Monday, February 08, 2016

Why I'm (Lean) Clinton

I have stressed before, and I will again, that Democrats are extraordinarily fortunate to have two excellent candidates competing for our nomination. I will happily vote for either, not just because "God help us if a Republican wins", but because I think both are decent, smart, progressive individuals who will make fine Presidents. There are good reasons to vote for either Clinton or Sanders in the primary; I begrudge nobody of their choice (so long as it isn't followed up with the incredibly stupid choice of refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee if the other one wins).

All that said, I have considered myself "lean Clinton" for the duration of this race, and perhaps it's time to explain why. I do think my reasoning is a bit idiosyncratic.

Let's start with what I like about Sanders. First, he's an unabashed progressive, and I am too. So right off the top, that's nice. Likewise, I will happily admit that it is meaningful to me to have a high-profile Jewish candidate in the race (and one with a classic Brooklyn Jewish accent, no less). And I actually think there is a solid case to be made that he's the more electable candidate vis-a-vis Clinton: He's the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- with positive favorables (48/37; Clinton is 42/53; Marco Rubio has the best spread among Republicans at 37/41).

Moreover, whether or not Sanders ends up winning the nomination, I definitely think it's an unadulterated good that he's in the race. Senator Sanders has been a godsend in giving voice to perspectives that have for too long been marginalized in American politics. Much of political discourse is afflicted by what Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called "spirals of silence": given perspectives are not aired, and because they're not aired people assume they're marginal, and because they're viewed as marginal even people who might privately be amenable to the perspective still do not air it. When a high profile member of society does give voice to this outlook, suddenly it sends a signal that actually it is "in bounds" and can cause other people to poke their heads out as well. In this respect, Senator Sanders is sort of the light-side version of Donald Trump. Just as Trump has made clear that there is a non-negligible portion of the American electorate that is openly attracted to racist appeals, Sanders has shown there is a real constituency for genuine economic liberalism in America that has punch to it.

What about Clinton? Well, It is true that she has far more executive and foreign policy experience than does Sanders, and that matters. But what matters more to me is that I respect the hell out of her. I think Hillary Clinton is smart as a whip and a tireless worker. I also trust her ability to win a knife fight with Republicans -- important given that the GOP shows no signs of shrugging off its apocalyptic streak in the near future. Her performance during the Benghazi hearing was a thing of beauty and showed the difference between a genuine political professional and a clown-car of amateurs racing to see who can be the biggest embarrassment.


I never liked Hillary Clinton more than in that moment.

But by far the biggest thing about Clinton is that I believe in her ability to get shit done. Perhaps this is the D.C. native talking, but the most important thing about controlling the executive branch is not the soaring speech or the sweeping policy initiative. It's deep in the trenches of the federal bureaucracy: the obscure EPA rule being actually implemented, the right people running the NLRB, the OSHA rules being vigorously enforced for once, the District Court vacancies being filled with solid judges who respect the American constitutional tradition. I think Hillary Clinton gets that. Her pragmatism appeals not because I like compromise for compromise's sake, but because I think she understands all the little ways to move the ball forward, and I think she'll be excellent at doing that. I was never disappointed that Barack Obama didn't transform American politics or end money in elections or obliterate public racism -- I never expected him to do any of those things. But I was disappointed that he seemed slow to grasp the importance of nominations and appointments (in the executive branch and the judiciary). I can't imagine Clinton making that mistake.

So how do these factors shake out? Many of the things I like about Sanders manifest whether he gets elected or not. He's already put pressure on Clinton to move to the left, and he's already demonstrated that progressives are a political constituency that any Democratic presidency must be attentive to (just as Republican elected officials have learned to court to the Tea Party). On electability, I'm not sure if Sanders' current advantages will hold through the general election once a billion dollars of "He's a Socialist!" ads come pouring in. This is particularly worrisome to me because I think the media -- always looking to balance the Scales of Broder -- will jump all over the narrative of "both Democrats and Republicans have nominated extremists!"

On policy, I really don't expect a ton of difference in the broad proposals that a President Clinton and a President Sanders would offer. Maybe I'll like the exact words Sanders puts in his speech a little more. But I do think there will be a big difference between their ability to actualize them into concrete outcomes. I think Clinton knows how to play and win the Washington game, and that on that metric Sanders is at best unproven.

And that's what holding office is about. I don't vote for the President as an expression of "solidarity" or feeling good about myself or "being part of something bigger." I want a President who makes things better. It doesn't matter if it's low profile or obscure or is a victory of a hundred thousand inches instead of a mile long leap. You vote for a President who will get shit done. And that's the arena where I believe, in my bones, that Clinton is the better choice.

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Interviewing My Friends: Sunny Yang

While I have known her since high school (we went to an enrichment camp together), today Sunny Yang is an Assistant Professor of English at Louisiana State University. She received her B.A. from Swarthmore College and her Ph.D from the University of Pennsylvania. Sunny’s research and teaching interests include ethnic and African American literatures, critical race theory, law and literature, and U.S. empire. Her current book project, “Fictions of Territoriality,” examines the competing narratives of race, rights, and governance that arose from U.S. imperial and territorial expansion in the long nineteenth century.
Sunny Yang: What happens if I'm incredibly boring and there is nothing to post? Then we'll just have a nice catchup?
David Schraub: Well I'll throw in a few swear words and see if I can get you fired. I hear that's a thing now at LSU.
Sunny Yang: I had two people send me that article! Right before I went to LSU, I mean. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to swear outside of the classroom. Malign Mike the Tiger or the football team though and then I could have some problems…
David Schraub: Okay, first thing's first -- let's get the quick biographical sketch. Where were you born and raised?
Sunny Yang: I was born in Guangzhou, China, moved to the U.S. (specifically Memphis, TN) when I was two years old, then moved to Carmel, Indiana in sixth grade. So I don't know which counts as the place I was "raised": the South or the Midwest. Both gave me politeness and passive/aggressiveness though.
David Schraub: I considered myself pretty nice for the DC area, but once I moved to the Midwest I realized people were playing on a whole different level.
Sunny Yang: Like the way of saying "I'll let you go now" when I'm on the phone. When really I mean: PLEASE STOP TALKING NOW. The Midwest and South are definitely next level -- and next level for throwing shade
David Schraub: Well, you think that, but you have to realize nobody on the outside is picking it up. It was several years into my relationship before I could reliably tell when Jill was angry or annoyed with me.
Sunny Yang: My partner is British so I'm running into the same issues; only it's also trying to convince him that every time I slightly raise my voice, I am not in fact having a rage meltdown.
David Schraub: One thing I've discovered about having a partner with a cute accent is that, unfortunately they often sound more adorable when they're upset.
Sunny Yang: You strike me as someone who would try to exploit that.
David Schraub: "Exploit" is such a harsh word. I just take joy where I find it.
Sunny Yang: Does she have the stereotypical Minnesota accent?
David Schraub: Not usually. It comes out more if she's talking to her family; especially her grandmother.
Periodically those "o" sounds do stretch a bit.
Sunny Yang: I love that too! Malleable accents (I mean, less lovable obviously when it's a class thing and a shaming code-switch-y thing).
David Schraub: For sure. Though I do not apologize for teaching her the proper way to pronounce "bagel" (first syllable is like "bay", not like the sound a sheep makes).
Sunny Yang: BAH-GUHL? But think about how much joy you would have had every time you rolled up to a coffeeshop. The funny thing I've discovered with an English accent: urinal is pronounced yur-eye-nuhl
David Schraub: I hadn't heard that one I knew about "al-loo-MINium" of course.
Sunny Yang: It's totally unacceptable and hilarious. Speaking of weird accent quirks
During my faculty orientation day they had a powerpoint slide of "common Louisiana names and how to pronounce them." They had your typical french last names, things with "eaux" at the end (as everything here does), and then, in the middle, "Martinez." Which is pronounced "martin-ez" here. I was so horrified
David Schraub: Is that because there is a clan of "Martin-ez"s who have lived in Louisiana for a long time and the pronunciation has just changed? Or is it simply that people here really don't know how to pronounce "Martinez"?
Sunny Yang: My guess is it's a local deviation (though I still assume that choosing not to pronounce it a particular way is at the root of that shift). I'm still learning about the different ethnic groups of Louisiana. It's a super rich history
David Schraub: It seems like it. It has a really unique history both with regard to America generally and the American South specifically. I do want to get the chance to turn to some of your work though before we pivot back to the bayou.
Sunny Yang: Ok, sure.
David Schraub: You went to Swarthmore for undergrad, which is a decent enough liberal arts college for folks who don't attend Carleton (Sunny: HAH!), and then UPenn for graduate school in English. Why English? What grabbed you?
Sunny Yang: So my undergrad degree was actually in sociology/anthropology; and really, more focused on anthropology. After I decided I wasn't going to law school (in fact, I got tattoos to shame myself if I ever sold out), I realized I wasn't comfortable with navigating the power dynamics involved with field work. I realized that the kinds of issues of race and equality that I wanted to do with anthropology, I could do with English. Only these people had already written their narratives and shaped them how they wanted them
David Schraub: That makes a lot of sense. It's interesting you mention law school, though, since a lot of your research interests (Law & Literature, Critical Race Theory) are legal or come out of legal academia. Do you ever feel like formal legal training could be of use in those areas? I'll admit, as a lawyer, I get very nervous when I see non-lawyers do law-related work.
Sunny Yang: Oh absolutely! And I still wonder if that's something I ought to do I think part of the problem si that I did attempt to take a law class in grad school. It was an upper level seminar on property theory
And i absolutely hated it. I think it's in part because Penn's law school is...lets just say more practice-based? But I remember an entire semester of talking about property and even reading Locke
And no one wanted to talk about race besides me!
David Schraub: Well, also Property Law is horrifically boring.

Sunny Yang: To be fair to law schools, I do think that part of the disconnect is the kind of training Penn specifically aims to provide. I mean, I look at that UCLA Critical Race Theory program and drool. I think the problem is that Cheryl Harris' “Whiteness as Property” is one of those foundational texts for me, and for some reason I didn't realize that a property law course would not be discussing issues like that. But again, we were assigned Locke! And still no one wanted to talk about the fact that his whole model for property was the "New World". I mean, I get that the dispossession of Native Americans is kind of a downer, but come on!
David Schraub: You should have enrolled in my anti-discrimination seminar. "Whiteness as Property" was absolutely on my syllabus.Though I have to say, for whatever reason it did not resonate with my students at all. I was really surprised.
Sunny Yang: Why do you think your students didn't enjoy it? Did they think it was "old hat" or...?
David Schraub: I don't know. They were very interested in other CRT texts I assigned. That class just seemed to be a whiff. Have you read Patricia Williams' story on renting apartments and the importance of formal contracts?
Sunny Yang: No I haven't! Only The Alchemy of Race & Rights.
David Schraub: It's in her "Alchemical Notes" article (pp. 406-408) upon which that book was based,
but that passage was actually assigned in my first-year Contracts Class. (I very quickly discovered that nothing makes U.Chicago Law Professors happier than arguing that strict adherence to hard formal rules operates to the advantage of the marginalized).

In many ways, I still consider myself more of a "Chicago" guy than a "Berkeley" guy, even now; not because I necessarily adopt the a Chicago approach to solving problems, but because I deeply value the different vantage points Chicago gave me for considering them.
Sunny Yang: I totally respect that. I think going to Swarthmore (famously dubbed "Kremlin on the Crum"; a place that didn't have a young republicans club until my senior year--and it was run by libertarians) insulated me in a way that I think has still made it difficult for me to debate certain topics/ideas
David Schraub: Yeah. I worry about that tendency in academia generally, and I particularly worry about it in the humanities.
Sunny Yang: I think it's a valid concern because we should be prepared to have those conversations with our students
David Schraub: So you get your Ph.D. in English and then a tenure-track position at LSU--which, congratulations, since I kind of thought tenure-track English jobs didn't exist anymore.
Sunny Yang: They barely do, it's totally depressing. My first year on the market I was the only person in my cohort who got a tenure-track job. The model seems now to go through one or two postdocs, or adjunct for x number of years.
David Schraub: It's awful throughout academia, but English is sort of the poster child for where it has gotten really dire.
Sunny Yang: Yeah, I mean out of the eleven women who initially entered with my cohort, two of us have tenure-track jobs. The rest have either left academia, are adjuncting, or are on fellowships. And Penn has one of the best placement records in English.
David Schraub: Obviously you're incredibly smart and talented, but did you feel like there were any specific elements of the academic package you presented that helped you along?
Sunny Yang: Oh absolutely. First of all, I'm a 19th century Americanist, but I do "long 19th century" which meant that I could apply for both 19th and 20th century jobs. I also do multi-ethnic literature. I've taught Asian American literature and I could do a general ethnic American literature course. I have a certificate in Africana studies as well and can teach African American literature. So I think part of my ability to get a job definitely had to do with the fact that I can cover a huge range of courses.
David Schraub: That certainly is a perk! And what, in turn, attracted you to LSU? Other than the football, of course.
Sunny Yang: I think there are a couple of things. I mean, first I like the fact that it's a big flagship state university. I only have had experiences with small liberal arts colleges and Ivies, so it's nice to have a big and super diverse student body to engage with. This is going to sound ridiculously cheesy, but I also like the vibe of the department. There are some amazing scholars there, but it's a more relaxed place. It's not super cutthroat, there seems to be a genuine community.
David Schraub: I don't think that's cheesy at all. I think finding a good academic home is incredibly important
Sunny Yang: Plus, I mean let's be real: New Orleans being an hour and 20 mins away did not hurt. Mardi Gras season is actualy going down right now.
David Schraub: I'm sure Baton Rouge natives love hearing that refrain.
Sunny Yang: HAH! I mean Baton Rouge is a pretty nice place to end up. The weather is insane, I mean it's 70 degrees right now. And I was on fellowship in Boston last year [with the American Academy of Arts & Sciences] and it just wouldn't stop snowing (which is also the other thing I like about LSU. Since it's an R1 they are super supportive on the research front. I got the fellowship and the job at the same time and they let me go that first year before coming back to LSU to teach).
David Schraub: I noticed that -- that was really cool. So I have to ask this -- it's something I've been wondering for years and I finally have a live English prof in front of me to do it…
Sunny Yang: Uh oh...sinister drum roll.
David Schraub: The scholarship that comes out of English departments has a bit of reputation in terms of how it is written: really dense, obscure, jargon-laden -- what I would simply call terrible writing (irrespective of the merit of the underlying ideas). Why is that? And why in English departments, of all places, does awful writing seem to find a redoubt? (Or is this an unfair stereotype?)
Sunny Yang: I think this is a bit of an unfair stereotype now; I think there was definitely a moment when critical theory was all the rage and you had all this awful, dense writing. Obviously, this is program-specific; Penn tends to be very historicist and Marxist, so you have--I think!--way clearer writers. And in more recent years (perhaps with the tanking of the market?), you have more and more English PhDs trying to write for popular forums—Los Angeles Review of Books or Public Books.
David Schraub: I think that's a heartening development, and it's possible this stereotype is out of date.
Sunny Yang: Yeah, I think the newer generation is way more conscious about needing to write more clearly, especially since many of them end up writing for public venues.
David Schraub: I've dipped a toe into the freelancing life recently -- it's not bad. Definitely recommend.
Sunny Yang: How did you get started? I always wonder about this. Did you have connections?
David Schraub: Well, I've had the blog for over a decade now, so I've had a web presence that at least a few people knew about. One of the editors of Tablet Magazine (a Jewish periodical) took a shining to my work and has tossed me some gigs. Most of my popular writing is trying to situate anti-Semitism inside progressive understandings of oppression analysis. Which -- and given your research interests I'm very interested to hear your thoughts on this -- is I think a massively important and underserved area of discussion. There is, right now, an extraordinarily deep sense of alienation felt by large swaths of the Jewish community vis-a-vis this branch of academia, and it is just devastating.
Sunny Yang: I think that's definitely an interesting issue and I wonder how that alienation can be reconciled. Unfortunately this issue is just way out of my area of expertise, but obviously these issues won't be going away soon and there needs to be more conversation about it.
David Schraub: I think that's a fair response. But it isn't it in some ways reflective that one of your areas of expertise includes "ethnic literature" generally, and yet the way academic lines are drawn "Jewish" issues are seen as external rather than internal?
Sunny Yang: So this is actually a generational thing; and broadly speaking "Jewish literature" (along with early Irish and Italian American literature) is considered ethnic literature. But my intuition is also that funding structures shape how departments/programs are set up. So for example, Penn doesn't have an ethnic studies program or department (in fact you mostly only see those on the West Coast), but there is the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies at Penn. In other words, I take your point about the general separation of Jewish literature and ethnic literature as it's commonly understood today. But I wonder if part of that comes from how universities and hiring lines have been set up.
David Schraub: It's possible, although I do have some familiarity with the genealogy of these departments emerging and I know that Judaic Studies has never really been viewed as part of the "ethnic studies" pantheon. Now, there is a more prosaic point to be said here, which is that people are allowed to be interested in what they're interested in, and I don't think that everyone (or everyone doing "ethnic studies" or "ethnic literature") has to be thinking about Jews all the itme or even a significant part of the time.
Sunny Yang: No; but I think you're right in pointing out the lack of theorization going on between these experiences.
David Schraub: I think the alienation is less from the absence and more the sense that it isn't even viewed as a regrettable absence; and sometimes is even viewed as a feature. We are better off if Jews aren't heard from. I read an account the other day about someone at an MLA session who tried to raise the issue of anti-Semitism on campuses and the audience broke out laughing at him. I mean, that's truly chilling.
Sunny Yang: I haven't heard about that instance so I don't know about the specific context, but obviously that is terrible. That said, it's also interesting that this supposedly happened given that so much of the MLA this year (or at least the organizing committee, which I'm not part of) was devoted to discussing the potential of supporting BDS.
But going back to your earlier point, I don't think it's true that there's the thought “we are better off if Jews aren't heard from.” But what it is, and what i think is also a problem, is that "oh, Jewish issues are separate" and there are specifically Jewish studies courses that explore those issues. But I think you're absolutely right that that's a problematic way of thinking about it (This is also the issue of not thinking about inter-ethnic or comparative ethnic studies).

On the east coast at least, the tendency tends to be oh, you do "ethnic studies" by having a class that does one month of Asian American issues and then one month of Chicano, then Native, etc., without theorizing them together or thinking about how these histories are interrelated (and it's not like African American literature ever gets brought up in all of that either).
David Schraub: Interesting! That's really surprising to me actually.
Sunny Yang: Yeah. It's why I actually organized an Afro-Asian American studies conference when I was at Penn. I mean, one of the academics I met through ACLS [American Council of Learned Societies]/Mellon is a woman working on Black and Jewish studies. And I remember her talking about how she got strange looks when she described her project. I think part of that is this rigid way of thinking about disciplines and specializations that you have.
David Schraub: That kills me because I hear that and I'm like "that's such an interesting project!"
Sunny Yang: RIGHT? And this work is slowly coming out. You have more and more Afro-Asian books
and Afro-Native books. I do think that in certain ways, the way the job market is structured makes it more difficult to pursue these kinds of comparative projects. You can see how ads are framed -- they are horrifically specific. (And, for example, oftentimes the "Ethnic American" jobs will ask specifically for specializations in Chicano/Native but not really Asian American. So if you're an Asian Americanist you generally can't apply for many of the "Ethnic" positions).

Once you’re hired I think you can publish whatever but you have to be legible enough to be hired in the first place. Like if I suddenly decided to publish on American modernism or whatever, I don't think LSU would care as long as I still taught ethnic American literature courses occasionally. But the initial job ad was specifically for that.

I think it does lead to the problems we were discussing of not branching much beyond your field. Though I think there are attempts in the last couple of years to change this like the category of "global anglophone" or hirings that don't specify a period (like Penn this year is doing an open-field and time period "literature and science" hire).
David Schraub: Hyper-specialization is definitely a problem and I'm not really sure how to resolve it other than to be clearer that wide research interests are okay. Incidentally, I also thinks this relates to the "bad writing" problem -- if one is only writing for the 12 or so people who do exactly what you do, it is perfectly okay to write in a manner only intelligible to that dozen.
Sunny Yang: Oh absolutely! I think in certain ways that's also why I identify myself as someone who does American Studies Which is an interdisciplinary field. And, you know, the articles in American Quarterly (the main journal) are usually very legibly written.
David Schraub: Before we conclude -- we still haven't talked at all about your projects! Give us the rundown of what you're working on nowadays
Sunny Yang: So right now I'm in the midst of revising an article on the unexpected system of racial labor management in the Panama Canal Zone during canal construction; I've got another article I'm working on (out of my time period!) on the cross-racial solidarities imagined in Yusef Komunyakaa's collection of poems, Dien Cai Dau. And, as always, still working on revising my book manuscript.

The book project is currently titled "Fictions of Territoriality," and I'm looking at the legal and popular debates that emerged over race and citizenship as a result of U.S. expansion in the long 19th century. I examine four locations: extraterritorial zones in China, the Mexican Cession, Indian Territory, and the Panama Canal Zone. In each space, I analyze how legal and literary texts deployed certain narratives to rationalize the refusal to extend rights to non-white subjects. At the same time, I'm interested in seeing how these marginalized people drew on alternate legal, cultural, and sometimes imperial systems in order to propose alternate ways of thinking about race, rights, and governance.
David Schraub: That sounds like a really interesting project.
Sunny Yang: Each chapter is interested in pursuing a slightly different issue (though the California and Indian Territory chapters are about different ways of thinking about sovereignty/governance)
David Schraub: That's really cool. I've all of the sudden found myself thinking a ton about "sovereignty" as a political idea. So as far as I'm concerned, you're on-trend.
Sunny Yang: I love it! Only at MLA I found myself going to all these early modern panels, because apparently sovereignty & empire are just too passe now for later periods!
David Schraub: I know you have to run, but look -- three hours of interesting material!

Sunny Yang: Are you sure? Who's going to want to read this? Literature professor swears: we're not all bad writers! The end.
This interview was conducted on gChat, and has been edited for length and clarity.

Friday, February 05, 2016

It's Terrible How Fugitives Have To Hide From the Law

CNN gives us another entry in my "the UN is worthless" file.
A UN rights working group has found that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained by being forced to hole up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid arrest. Assange, who is wanted in Sweden for alleged sex offenses, has been in the embassy for three and a half years.
Forgive me if I don't see either the "arbitrary" or the "detention." It's not arbitrary since the principle that the UK will respect extradition requests from Sweden is hardly some weird legal anomaly. And it's not detention since Assange can leave whenever he feels like being accountable to normal judicial processes just like everyone else. Admittedly, this does not account for the age old legal norm that accused rapists should be able to walk the earth freely while completely ignoring judicial summons. So it's fortunate we have a UN group to remind us that process is for peasants.

UPDATE: Good analysis from Carl Gardner. This is just a joke.

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

I Suggest a New Strategy: Let the Goyim Win

One of the most troublesome anti-Semitic stereotypes extant in the world today is what I have referred to as the myth of Jewish hyperpower -- that Jews are all controlling, world-dominating figures capable of bending even the most powerful state, civic, or global institutions to their will. Anti-Semitic hatred, as Phoebe Maltz Bovy so aptly pointed out, is not just about people who hate Jews, it also frequently is about people who consider themselves to be oppressed by Jews.

The reason its troublesome isn't because of its direct effects -- though they are indeed significant -- but because it is so difficult to counteract. Successfully fighting the charge is to confirm it; the only way to disprove Jewish hyperpower is for Jews to lose. Which we often do. Nonetheless, the perception of overbearing Jews dominating conversations with their constant cries of anti-Semitism creates and maintains a reality of silenced Jews with genuine issues of anti-Semitism perpetuallly suppressed.

In Ha'aretz, Mordechai Levovitz has a truly abysmal column on the "Creating Change" fallout. The column's failures are all the more striking because it is exceptionally evident he's earnestly trying to write a good column that is attentive to the issues in play. I provide that caveat because bad arguments can be made without bad motives, and this is I think a shining example. So let me make myself clear from the get-go: this post is not being written because Levovitz elected "to publicly critique a united Jewish response defending Israel." It's being written because the substance of his critique is nothing short of a disaster.

Levovitz's thesis is straightforward: The Jewish community's response to the Creating Change fiasco -- first in protesting the cancellation of the A Wider Bridge/Jerusalem Open House event, then in objecting to the event speakers being driven off the conference stage -- "unintentionally promoted the much more nefarious anti-Semitic trope that Jews wield disproportionate power to get what we want."

Surely, this has to be the moment where that argument breaks past parody. Jews: So powerful, people have to physically drive them off rather than just having demands that they be forbidden from speaking in the first place accepted on face! So powerful that sometimes prominent LGBT voices will even condemn such heckler's vetoes after the fact!

It's not, to be clear, that Levovitz approves of the efforts to silence queer Jewish groups or chants of "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free." He just offers no other responsive option to the Jewish community other than to capitulate to them. If the problem is that Jews are perceived as wielding "disproportionate power to get what we want", the solution is simply to never get what we want if non-Jews object. On the initial cancellation of the event, Levovitz writes:
While I disagreed with this decision, I came to terms with it by thinking about how hard it would be to throw an LGBTQ Jewish party in an Orthodox Jewish Conference. Maybe there was still work to be done before throwing a party. 
Pat Buchanan couldn't have written that better. Perhaps, instead, one can reasonably expect that a queer conference would not conflate simply being present and speaking one's voice with rubbing everyone's face in it.

It gets worse when he talks about objections to the "From the River to the Sea" chant:
Why complain about a chant unless you are realistically asking that it be banned?
Why indeed! What choices are there between approving of a chant and censoring it? Put aside Levovitz's basic misunderstanding of free speech jurisprudence ("Censoring this chant would likely result in a first amendment suit that is an assured loss" -- well, no, because Creating Chance is not a public actor and thus is perfectly entitled to regulate speech in its private proceedings), have we really reached the point where it does not occur to anyone that one can object to speech content without trying to ban it? I have to think the answer is no; and that what's really going on here is that Jewish objections are inherently framed in the most coercive, authoritarian way possible. Levovitz is not alone here, and here's not alone among Jews either. Far from being feckless provocateurs slinging anti-Semitism charges left and right, the image of the hyperpowerful yet oversensitive Jew is a stereotype we've deeply internalized as a community, to our own peril.

It just goes on and on like this. On the immediate aftermath of the reinvitation of A Wider Bridge/Jerusalem Open House:
The abrupt policy reversal was cynically viewed by people at the conference as powerful Jews wielding their influence to get what they want. When I arrived at the Conference, this was the assumption of almost everyone I spoke with. It’s not surprising. For thousands of years, the trope that has been used to justify the murder of millions of Jews was not Israel, but the idea that we control the media, the banks, the government and the major institutions. So, yes, there was an ugly anti-Semitic feeling in the air, but no, it had less to do with Israel, the occupation, or “intersectionality”, and more to do with the feeling that external Jewish power was dictating conference policies. Ironically, if we were to be honest about collective responsibility, we should look inward and ask ourselves if our communal knee jerk alarmist reaction to a situation that most Jews did not fully understand, actually made the situation worse and put Jewish lives in danger.
Note how the initial decision to cancel -- at the behest of a variety of anti-Israel activists -- isn't mentioned, much less problematized at all. That flexing of "political musculature" is taken by both Levovitz and the conference attendees as natural and unremarkable. It's only when Jews start fighting back and -- worse yet -- dare to win the political game that people start snarling about outsiders and their pernicious influence. But it's the former that's emblematic of true power, because true power doesn't need to publicly whip entire communities into line to secure basic representation:
If one only has protections because one devotes every spare vote, dollar, resource and minute to secure them, one can hardly be said to be an equal. Equality comes when equality is normal — so normal, that you don’ t have to be perpetually on your guard to defend it. So normal that it wouldn’t occur to anyone to try and take it away.
What Levovitz is witnessing is not power. It is a response to weakness, albeit sometimes an effective response. The powerful do not need to constantly leverage their entire rolodex of political influence just to have their voices represented on stage. They get that as an entitlement. We don't. "Far from signaling our full inclusion in American society, the political power Jews have amassed is currently serving as brute hedge against the default norm of Jewish exclusion which continues to be expressed."

What's most disheartening about this column is that perhaps the only redeeming factor of the Creating Change fallout was watching other groups, Jewish and non-Jewish, publicly declaring their solidarity and standing with the Jewish organizations whose vulnerability had been acutely demonstrated (as I wrote in the above post, while this is not the same thing as being equal, having access to it is certainly far better than the alternative). Yet Levovitz constructs even these basic solidaristic impulses as Jewish power rearing its overbearing head:
We need to look into how we wield power inside our own community. Let’s be brutally honest. It’s hard for a queer Jewish professional to refuse an LGBTQ national hero and the rabbi of the largest LGBTQ synagogue when they ask you to sign on to a letter. We should only be put in that position in rare emergencies." The demands of solidarity are terrible indeed.  
It's bad enough to feel like nobody has our backs, now we're told that it's affirmatively bad if they do -- that it's a way of "wielding power" that itself victimizes those who so wrongfully feel compelled to stand with Jews who feel hurt, or scared, or marginal or vulnerable.

And so we get back to where we started, with the problem of perceived Jewish hyperpower and what can be done about it. And the answer, it seems, is nothing. Hold a Israeli-Jewish event? Who wouldn't see that as a flamboyant Zionist pool party?  Urge that a cancelled speech be reinstated? What outrageous Jewish interference with internal conference self-governance! Object to a slogan? Who would do such a thing but for censorious motives? Ask others to sign a letter on your behalf? We need to be careful about "how we wield power", for who can resist the unbridled political capital of LGBTQ Rabbis?

This is the way Jewish political, social, and civic participation ends: With the Jews themselves  recognizing the rightness of the rule non-Jews have long sought to impose. "Jews Lose."

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Requiem for O'Malley

Former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley has dropped his campaign to become the Democratic presidential nominee.

I am the living embodiment of O'Malley's problem: I am a native Marylander, who thought he was a good Governor and before that a good mayor of Baltimore, and never once seriously considered voting for him. Nothing about my opinion has changed; his presidential campaign never grabbed me is all.

That being said, I don't think anybody in the Democratic electorate has come to harbor any bad feelings towards O'Malley. A lot might have thought "what's the point of O'Malley?", but no ill will. And so if he uses this campaign to become a higher-profile figure in Democratic politics -- maybe a cabinet position (he says he's not interested, but, well, they always say that) -- good for him. He's young. He's got time.

Monday, February 01, 2016

And We're Off!

Iowans are now caucusing! Just a friendly reminder to my fellow Democrats that are lucky to have two front-runners who would each make a excellent nominee and, I think, a strong President. There are perfectly good reasons to support one over the other. But there is no reason to threaten the apocalypse if your preferred candidate ends up losing.

As for the Republicans, well, your options range from "fine" to "catastrophic", and so far the latter seems to be running away with it. So, um, best of luck with that.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Special Favorite

In 1883, the United States Supreme Court held (in a cluster of cases known collectively as The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)) that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional. In doing so, Justice Bradley, writing for the majority, made the following observation regarding the current status of Blacks in America and the legal rights they could justly claim:
When a man has emerged from slavery, and by the aid of beneficent legislation has shaken off the inseparable concomitants of that state, there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen, and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws, and when his rights as a citizen, or a man, are to be protected in the ordinary modes by which other men's rights are protected. 
I love this passage, because it so neatly illustrates just how detached the "special rights" complaint is from actual extant conditions faced by minority groups. "Come on -- slavery was abolished, like twenty years ago already! It's time to stop being the law's special favorite and just be equal."

I thought of this upon stumbling across an old Garry Wills review of a book titled "The Popes Against the Jews," which (as the name suggests) documents a variety of Vatican pronouncements targeting the Jewish people.  It leads with the following quote, from a prominent Catholic journal known as an informal organ of the Vatican itself.
The Jews — eternal insolent children, obstinate, dirty, thieves, liars, ignoramuses, pests and the scourge of those near and far . . . managed to lay their hands on . . . all public wealth . . . and virtually alone they took control not only of all the money . . . but of the law itself in those countries where they have been allowed to hold public offices . . . [yet they complain] at the first shout by anyone who dares raise his voice against this barbarian invasion by an enemy race, hostile to Christianity and to society in general.
That quote came in 1880. Italy had only emancipated its Jews in 1861, and in Rome it was not fully actualized until 1870. Yet here we are, complaining about the powerful Jews, controlling all the laws and all the money, yet nonetheless having the temerity to complain "at the first shout by anyone who dares raise his voice" against their "barbarian invasion by an enemy race." Aren't Jews so ridiculously oversensitive?

One hears similar refrains about both Blacks and Jews today -- that they are the law's "special favorite", that the time has long since past where racism or anti-Semitism was a real thing worth complaining about, and indeed the real victims are those chafing under accusations of either prejudice. In doing so, they insist that they do take these forms of oppression seriously, they are just engaged in a sober analysis of the contemporary moment. And yet, isn't it funny how the same argument in the same language appears no matter the historical moment is?

Fancy that.