The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Yoram Hazony's Speech At The Second International Conference on Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem
"This is an extremely high level of incompetence by the entire anti-Semitism-industrial complex, some of whose representatives are sitting right here in this room."
Yesterday, my Civitas Outlook column discussed Anti-Semitism and Anti-Christian Zionism on the right. The piece led off with Kevin Roberts's infamous defense of Tucker Carlson, but I expanded the focus to two other prominent figures: Vice President J.D. Vance and Yoram Hazony.
To this day, Kevin Roberts's video has not been taken down. And I doubt he disagrees with the underlying message. What he said has become standard fare in some corners of the right. AtTurning Point's AmericaFest, Vice President J.D. Vance rejected "endless, self-defeating purity tests" and would not "bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to deplatform." Making the point more plainly was Yoram Hazony, one of the founders of the National Conservatism movement. Hazonydeclared, "nobody ever said that to be a good Natcon you have to love Jews." Hazony, an Orthodox Jew, is unquestionably not himself an antisemite, but reads from the same gospel as Roberts and Vance: antisemites, Hitler revisionists, and Holocaust deniers are welcome under this tent. Jews, Christian Zionists, and other classical conservatives can leave if they are uncomfortable. (In August 2025, I spoke at NatCon with some hesitation; I have come to regret my attendance at that conference.)
My column was right on time. Yesterday, Yoram Hazony delivered a keynote address at the international conference on anti-semitism in Jerusalem. (I attended that conference last year.) Yoram has posted his speech to Substack. It is long, but I encourage you to read all of it. Say what you will about Yoram--and I have a lot to say--but he is a clear thinker who tells you exactly what is on his mind. He hides nothing from the audience.
Yoram divides conservatism into three camps. Yoram argues that the pro-zionist "liberal" wing of the Republican party, led by Ted Cruz, has at most 25% of support of the movement. The alt-right, which has anti-semites in it, has maybe 10%. The remaining 65% is the nationalist wing. Yoram says, the nationalist group is up for grabs. It can be persuaded one way or the other. But the liberal wing, Yoram explains, has not done its job. Yoram argues that attempts to cancel Tucker failed because all charges of anti-semitism have not stuck. He also points out that President Trump hosted Tucker at the White House, even after telling the New York Times that anti-semites have no place in the movement.
One line, in particular, has garnered much attention. Yoram says that no one can create a "15-minute explainer video" to demonstrate why Tucker is in fact an anti-semite, because no such content exists. He then levels this charge:
This is an extremely high level of incompetence by the entire anti-Semitism-industrial complex, some of whose representatives are sitting right here in this room. Maybe some of you think you were persuasively "fighting anti-Semitism" over the last six months. But the unfortunate truth is that you weren't.
This line led to a blistering response from Tablet Magazine, a popular Jewish publication:
Tucker Carlson could goose-step down Pennsylvania Avenue butt-naked with a swastika carved into his forehead and it would be the fault of "the anti-semitism industrial complex" for not making the case "clear enough" to "Republican nationalists."
I understand entirely the point Yoram is making. Indeed, the response from Tablet feeds into his narrative that this internecine fight is likely to alienate undecided nationalists, and push them to the alt-right camp. Yoram would simply just allow these groups to exist to ensure that Jews keep a seat at the table. This was exactly the point he made at NatCon earlier this year. The key line was:
"Nobody ever said that to be a good natcon you have to love Israel. Nobody ever said that to be a good natcon you have to love Jews. Go take a look at our statement of principles. It's not a requirement."
And Yoram meant it. Indeed, his remarks presaged the entire Fuentes-Tucker-Roberts debacle. Like I said, Yoram deserves some credit for stating the issue so plainly.
Now, here comes my opinion. I think Yoram is so committed to the prospect of a successful nationalist movement in America and elsewhere that he is blinding himself to the real risks that Jews, in particular, face. He says we are not in 1930s Germany:
For example, most nationalist Republicans don't think America today is anything like 1930s Germany. They don't see any Nazi party in America poised on the threshold of victory.
On that point, we agree. The comparisons between Trump and Hitler are nauseating at this point. (I'm old enough to remember when George W. Bush was compared to Hitler.) But the Third Reich did not form overnight. Nor was Hitler the first to seek to destroy the Jews. Six thousand years of history teaches the same lesson again and again and again. Anti-semitism changes form and eventually leads to persecution, exclusion, and termination. We should not be so blind to think it cannot happen again. Yoram goes a step further, and asks what Mordechai and Esther, the heroes of the holiday of Purim, would do. I suppose Esther would have gone on Haman's podcast and baked him some hamantashen. As I wrote yesterday the main point of Never again is the second word: again.
Yoram might respond I am being too sensitive or paranoid. He might even say I am being counterproductive, because now the people who might have been inclined to listen to us will no longer do so. On this point, once again, I agree. Speaking out against the anti-semites on the right very well could alienate nationalists, who might become sympathetic to the anti-semites. This entire fight might seem foreign and counter-productive to people who do not really care about this issue. And there is a distinct risk of being excluded from the tent. I am well aware of this risk, and thought about it at some length before I resigned from Heritage. I am not so foolish to believe there is no specter of retaliation--if not now, at some point in the future. Indeed, the way this sort of payback usually work is that you never even find out about it. As the saying goes, revenge is a dish best served cold. (Those who keep charging me with auditioning should really rethink their arguments.)
If Jews are nudged from the conservative movement, where do we go? The Jewish people have been in a political wilderness before, and it will likely happen again. There is certainly no home on the political left, which has embraced the worst strands of anti-semitism and cultural Marxism. At present there is a home on the right, but that domicile may be fleeting.
At present, I think Vice President J.D. Vance is trying to stay out of the fray, one way or another. It was noted that his tweet about Holocaust Remembrance Day failed to mention Jews. At some point, the presumptive 2028 nominee will have to take a stand.
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
Maybe this is not in keeping with the spirit of the post, but if the question is, ultimately, "If Jews are nudged from the conservative movement, where do we go?," it seems worth noting that, currently, relatively few Jews are in the conservative movement.
https://www.jewishelectorateinstitute.org/p7846:
"A new non-partisan survey by the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI) released Thursday shows very high levels of Jewish voters backing Kamala Harris and Democrats in the 2024 elections. The poll, conducted for the Jewish Electorate Institute by The Mellman Group from October 30 to November 8 among more than 1000 respondents, reveals that 71 percent of Jewish voters cast their ballot for Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, with a comparable. In comparison, only 26 percent voted for Donald Trump."
I take it that Josh is really more talking about where politically conservative Jews go: Are they/we welcome in the Republican party or not? But I figured I would flag the voting pattern nonetheless.
I appreciate you making this point, that Jews are not a single bloc that votes Republican.
Another point Id like to make in a similar vein is that not all on “the left,” as JB puts it, are antisemites. Just like not all on the right are neo-nazis even if there’s a large strain of Nazi-adjacent propaganda being pushed out by this administration.
Agree. The echo chamber increasingly occupied by the Online Right thinks that all Jews are horrified by Zohran Mamdani and have migrated en masse to the Republican party.
That same echo chamber thinks that 75% of Republicans are either Alt Right or "nationalists". The problem with that is that if you take two minutes to think about the issue, you realize that the only type of nationalism that makes intellectual sense is ethnic nationalism, and ethnic nationalism is non-sensical as applied to the USA. So you are left with a choice between white-power racial nationalism (which I am still confident is rejected by the vast majority of Republicans), or a generic patriotism that believes in American ideals and is disgusted by actual white supremacism (as opposed the the absurd "White Supremacism(tm)" peddled by hucksters like Ibram Kendi.
Jews are high IQ, of course they’re predominantly Democrats.
Idiot Quota? But how do you explain me?
I should have said “generally” high IQ.
Jews are not welcome in the movement that currently calls itself "conservative". (observe the MAGA circus that is r/conservative on reddit.)
Some Jews (Kushner) have found a way to profit from the conservative movement.
The analogy is when Einstein tried to assimilate into German culture only to discover that he ultimately didn't get to choose his tribe.
orthodox jews lien right heavily all others lien left heavily.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/u-s-jews-political-views/
whithin orthodoxy the "moderns" lean against trump and the hard yeshivsh/charadi are pro trump
https://nishmaresearch.com/assets/pdf/REPORT%20-%20Nishma%20Survey%20of%20Orthodox%20Jewish%20Political%20Attitudes%2009-30-24.pdf
"orthodox jews lien right heavily all others lien left heavily."
Is that a Jewish banker joke? Just checking.
This fucking Goy.........
I took a look at Hazony's speech, and one thing I observed is his constant references to "Jews and Zionist Christians."
What's a Zionist Christian? Does that mean one of those apocalypse people who want a bunch of Jews in Israel so some End Times scenario can happen?
Does he mean Christians who acknowledge, *and defend,* the legitimacy of the state of Israel - and who recognize that Israel looks good or at least OK *in comparison with other reasonably civilized countries*? If that's what it means, then great, a Zionist Christian sounds like a fine thing to be.
Is there something more which is required? Like agreeing with Israel on everything?
I guess I'd be a Zionist Christian, in the latter sense: I think Israel internally isn't that bad when compared to other democracies, and all in all they're probably about as nice as is survivable in a tough neighborhood where every surrounding country is at least authoritarian, and usually genocidal.
What's a Zionist Christian? Does that mean one of those apocalypse people who want a bunch of Jews in Israel so some End Times scenario can happen?
Generally, yes. Oddly, many of these Zionist Christians are anti-Semites - because we won't convert to goyanity.
Can't say as I've ever met the sort of Zionist Christian you're talking about. I'm sure they're out there, but maybe they aren't big in the Roman Catholic church.
Because the end-times bullshit beliefs aren't really a regular part of the RCC.
Well, yeah, "like a thief in the night" is our doctrine.
Huh, what pray tell is "like a thief in the night" doctrine?
" “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[b] but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.”
It's official Roman Catholic doctrine that the second coming will be without warning, like a thief in the night. So one must be prepared at all times to be the one that is taken, not the one that is left, because you're NOT going to have advance warning to put your life in order.
Thank you for the enlightenment. I had no clue, but now understand fully.
Do you think most would get it, or only the better informed? Had you not elevated it to "doctrine," I wouldn't have thought to ask.
Certainly Catholics would get it, and I expect most varieties of Christians would recognize the term, but maybe disagree with the doctrine.
nor the Son,[b] but the Father only.
This sounds suspiciously heretical!
Well, Trinitarians have always been suspicious of Unitarians!
It’s a huge part of evangelical Christianity.
When Charlie Kirk got shot, I said the country was getting Weimarized. At the time I meant the normalization and endorsement of political violence, up to and including assassination. That's bad enough, but now we're adding anti-Semitism for extra Weimar nostalgia value?
The Margrave of Azilia : "we're adding anti-Semitism for extra Weimar nostalgia value"
Why am I not surprised to see you mangling history? There's no "extra Weimar nostalgia value" in antisemitism. That came after, with the blood&soil purify-our-nation Nazis. Which - judging by your past comment history - is on your end of the political spectrum. No wonder you want to fob it off on the Weimer Republic! The truth hits too close to home.
Yes, that's right, I'm using Weimar tropes to deflect attention from my own National Socialism. That's totally a rational conclusion for you to draw from the evidence and isn't in the least crazy. /sarc
Uh huh. Pretending antisemitism was a Weimar Republic problem was your statement, as anyone can see above. Your "sarc" shtick doesn't change that in the slightest. It's pure deflection that fools no one.
In fact, "good Germans" were encouraged to reject the Weimar Republic in favor of antisemitism, so your little evasion is pure up-is-down misdirection. As such, it fools only those committed to being fooled.
Those remarks are well-articulated, fully understandable, and intelligible. /sarc
There's no "extra Weimar nostalgia value" in antisemitism. That came after, with the blood&soil purify-our-nation Nazis.
Nope. Anti-semitism, which had existed pre-WWI in Germany, grew during the war, leading to the accusation that Jews were avoiding military service. This prompted the Judenzählung - the count of Jews in the military, which showed the accusation to be false, and hence was covered up.
Next came the Dolchstoßlegende - where we were accused of betraying Germany hence causing its defeat.
Herman Hesse, writing in the early 20s, noted a rise of an anti-Semitism that he regarded as much more dangerous than that prevailing before the more.
And when American Quakers went around Munich schools after the war. feeding undernourished kids with hot chocolate and buns, one teacher would not let my great-aunt Rosa leave the class to get fed because "everyone knows you Jews are all well-fed already".
Before the war...
Jews are so closely woven into the national fabric of the U. S. that an attack on American Jews as such is an attack on America as such.
I don't mean ignore the plight of Jews having problems in other countries - God forbid! I mean that for Americans who want to clean their own house, we should see the historic intermixture of Jewish and Gentile Americans as such a part of our national unity that tearing at it would be like tearing at parts of our own bodies.
Agreed. This country's record on antisemitism is far from perfect, but is better than any of the European countries that form the most common origins of our peoples.
That said, we have our share of truly ugly moments, one of which is our reaction to Jews trying to flee Hitler. We accepted only the barest tiny numbers - a more humanitarian policy being opposed by demagogue politicians using bigoty for political gain. They said we couldn't "absorb" more refugees. They said the Jews "wouldn't assimilate". They said they were "too different". All of which worked (politically) with the absolute lowest common denominator of the mob and sentenced thousands upon thousands to die a terrible demeaning pointless death.
"for Americans who want to clean their own house, we should see the historic intermixture of Jewish and Gentile Americans as such a part of our national unity that tearing at it would be like tearing at parts of our own bodies."
I don't suppose you ever read or saw the dramatization of Philip Roth's The Plot Against America, which didn't share your sanguine view.
Sanguine?
Sure, it would be self-defeating for America to turn against Jews, but who says nations never act in self-defeating ways?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
Weird choice to use a Nazi-originated term in a post like this.
Why is everything an "industrial complex" these days?
Because in order to have effective "victimhood" the villian has to be especially heinous.
However, since we're talking about real-life (and not Batman where the villian is individualized and personified, e.g., The Joker), it's easier to generalize and anonymize "the bad guy."
When you "out" someone, then you have to expect that someone will come after you, and who wants a personal fight.
"...Yoram divides conservatism into three camps. Yoram argues that the pro-zionist "liberal" wing of the Republican party, led by Ted Cruz, has at most 25% of support of the movement. ..."
I get that Josh was only quoting Yoram here, so my observation is aimed at Yoram. And good on Josh, for having the common sense to put "what-the-fuck-was-Yoram-thinking" quote marks are his description of Cruz as liberal in any sense of the word's meaning. LOL
It would be like calling Senator Warren or Rep. AOC the most conservative Democrats in Congress. At the time when either of them is actually the most conservative, or Cruz is the most liberal . . . well, we will all be living in hell by that point.
It was hard to focus on anything substantive that Yoram was saying by that point. (a) I was laughing too hard by then, and (b) he'd lost any semblance of credibility or perspicacity by then.
It's not "liberal" as in "liberal vs conservative" but as in "liberal world order" or "neoliberal."
Look at the 1930s. Hitler completely reset the scale. The spectrum moved way rightward. Compared to Hitler, formerly arch-conservative folks like Franz von Pappen, Kurt von Schleicher, former Kaiser Wilhelm. and many others suddenly became liberals. And objectively so. If you simply wanted to keep Jews out of high government positions like ministers, generals and diplomats, grab a slice or two of Eastern European territory, and have a traditional autocracy that respected law and constitutional order and left ordinary people alone, and you didn’t want to mass-gas Jews, take over the world, institute a totalitarian ,state and shoot your political opponents, that made you so liberal you were liable to being shot, as the formerly arch-conservative von Scchleicher was during the Night of the Long Knives.
Compared to the Trump wing of the party, any traditional Republican, any at all, can rightly — scratch that, correctly — be called on the liberal wing.
Kaiser Wilhelm was an anti-semite who kept Jews out of the government and his army’s highest ranks. But compared to the way they were treated by Russia, Polish Jews looked at the period in World War I when Germany occupied Poland with nostalgia. The Kaiser’s government treated ordinary Jews with ordinary decency and left them alone. And after the Night of the Long Knives, he began denouncing Hitler. He was outraged that a German leader not only murdered a decorated former Chancellor of Germany in cold blood over a mere political difference, he murdered his wife along with him, which made the former Kaiser’s blood boil with old-fashioned chivalrous outrage. Sometimes even little things like that can make one a comparative liberal.
It’s all relative.
I think the Vances of the GOP believe that we're in an "ally with Stalin to beat Hitler" type moment, politically. That the Democrats don't have any hesitation at all about allying with outright genocidal anti-semites, so grab those long spoons and start supping with the devil.
Every fucking time.
Ah, you do realize that I'm describing how I perceive the Vance wing of the party, not my own views, right? I know you're not big on paying attention to the words people actually carefully pick to communicate their meanings, but make the effort.
Yeah, but there's nothing the right could do but that the liberals in your head won't be much worse.
Every time.
Sure, in theory there are things the right could do, such that the liberals wouldn't be worse.
But I don't think that, in practice, you get Hitler without Stalin. You want to imagine that the right is going nuts, while the left is all sane moderation, but that's not remotely what is going on.
The future of your party is Mamdani out to seize the means of production, the "Squad", "From the river to the sea!", "Shout your abortion" insanity.
While on the right? My best indicator for that is that the Right still isn't afraid to have the public be armed, while the left is terrified at the thought of an armed public. And I will always assume that the guy who wants me defenseless has worse things in mind than the guy who doesn't mind me having a gun.
So, the odds of actually seeing that right that's worse than the real world left aren't great.
I wouldn't bet much that they couldn't both get so bad I give up on voting, though. I'm about there already.
You're still doing it.
He shouts at the mirror...
I explained WHY I don't expect the right to end up worse than the left, even as I am perfectly willing to believe they could both end up bad enough for me to give up on voting.
You haven't made the slightest effort to dispute my reasoning, I notice.
Why wouldn't you get Hitler without Stalin? Stalin wasn't a German boogeyman.
And yet, they were contemporaries, products of their time, and for a while it wasn't clear who would come up on top in Germany, the fascists or the communists.
The idea that the right is going mad, and the left remaining sane, is a left-wing fantasy.
Sadly, there's an inverse fantasy on the right.
Just imagining Adolf and Josef getting down to KC & the Sunshine Bands "I'm your (Boogie) man" (TK Records 1976)
I suspect he’s one of these people who’ve been so indoctrinated from a young age that you never ever vote for anyone but a republican that he can’t get over that hurdle. I know a few people like that. Some of them really don’t like Trump but rather than vote for Kamala or any democrat they either don’t vote or write-in the reublican of their choice. And yeah, there’s no line Trump can cross that in Brett’s mind a hypothetical democrat wouldn’t cross further.
I didn't vote for my first Republican until the late 90's, I was a strict Libertarian voter from the time I cast my first vote in '78 until then. I'll admit I kind of liked Reagan until Iran Contra opened my eyes, but I still cast that vote for Ed Clark. So I'm hardly a reflexive Republican.
It's not so much that I can't envision Trump crossing a line a Democrat wouldn't. That's easy to imagine, he's crossing them now. But it's because the Democrat would be crossing different lines. Lines that usually mean more to me.
Like I said, you don't get Hitler without Stalin, and the idea that the GOP is going mad while the Democratic party is on an even keel is chewing the furniture crazy. The amount of stuff you have to ignore to believe that is astronomical.
Ok, so maybe you mean that there’s no line Trump can cross that’s not worse than some other line a democrat would cross? I don’t think that helps.
I don't know that I particularly want or need to be helped. I think the Republicans are the lesser evil relative to the Democrats, I don't expect that to change, but the general level of evil at which this is true is climbing over time, and will soon become intolerable.
I hope like heck that the dam breaks and one or both major parties get replaced before we really are at Hitler vs Stalin levels.
Well, the Republican Party has already been replaced. That hasn’t improved anything.
Yeah, right.
"Vance: antisemites, Hitler revisionists, and Holocaust deniers are welcome under this tent Of course, Vance being a kindred spirit to Germnay's AfD, Hungary's Orban, France's LePen, and other fascist sympathizers.
"Tucker Carlson could goose-step down Pennsylvania Avenue butt-naked with a swastika carved into his forehead"
No Homo, but I'd pay to see that.
Frank
The parties have a general centre of "gravity", and a centre of anti-Semitism. AFAIC, the centre of gravity and the centre of anti-Semitism in the GOP are much closer together than they are with the Democrats.
I think saying that depends very heavily on taking seriously the claim that most anti-Zionism isn't antisemitism.
I think it depends very heavily on taking seriously the claim that criticism of the policy of the current Israeli government under Netanyahu is not inherently anti-Zionist.
I don't think people chanting "From the river to the sea!" are engaged in nuanced criticism of the Netanyahu government. They're engaged in barely deniable advocacy of genocide.
Ironically, while the vast majority of those given to chanting "From the river to the sea" are Palestinians and their fans, Netanyahu's most zealous supporters are in full accord with "From the river to the sea," that is the Jordan to the Mediterranean, (and unlike many idiot pro-Palestinian retards, they know what boundaries they're alluding to), are his Messianic coalition partners like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, they just mean it should be exclusively Jews there.
+1.
A pox on both "from the river to the sea" houses.
neurodoc, the old unreformed illeist, is very much a Zionist, very much an anti-anti-Zionist. At the same time, he is also very much against the current right-wing theocratic, messianic coalition that keeps Netanyahu in place when so many reasonable types wish him gone yesterday.
the old "How did Netanyahu win??? nobody I know voted for him!!!!!!!"
Yes, what the renowned film critic Pauline Kael said about her puzzlement about how Nixon managed to win when no one she knew had voted for him. But rather a different matter in a parliamentary system like Israel, isn't it. And hopefully Netanyahu's long run won't go past this year.
+1 again.
A Blackman post that I don't think is dumb, but I have two significant quarrels with. Or maybe it's just one, with two different aspects:
1. While I would not say that most American nationalists are currently antisemites, I think nationalism (except Israeli nationalism, for obvious reasons) inherently becomes antisemitic. There is just no way to reconcile the glorification of the nation with inclusion of outsiders. Even their own "principles," which pay lip service to liberty, reflect this:
Christianity is to be supreme, while Jews are to be tolerated as long as we keep our religion confined to our homes, support them, and don't put up too much of a fuss. But there will always be the need for another scapegoat, and Jews have always historically supplied such a target.
2. The claim that "Speaking out against the anti-semites on the right very well could alienate nationalists, who might become sympathetic to the anti-semites." is nonsensical. The term for the person who "might become sympathetic to the antisemites" is "antisemite." I can't believe Blackman is doing the meme unironically.
Conservative Jews may have a temporary alliance of convenience with natcons, but that will end pretty much as Pastor Niemöller explained.
Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes.
i.e., not protected from such coercion publicly, in their occupations, in legal matters, etc.
If you treat Jews just as badly as if you were an anti-Semite, you're an anti-Semite.
Yes. The Jews will never be on the same page as the evangelical Christian community who believes they’re doomed to burn in hell and that it’s the evangelicals’ duty to save them. Unless the evangelicals suddenly find tolerance, that will always be the reality. I grew up in that corner of religion, which is also why I’m still puzzled that so many embraced Catholics recently with the advent of MAGA. I can’t count the Sunday sermons I sat through railing against Catholics as not real christians.
Catholics laugh at that these days, but anti-Catholic bigotry used to be a serious thing in this country. Take the Blaine amendments, for instance.
My son attends summer academic weeks at Bob Jones, and he says the questions he gets there as one of the few Catholics they've ever met are hilarious.
"The Jews will never be on the same page as the evangelical Christian community who believes they’re doomed to burn in hell and that it’s the evangelicals’ duty to save them. "
But, being on the same page is NOT the definition of "tolerance". Tolerance isn't agreement, it isn't approval. It's letting you be you even if you're wrong.
You don't "tolerate" people you agree with, what is there to tolerate?
I guess by “on the same page” I meant tolerate. As in, you have your beliefs and we have ours and we’re ok to let you be you.
As for anti-Catholic sentiment, I’m sure that will come back to prominence among the evangelicals eventually. I mean, how may Catholics did Protestants slaughter in England under a Protestant ruler, and then how many Protestants were slaughtered under a Catholic ruler? A lot. I think some religious strains are more tolerant than others. Some, like most evangelicals, just aren’t. And eventually Jews or Catholics or Muslims or whatever will be the next regular scapegoat.
And by evangelicals I guess I should clarify. I really mean Christian nationalists which are more common among evangelicals. But surely they’re not all nationalists. And surely some traditional Christian strains are nationalists.
I'm just saying toleration doesn't imply agreement or not wanting the other to change. It just means you won't FORCE that change. "Letting" and "approving of" aren't the same thing.
I don't think we're going to see Evangelicals reach any significant level of anti-Catholic bigotry by historical standards. Certainly not while they've got seculars as a common foe.
I would disagree here. I think you can have a moderate nationalism that isn’t inherently anti-semitic. I don’t think there’s anything wrong, for example, with emphasizing Christian holidays or public displays of Christian or American symbols. I think Jews’ and others’ angst that their holidays and symbols have to be treated equally or they won’t feel included represents an imposition on the majority that has been highly counterproductive.
I think the British in particular have generally managed to combine ostentatious public displays of traditional national and religious symbols - that’s pretty much what the monarchy is for, and not only that, there’s an established church - with a fairly tolerant approach to minority groups. It can be done.
The British are masters at preserving traditional snols. When the King opens Parliament, it’s a traditionalist’s paradise. The King commands the commoners to appear before him, and they humbly enter and are kept standing in the back and ignored, dressed on ordinary siots, while the King addresses the lords, seated resplendently in their wigs and ermine robes. You’d never imagine from looking at the scene that it’s actually the commoners who have all the power.
And of course, there are people on the Israeli right who are less than fully respectful of minority rights, and for whom Jewish nationalism goes well beyond things like closing government and businesses on Jewish holidays and Saturdays instead of Christian holidays and Sundays.
while the King addresses the lords, seated resplendently in their wigs and ermine robes. You’d never imagine from looking at the scene that it’s actually the commoners who have all the power.
FWIW a good friend of mine who is now a conservative peer, much as he is in favour of the monarchy, declined to attend, because you have to buy your own coronet and robes, and they cost a lot! As a peer, he's also not allowed to vote - which puts him in the same position as felons and lunatics.
The difficulty most foreigners have - except those who also live in constitutional monarchies, like most of the rest of northern Europe - in appreciating the British system is that so much is "understood" - i.e., no-one on the outside understands it.
This is a classic - in the days before the Supreme Court, the highest court of appeal in Britain was the House of Lords sitting as a court. (As the quorum for the court was three, the House of Lords technically had the lowest quorum requirement of any legislature in the world.) In principle, any member of the House of Lords could sit in on an appeal. But it was understood that only recognised law lords - typically, ennobled commoner judges - would sit and vote. One day, a non-lawyer peer decided to sit on an appeal. Nothing was said or done to stop him. Then the time came to vote, and the clerk simply ignored his vote.
Sorry you're caught in the crossfire but every Jewish advocacy group is pretty virulently anti-conservative in their position so why support them? All too often conservative Jews see apathy over sandbox wars as somehow personal instead of just exhaustion over a conflict we're not a part of or just a lower priority than the conflicts at home. Sorry but great grandfather's war just doesn't have the power it once did so you need to stop coasting or get used to apathy.
Just saying... The Republican party stopped being conservative around 2016. Sure, some Republicans are conservative, but they are minority. Today, likr libertarians, conservatives have no political home. Conservatives holding office have sold their political souls to the populist reactionary devils.
The SRG hypothesis is that people don't generally reason their way into their politics, and that their politics are a level or two above their true feelings. Hence if a person hews to a particular political position that accords with their feelings, but a better option - that is, one that more closely accords with their feelings - presents itself, then they will switch. If it happens that the same party moves from one position to the other, that makes the switch that much easier.
The hypothesis, if true, implies that people don't hold to their political positions on principle. It's their deeper feelings from which their principles are drawn. Hence while an accusation of hypocrisy post-change may be levelled - and justified, inasmuch as the person changing may previously have defended his position on grounds of political principle - the fundamental position of the person won't actually have changed.
I've remarked on this before: Conservatism is dedicated to defending what you have. Once you've lost it, what are you supposed to conserve, your foes' victories?
The left won too many fights, often with the aid of people the conservatives had put in power, for conservatism to survive. I think Obergefell might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, maybe not, but there just wasn't enough left to defend to remain dedicated to fighting a purely defensive war.
Um. Yes? Otherwise, would not conservatives want to go back to the times of, say, Rome or Greece? Conservatives want to keep their own power. Thus, in 1776,the Tories were conservative, and the Patriots were radicals. In 1861, the conservatives were the Confederate state and the Whigs, who wanted to keep slavery, the progressives were the Republicans. In 0, the conservatives were the Pharisees. Even the leaders of the USSR were the conservatives.
I've remarked on this before: Conservatism is dedicated to defending what you have. Once you've lost it, what are you supposed to conserve, your foes' victories?
That's very much an American conservative position - which doesn't make it wrong, of course.
The British conservative tradition is to be suspicious of change, of ideological or "rational" (per Oakeshott) justifications for change - owing to the real likelihood of unforeseen consequences, to give weight to institutional memory and to prefer any changes to be conducted slowly. A British conservative would find arguments against a change but would not be wedded to the existing institution such that a change would be accounted a loss.
If you like, American conservatism is a possession, British conservatism is an heuristic.
As a consequence, for example, a British conservative would look at how same-sex marriage functions and what the real world consequences were - and concluding that they were not adverse, would not bother to campaign further. An American conservative would be a whiny bitch and try to turn the clock back.
IOW American conservatives are far more reactionary than British conservatives. There are some reactionary British conservatives, like Farridge (sic).
Yeah, this is wrong; a cartoon notion of conservatism from a guy who heard the word and looked it up in the dictionary without actually reading any of the literature. Conservatism is not about freezing society in amber so that things today are the same as they were in 1776 (or 1492, or 1066). It's about opposing radical top-down change, not the gradual evolution of society. Remember, Burke supported the American Revolution, though of course he opposed the French version.
If being conservative is simply defending what one has, then, for sure, Republicans are not conservatives. If the left won too many fights, then, by definition, they are the conservatives.
I believe that bring conservative olis being open to change, but wanting the change to cone slowly do as not to totally destroy institutions, even if the institution is bad (see Buckley and the civil rights movement). Conservatives recognize change is inevitable, they just want it to come organically, as opposed to have politicians force it on them.