I agree with Ted Barlow on the James P. Moran affair. I don't buy the "apology" for one moment.
Why isn't it a "Trent Lott Moment," as Glenn Reynolds described it? In the Lott case, virtually the entire right-leaning punditocracy came out with eloquent, often passionate denunciations of Lott and the deplorable views that appeared to be embodied in his remarks. Why hasn't that happened here?
As a matter of pure politics, it's obvious that Republican partisans had far more to gain by making an issue of Lott. Right or wrong, there was a real danger that the customary oblique hints that the GOP amounted to a "party of racism" would start sticking to the pan a bit more tenaciously in the wake of the Lott scandal. By mounting a high horse of moral outrage, and refusing to accept Lott's series of hole-digging "apologies," conservative commentators could neutralize the accusation, demonstrate a surprising (to some) sensitivity and depth of understanding of civil rights issues, undercut a persistent slur against them. They had little to lose (a sub-mediocre public figure who routinely did their cause more harm than good) and much to gain by seeking these brownie points. Perhaps one or two might have justifiably been accused of having protested too much, and there were those who doubted the anti-Lottists' sincerity. Overall, though, it worked; I think part of why it worked is that much of the outrage was bona fide, though some may disagree about how much. In any case, moral outrage is always more striking and effective when it comes "out of the wrong box." Trent Lott provided Charles Krauthammer and countless others with an opportunity for the journalistic equivalent of a kind of Sista Soulja moment in reverse. They took the opportunity, brought down their own Majority Leader, and emerged the better for it.
The Democrats are in a different situation. There is no lingering slur that they are a "party of anti-Semitism." They don't, as a rule, have an especially pressing need to reach out to Jewish voters. They have every reason to issue bland admonishments, accept Moran's rote cookie cutter "apology" and get on with their lives. While Moran-gate might grow into something more significant, I doubt Democratic operatives are losing any sleep over it.
Politics aside, though, I'd venture to posit another reason: many in the Democrat-boosting commentariat seem to share, at least to a degree, Moran's apparent worries about sinister Jewish influence upon the administration's Iraq policy. It's a familiar accusation. The organs of Arab governments and the European leftist press will come right out and say it: an enclave of Jews in the White House have hijacked American foreign policy, effectively substituting the interests of Israel's security for American national interests; there is no outcry about these American Likudniks because the Jew-dominated American media keeps a lid on it, refusing to expose them. American commentators rarely speak in such extreme or heavy-handed terms, of course, but the complaint is still very much in the air. Eric Alterman routinely refers to the "Likudization of US foreign policy" as the phenomenon "that dare not speak its name." (Mickey Kaus, has covered this extensively, here, here, and elsewhere.)
It's not, of course, that discussion of the effects of the pro-Israel point of view upon US policy is automatically illegitimate. Perhaps those who sympathize with the Israeli right are indeed more prone than others to believe that, when it comes to Iraq, the security interests of Israel and the US coincide and to seek military rather than diplomatic solutions. They may be wrong about this, and it's perfectly legitimate to raise the issue. (I think it's pretty hard to argue that they're wrong when it comes to Saddam Hussein and his quest to acquire nuclear weapons. Those whose interests coincide with Saddam and those whose interests coincide with us are as near to mutually exclusive as any geopolitical groupings can get. It should be noted, also, that this cuts both ways: one certainly gets the impression that some who oppose war in Iraq do so at least in part because they are dismayed at the prospect of a strengthened and more secure Israel.)
At any rate, there is a difference between on the one hand, saying that Paul Wolfowitz is wrong because he is mistaken and, on the other, saying that he is wrong because he is a Jew. In the hands of some, wittingly or wittingly, the line gets blurred. The worry is that such criticism can appeal to, and is inarguably sometimes intended to touch, much darker impulses. The recourse to the language of conspiracy theory ("cabals," "enclaves," etc.) may merely be a manner of speaking, but it's telling that those who indulge in it often fail so utterly to grasp that such words can have sinister implications. You'd think a politician like Moran would have the sense to realize that "blaming the war" on the Jews was, at minimum, going to sound "wrong" to many ears, just as you'd think that even a dullard like Lott would have thought better of praising Jim Crow.
Is this an indication of an anti-semitic tendency on the part of the Democratic Party? Of course not. Not even slightly. Nevertheless: I doubt that the left-leaning commentariat will come down on Moran the way the conservative commentariat came down on Lott because I doubt they can agree nearly as emphatically on what, if anything, was wrong with his words, or even indeed with his views.
Posted by Dr. Frank at March 11, 2003 11:17 AM | TrackBack