Adam Mossoff

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, frankly, at this point if I had any connections with the Heritage Foundation, I'd sever them, too. This whole affair has been rather disappointing to me.

[loki13]

"This nihilism and collectivist bigotry has driven woke leftists into frenzies unseen in the West since the original Nazi Brownshirts terrorized Jews in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, and it has now reared its ugly head on the American political right."

Lol. Look, I'm happy to see that some people are finally starting to wake up (not to be confused, um, with woke?). But seriously ...

Only NOW has anti-Semitism reared its ugly head on the American political right?

Anti-Semitism has, for well over a CENTURY, been alive and well on the American Right. "America First?" That's Lindbergh, not a pithy new phrase from Trump. William Buckley, despite his other faults, famously and unequivocally severed his (and the National Review's) ties with anti-Semites and Nazis (although ... other parts of that story are more complicated).... because they were a large, well-funded, and vocal part of the right in America. Far-right, white-supremacist, and Nazi groups were well-known in America in all of our living memory- if you had been paying any attention, you'd know that the whole "antifa" phrase originated from the West Coast (Oregon and Washington) to describe the efforts of the people there to combat the rise of hate groups that were terrorizing the cities and communities.

Traditionally, the support for Israel was bi-partisan and fulsome and the only pushback might come from the GOP (see, e.g., Bush Sr.). The idea of anti-Semitism being on the right was so well-known that it wasn't a big surprise that Jewish voters were overwhelmingly Democrats- or, for that matter, that when you look at Jewish Representatives and Senators, you'll see that they're Democrats as well.

So what changed? Well, Netanyahu, and calculations of some people here. I mean, I'd like to say I told you so- because I did, repeatedly, in the comments. You have generations now that don't see Israel as a plucky underdog. That don't remember (or know of) the Six-Day War. That don't recall the Munich Massacre. And so on.

Instead, we see what appears to be an authoritarian Israeli government that has explicitly aligned itself with the GOP in America. And constant images of ... well, an apartheid regime bombing, starving, and committing atrocities on people that it keeps herded into camps, and allowing its own people to dispossess and attack them with impunity and without legal recourse.

Is it more complicated than that? Yeah, of course it is. But at a certain point, you can understand why people might oppose Israel. And ... here's the thing. It's easy for bad actors to spread anti-Semitism in that environment.

There has been an increase in anti-Semitism on the left- I don't disagree with that, simply because (for example) if you get a ten-fold increase in opposition to Israel, you'll get some increase in anti-Semitism because it will be easier to spread. But ... the devil's bargain that was made - by Netanyahu and by those here on the right - was always going to haunt them.

It's hollowed out the once staunch BI-partisan support for Israel, making Israel less safe. And it's led a lot of people to think that anti-Semitism is a hypocritical partisan attack because ... it has been. What, it's "suddenly" appearing on the right? Fuentes is new? "The Jews Will Not Replace Us" is new?

A movement saying "America First," based on Christian, White, Nationalistic principles ... that's good for the Jews?

Anti-Semitism must be removed root and branch from society. Glad to see you're starting to pay attention. Sorry it's taken you a decade of enabling behavior to get you to this point, and you still can't identify your own complicity. Maybe in another decade (assuming we have that luxury)?

There was someone who kept making a point in his speeches ... something about a scorpion and its nature. Shame no one actually listened before they signed up for it.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You conveniently forget that the sainted Woodrow Wilson was possibly the most bigoted white supremacist ever in the White House, and the sainted FDR was infatuated with Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler. Mussolini was not anti-Semite, but the other two were. FDR refused to help Jews escape from Hitler. Lindbergh and other America Firsters were against getting involved in European wars when the Europeans themselves were causing their own problems; look at France and Britain refusing to enforce the despicable Versailles Treatty they had foisted on the world, and how they backstabbed each other over enforcement.

Trying to pin this in the right is unfortunately all that Democrats have left, since they are afraid to condemn their own side for much worse.

[David Nieporent]

You conveniently forget that the sainted Woodrow Wilson was possibly the most bigoted white supremacist ever in the White House,

1) Sad whataboutism.
2) The post was about antisemitism.
3) While Wilson often shows up on great presidents lists (which are heavily heavily biased towards wartime presidents), I don't think Woodrow Wilson's own grandkids (assuming he has any) think he's "sainted."
4) While Wilson's RAR (racism above replacement) may have been high — that is, looking at the gap between each president and his respective contemporaries, Wilson's was large — there were a whole bunch of 19th century presidents who owned slaves. Hard to get more white supremacist than that.

Oh, and America Firsters were pro-Hitler, not merely isolationist.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Whataboutism, good grief. His comment was the whataboutism that triggered my comment. You get worser and worser.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

America Firsters were a varied bunch. No doubt some of them were Nazis, but if you want to start tarring with a wide brush, why do you ignore how many Democrats were registered members of the Communist Party during that same period, and how many modern leftists brag about being Marxists? There's some negative whataboutism on your part.

The vast majority of America Firsters were trying to avoid a repeat of WW I, rescuing Europe's bacon from their own class warfare and monarchies. Educate yourself: look up how many democracies there were in Europe in 1914 and 1939. Almost all immigrants in America for the last 100 years had fled Europe's monarchies and class structure. That's why they wanted to avoid being dragged into yet another European war and why they were America Firsters. The last thing most of them wanted was to import all that hatred into America.

Woodrow Wilson would have been a happy slave owner just 50 years before and would have fought for the Confederacy. If you can't tell the difference between a slave owner when it was legal, and a bigot of the same cloth long after close to a million had died defeating slavery and made his brand of racism illegal, why do you even bother bloviating in these comments? Do you similarly discount Jefferson and Washington and all the other founders who were also slave owners?

Your ignorance is appalling.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, the movement had both Nazis supporters AND useful idiots.

Useful idiots that were just peachy with open antisemitism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee#Antisemitism,_Lindbergh,_and_other_extremists

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You concentrate on the easy marks, avoid the hard answers about the millions who simply did not want to be dragged into another pointless European war.

[Sarcastr0]

When you're so anti-war you're cool sharing an org with antisemetic Nazi supporters...you still suck!

You absolve the useful idiots far too easily.

pointless European war
Pointless so long as you don't care about fascists targeting Jews.

You're not doing a great job combatting Loki's thesis about antisemitism on the right.

[David Nieporent]

why do you ignore how many Democrats were registered members of the Communist Party during that same period, and how many modern leftists brag about being Marxists?

1) More whataboutism.
2) By definition, registered members of the Communist Party were Communists, not Democrats.
3) WTF "ignoring" are you talking about?

The vast majority of America Firsters were trying to avoid a repeat of WW I,

Sure; when Lindbergh went and cozied up with Hitler, he was just trying to stay out of a nonexistent war.

Woodrow Wilson would have been a happy slave owner just 50 years before and would have fought for the Confederacy

Hypotheticals FTW, once again!

If you can't tell the difference between a slave owner when it was legal, and a bigot of the same cloth long after close to a million had

If you can't tell the difference between something someone actually did and something you guess they would have done under counterfactual circumstances, that's on you.

Also, who cares if slavery was legal? It was still a reflection of white supremacy.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Again, for the illiterate: My comment was a response to loki's whataboutism. If you can't even understand that, the rest of your comment is useless.

[David Nieporent]

Um, the post was about right wing antisemitism. Loki's response was also about right wing antisemitism. That's literally the opposite of whataboutism.

[Krychek_2]

If the sainted Woodrow Wilson came back from the dead, today he would be a Republican. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of 100 years ago looked anything like today's Republicans and Democrats, and it's just plain dishonest to claim otherwise.

[Mike Hansberry]

Wilson, the great administrator, would love the current Dem platform, including support for the PPACA. Surely, he was a white supremist, so if he were somehow transported to 2025 he most likely would not immediately go along with the recent Dem's hatred of all things white. But who knows, if Wilson were allowed to have the level of control over the masses that he desired, maybe he would jettison his white supremacy stance (as did most Dems) in order to achieve his utopian dreams.

Do you doubt that he would have signed on the PPACA (as did every Dem in Congress) which claimed authority to regulate each person's economic decisions?

[David Bernstein]

No one Jewish, including me, really wants to hear anything from anyone saying "Jews are to blame for the rise in antisemitism," especially progressives who would not be caught dead saying that actions by Muslims are responsible for anti-Muslim sentiment, actions by black people are responsible for anti-black sentiment, and so on. The very same people who decried even mentioning the Chinese government's responsibility for the spread of Covid (at the very least by hiding its spread in China before March 2020) lest it result in anti-Asian sentiment are perfectly happy to at worst spread or at least tut-tut antisemitism based on the real or more often the exaggerated or made up actions of the Israeli government. In short, I scanned your post to get the gist of it, saw that was the gist, and it reminded me that you aren't a serious person worth paying any attention to.

[loki13]

Way to miss the point, as always.

Jews, of course, are not responsible for anti-Semitism, any more than the small number of Jews who (and it is truly disturbing to remember this) supported Hitler in the early days were responsible for the Shoah.

But for someone like you (or the person whose resignation letter you just posted) to suddenly say, "Wait a minute.... I am shocked, SHOCKED to find out that there might be anti-Semitism on the right!!!!" shows such a lack of self-awareness, curiosity, and basic engagement with world around you that you have to wonder if your sudden outrage can be real. I assume good faith, but that assumption of good faith must require that I also assume a truly staggering level of self-delusion on your part.

"The Jews will not replace us." No? That wasn't something? Okay ... when did you start to notice? Was it when the Heritage Foundation SUDDENLY turned on you? Was it that sudden?

Was it when you kept noticing that all of these FINE YOUNG MEN kept having a little Nazi streak? Or was it when you kept seeing released emails showing how they talked when you weren't around? No?

Was it the long history of active and virulent ACTUAL NAZIS on the right wing? No? How about the long and documented history of right-wing activation on the internet that's been going on for years with explicit Nazi and anti-Semitic language and imagery? No?

I posted a comment a little over a month ago about a similar conversion experience of someone at CPAC, when he remarked that he didn't realize that there was so much anti-Semitism on the right, and ... silence again from you.

It's rinse, repeat. You're doing exactly what Roberts wants .... you know that right? Ignoring the deep rot that is intrinsic and has been there all this time in order to make a performative, "I am shocked to see that the Heritage Foundation would allow something like this," when all that has happened is that we are seeing in plain view what everyone already knew was there.

The veil has fallen. Sure, because of the Democrats (and just enough public pressure) you might not get a Nazi like Ingrassia into a position that requires Senate approval ... but that just means he will go into a position that doesn't require it.

You knew that, right?

It's your choice- carry the water, or start attacking the rot. No one is asking you to sacrifice your core beliefs or ideology, DB. People can respectfully disagree about economics and politics until the cow comes home. But maybe you might want to think a little more about your position when it comes to this.

Because I think the one thing we both share is that we know that power + anti-Semitism combines for a disastrous outcome. Each and every time.

[Mr. Hook]

Okay, given that you consider yourself a serious person on this topic, what have you done to stem the growing influence of antisemitism on the right? Put another way, when your grandkids ask you what you did as antisemitism became normalized on the right, what will you tell them?

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, antisemitism has been around on the right AND the left all that time, there's really no corner of our politics totally free of it. So drop this pretense that it's especially bad on the right. The left just disguises theirs as anti-Zionism.

If anything, it was somewhat suppressed on the right due to the Nazis being so ugly that the right conducted a bit of a purge of its extremists.

[loki13]

That's .... both trivially true, but also the worst example of "both sides-ism" that obscures the actual relevant truth.

Let's start with the basics-
1. Can people be anti-Semitic regardless of other political affiliations (right/left or otherwise)? OF COURSE! This is true here, and it is true worldwide. Heck, look at the early days of the Soviet Union and the triumph of Stalin over Trotsky. Anti-Semitism has a number of factors, from religion to culture, that don't always map on some easy right/left axis.

2. However, in America, anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly associated with the right-wing. It is associated culturally (nativist and white supremacist movements, especially in the South and West). It is associated through religion (certain Christian denominations). It is associated politically (far-right politics and conspiracy theories). And all three of these factors, for one hundred years, have also combined on the right-wing. That's not to say that there hasn't been any anti-Semitism on the left (see, e.g., Nation of Islam among other) ... but in terms of numbers, influence, action, money, and even violence? It's a right-wing phenomenon. I gave some historical examples above, but ... really? I assume you're not a friggin' moron. Do I have to recalibrate my opinion of you?

3. Yeah, I also noted that opposition to Israel's policies can veer into anti-Semitism, and this is something I have REPEATEDLY noted for years in the comments, and that I have been worried about. It's also why, traditionally, the GOP was the WEAKER part of the bi-partisan support for Israel.

4. So yes, those on the left need to be sure that criticism of Israel's policies NEVER EVER veers into anti-Semitism, and while what we have been seeing is worrying, the mainstream Democratic party has been good at policing that, despite the actions of idiots at college (and college kids are idiots a lot of the time- but they are also passionate, which is why some people exploit their passion on the issue of Israel/Palestine and can turn that into anti-Semitism).

On the other hand, do we see Democrats trying to push through Nazis into positions of power? Do we see all these young Democrats talking about their love of Hitler and hate of Jews? Do we see supporters of Bernie marching in the street screaming "The Jews Will Not Replace Us?" Do we see Democrats platforming Nazis in order to let them spew hate with no pushback?

Do we? Do we see left-wing militia groups flying swastikas and announcing their love of Kamala Harris?

No?

Do we see the large number of REPUBLICAN Jewish Congresspeople standing up to decry anti-Semitism?

No?

So maybe, just maybe, the issue isn't symmetrical.

[Ridgeway]

However, in America, anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly associated with the right-wing. It is associated culturally (nativist and white supremacist movements, especially in the South and West). It is associated through religion (certain Christian denominations). It is associated politically (far-right politics and conspiracy theories). And all three of these factors, for one hundred years, have also combined on the right-wing. That's not to say that there hasn't been any anti-Semitism on the left (see, e.g., Nation of Islam among other) ... but in terms of numbers, influence, action, money, and even violence? It's a right-wing phenomenon. I gave some historical examples above, but ... really? I assume you're not a friggin' moron. Do I have to recalibrate my opinion of you?

You are giving short shrift to the success that Buckley and others had in purging anti-semitism from the Republican Party and the "respectable" Right in general. For all of my teenage and adult life (from the mid-80s through 2015), right-wing antisemitism was confined to genuine fringes and obvious kooks -- skinheads, Aryan nation gangs, KKKers, neo-nazis, Metzger types, etc.

Pat Buchanan was the most mainstream pol on there right who could credibly be called an anti-semite, and he only polled a few percent when he ran for Pres.

As a good example of what I am saying, when David Duke ran in Louisiana, Republican pols nationwide were falling all over themselves to denounce him and distance themselves from him as much as possible.

It is only since the first Trump administration that real anti-semitism has been tolerated and even normalized by parts of the once "respectable" right, to their everlasting shame. Hopefully, it will be a brief flare-up only, and they will be forced back under their rocks soon.

[Jonny Scrum-half]

Ridgeway - I don't know that saying that Republican politicians distanced themselves from David Duke is all that helpful for your argument when it's a fact that (a) Duke ran for governor on the Republican ticket, and (b) received 38% of the vote. More than 600,000 Louisiana residents - presumably almost all Republicans - voted for the KKK guy over a former Democratic governor.

I'm having a difficult time finding a comparable example on the Democratic side.

[Roger S]

Zohran Mamdani was just elected mayor of NYC.

[Ridgeway]

IIRC Louisiana had (has?) a weird jungle primary to select the gubernatorial candidates. Duke still got over 400,000 votes in the primary (which is not great for my point), but the other candidates were pretty awful too. Recall "Vote for the crook: Its important!" [Although as regards Edwards, anyone who can say "The only way I can lose this race now is to get caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy" gets my vote on general principles.]

Also, Duke at least pretended to have been born again and to have renounced his previous antisemitic and racist views, which gives his voters some cover.

Regarding examples from the other side, the progressive wing of the Democrats have produced some doozies too in the past decade or so -- Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar for example, as well as Zohran! just now. None of them is quite as odious (at least I hope) as an actual (former) Klan muckety-muck, but I'd argue that is a difference in degree, not kind. Moreover, they are extremely and overtly popular with a goodly swath of "respectable" Democrats -- you never saw them get condemned (or even criticized) by Obama or Biden the way Bush I condemned Duke.

[wvattorney13]

"Also, Duke at least pretended to have been born again and to have renounced his previous antisemitic and racist views, which gives his voters some cover."

That's exactly how I remember it. Duke disavowed his prior Klan membership and comparisons were made with Robert C. Byrd. If Byrd can do it, why not Duke?

Now, as it turns out, Duke was absolutely lying and hadn't changed anything, but I don't think you can fault anyone who voted for him for not seeing through it at the time.

[Randal]

Tlaib, Omar, Zohran

Do you think Muslims are just automatically antisemitic, or what's going on there?

[Ridgeway]

No. I only think they are antisemitic when they make overtly antisemitic statements. It is the same test I apply to everyone that I do not know personally.

[Estragon]

Paul Ingrassia was retained at the White House after his nomination failed. The “bit of a purge” missed a big target I guess.

And what purge? You mean the temporary underbussing of the three 30 year olds on the Young Republican text chain? Let me put this as gently as I can: for someone like Trump who is constantly talking about “central casting” it is less than surprising to me that those three schlubs got tossed overboard. And even despite their half-hearted apologies mixed with denials—they were ripped by the ultra MAGAs wanting them to stand firm. Those “kids” point the way this is all heading.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"an apartheid regime bombing, starving, and committing atrocities on people that it keeps herded into camps"

Yes, those are the fully rational considerations which understandably but regrettably triggered antisemitism on the left. In contrast, antisemitism in the right is irrational and evil from beginning to end. /sarc

"Your antisemites are worse than ours!" Is of course the natural reaction of each side.

In contrast, it seems to me that antisemitism is contaminating both of these movements, and that the antisemitism in each case is pretty much morally equivalent.

[MollyGodiva]

It took this guy six years to figure out what the Heritage Foundation was? The rest of us have known for a long time, it's not like they try to hide it.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Now apply that same prescience to the woke brigade.

[MollyGodiva]

If one was a racist and spent six years in a woke progressive group and did not figure it out they would also be an idiot.

[David Bernstein]

Historically speaking, the Heritage Foundation has always been very friendly to Jews. Indeed, it's first and long-time VP, Burt Pines, was Jewish. So no, Heritage was not always this way, and it still has lot of Jewish and pro-Jewish staff and affiliates who want Roberts gone.

[David Nieporent]

It took this guy six years to figure out what the Heritage Foundation was? The rest of us have known for a long time, it's not like they try to hide it.

I don't like much of what the Heritage Foundation has stood for in recent years, but the antisemitism is new.

[QuantumBoxCat]

Is this a letter of resignation or an op-ed? If the former, it would have been a lot easier to just write:

Dear Robert,

I hereby resign from my position effectively immediately.

Sincerely,

Ur Mom

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Right, that's one way to fight anti-semitism, by not saying why. Good move.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-heritage?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

[David Bernstein]

Krugman is a fabulous example If somewhat only pays attention to anti-Semitism when it is politically convenient for him, and ignores, downplays or even contributes to it when it furthers his ideological or partisan agenda.
For example, Karen Attiah was the most openly antisemitic journalist working for a "mainstream" publication (the Washington Post) that I am aware of. Krugman's substack has a glowing interview with her, subtitled, "the journalist fired for being honest."

[loki13]

"Krugman is a fabulous example If somewhat only pays attention to anti-Semitism when it is politically convenient for him, and ignores, downplays or even contributes to it when it furthers his ideological or partisan agenda."

You're getting so close to self-realization. So ... so ... so very close.

[Estragon]

You know, if David could just put 1/10 of the energy he put into doxxing and attempting to blacklist a CUNY law student into thinking about why Paul Ingrassia is still the White House liaison to DHS, maybe we could get somewhere.

[Estragon]

For some reason this response gives me the impression you didn’t really read the Krugman piece.

Heritage has always pushed bullshit, but they seem to have a sense of which way the wind is blowing in MAGA land. Koch out, Fuentes in, along with the associated agendas.

How you and your fellow travelers grapple with that is entirely up to you but I suggest it might be more worth your time than Rutgers professors, given Heritage’s level of penetration into the personnel and ideology of this administration.

[apedad]

All the people to left and right, front and back, above and below, askew, etc., of me on any political/moral issue are extremists.

Only my centrist positions are valid.

That is all.

[Roger S]

This is more evidence of Jews looking out for their own collective interests, of putting Israel ahead of the USA, of trying to subvert and control institutions, and of using a lot of name-calling against perceived enemies.

Tucker Carlson and Kevin Roberts are not enemies of the Jews. Nick Fuentes might be, but he is not an avowed Nazi. All this hysterical talk of antisemitism and 1930s Germany is crazy.

Israel has made some enemies with the Gaza War. Mainly on the Left, and with young people. This post puts the blame in the wrong place.

[John 4]

Professor Bernstein, this^ is the baseline MAGA cultist view. You are not David Bernstein, you are a Jew, and your loyalty is in question with these troglodytes.

[SRG2]

Perhaps Heritage has fallen victim to the long-standing political temptation, that as anti-Semites far outnumber Jews, there's advantage to be gained in moving in that direction. It ignores that many non-Jews deplore anti-Semitism and so there may not be the advantage they're hoping for.

[loki13]

*shrug*

I think it's even more simple than that. This administration, and MAGA in general, has normalized hate. It has removed the public barrier of civic virtue that has kept people from, at a minimum, professing that they hate minorities, hate women, hate those different from them ... and, most importantly for purposes of this conversation, hate Jews. It has normalized acceptance of open racism and profession of White Supremacy, where even open acknowledgment that you are a Nazi (or pro-Hitler, or have a Nazi streak) isn't a barrier to a public position.

Just as importantly, it has normalized lying as acceptable public discourse. It believes that there is no value in truth- the idea that truth isn't something to be valued, even for our government and institutions, and knowingly propagating falsehoods should be punished, has run rampant. That has implications- not just the basic, "If the government announces that something happened, it probably didn't, and certainly not the way they said it," but it devalues the power of truth to combat those pernicious lies that have always been used to spread the hate of anti-Semitism; holocaust denial; the (you know what) of Zion; blood libel; and the million and one bizarre lies and conspiracies that spring up anew (space lasers???).

Liberal (in the classic sense) society is anathema to anti-Semitism, which is why the illiberalism of this administration is exactly the petri dish that allows it to flourish.

...and yet, there are those that are shocked (SHOCKED!) to find it.

[Roger S]

Trump Derangement. Pres. Trump is very pro-Jew and pro-Israel. The Democrat Party has done far more to normalize hatred. You have crazy delusions about blood libel and space lasers.

[David Nieporent]

Trump is neither pro-Jew nor pro-Israel, but even if he were the latter, that would not make him the former.

[Randal]

So it's possible to be pro-Israel and anti-Jew, but not anti-Israel and pro-Jew?

[Sarcastr0]

The Jews I know with say that the thing about the targeting of any group, including Muslims - once that group's done, Jews are always the second on the list.

[neurodoc]

Professor Bernstein alluded to an exchange between Paul Krugman and Karen Attiah, formerly of the WaPo. I thought to have a look for myself.

Well, according to the international journalist Attiah, "And then, of course, October 7th, Gaza, Palestinian journalists being killed at a remarkable record rate."
Krugman: Yeah.

So, on October 7, 2023, war did not erupt with a genocidal attack on Israel that saw 1250 of its people horribly massacred, sexually violated and brutalized, along with 251 taken back to Gaza as hotages. What happened was instead, "And then, of course, October 7th, Gaza, Palestinian journalists being killed at a remarkable record rate. "

Me: F'ing amazing journalism. (BTW, does anyone know of any Palestinian journalists killed on 10/7/23?)

[John 4]

If you actually read it, you’d know that they were specifically talking about press freedom in that exchange.

[neurodoc]

You miss the point. The war on Israel started abruptly on October 7, 2023; Palestinian journalists did not start dying until a later time after Israel started its counter-offensive. But from her choice of dates it may be seen how distorted Attiah's perspective is.

[Mike Hansberry]

Yeah, but you are not supposed to notice that Attiah was not immediately denounced for her apparent very distorted perspective.

The requirement that someone who speaks some heresy must be denounced, lest the listener who fails to denounce will be himself be denounced, is not reason. Berstein seems to be saying in his opening paragraph above that one must either 100% with us or 100% against us. That is not reason.

Has Bernstein denounced Krugman?