The Dangers of Thralldom

Covering the upcoming Virginia State House and Senate races, the Washington Post notes the importance of the northern Virginia suburban districts to whether or not the Republicans can maintain control of the legislature. The Republican incumbents are battling against the increased blue tint of their districts, as well as an overall purpling of the state at large. One problem these candidates have faced is that even more moderate voters know that, even if these particular Republicans are talking (even walking) the centrist talk, the Republican Party as a whole is still hanging out on the right wing of things, and that's a major turn-off.

The perils of being a moderate Republican are nothing new. But in certain states, like Virginia, there is another element in play that poses a particular danger to the Republican Party. Because the state has such a strong conservative tradition, the right-most flank of the Republican Party has entrenched itself as the power-brokers. They see themselves as the rightful arbiters of the direction and position of the Party. Even as the state is purpling, it's not a position they'll give up easily, and as a result it locks the GOP into a conservative posture that is no longer electorally tenable.

The sacrificial quality of the activist-conservative branch of the Virginia GOP already demonstrated itself in local primaries, driving out incumbents who weren't seen as sufficiently devoted to the cause and putting formerly safe districts into play.

"It's scary for us," said state Sen. Martin E. Williams (R-Newport News), who lost a primary battle this year to a conservative Republican and whose seat, as a result, is at risk of turning over to Democrats. "Certainly the perception in the public's eye is that we've narrowed our base so much that we can't claim a majority. We've got to appeal to a broader group of people than just people who will sign a no-tax pledge or be pro-life."

Elsewhere in Virginia, Republican leaders have been scrambling to handle two rogue lawmakers in their caucus who are accusing the state Democrats of ties to terrorism because of their relationship with some local Muslim community organizations. It's a low political slam, and one most observers think will backfire, but also the type of attack that resonates with the die-hards. The folks who come out to vote in Republican primaries eat that stuff up, but the independent voters who are becoming more and more important in Virginia read that sort of thing and just recoil. Another example is the machinations of the state Republican Central Committee to give conservative candidate Jim Gilmore the edge in the race to succeed retiring Senator John Warner (R), over the more moderate, but far more electable Rep. Tom Davis. This isn't the best example, because the Democratic candidate, Mark Warner would likely have thrashed both, but Davis at least could have made a solid race out of it. With Gilmore as the nominee, the seat is pretty much in the bag for the Democrats.

Virginia is not the only state where this dynamic is playing out. Out in Kansas, the Republican Party has been mired in a high profile civil war that has sent moderates fleeing to the Democrats en masse. Here, too, the problem was that the state Party was controlled by forces too conservative for its own constituents, much less the state at large. The state board of education had been buffeted by an intra-party spat over whether evolution should be taught in public schools, a battle won by pro-science forces in August of 2006. Meanwhile, a series of high profile defections, capped by former state party chairman Mark Parkinson, set the stage for a banner year for Democrats. Parkinson joined the ticket of incumbent Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who cruised to re-election and positioned herself as a possible 2008 Vice Presidential contender. Fellow turncoat Paul Morrison knocked off Republican Attorney General Phill Kline, who had gained notoriety by subpoenaing medical records of abortion clinic patients, ostensibly to check for evidence of child abuse. And, in one of the top upsets of the year, Democratic nominee Nancy Boyda bested 5-term Rep. Jim Ryun.

In Arizona, Republicans had to essentially abandon the erst-while competitive 8th District last cycle because local voters bucked the national party's preferred candidate to nominate Randy Graf, who was far too conservative to have a chance in the district. Gabrielle Giffords won the race in a landslide. In Colorado in 2002, Republican Bob Beauprez won control of the 7th District by less than 400 votes. Yet, when Beauprez left the seat open to run for governor in 2006, the GOP nominated uber-conservative Rick O'Donnell, who had previously advocated abolishing social security. Democrats won the seat back by nearly 25,000 votes.

In both these states, these strategic lapses came amid general Democratic progress. In Arizona, Democrats also knocked off incumbent J.D. Hayworth in the 5th District there, and are currently eying Rick Renzi's 1st District seat as particularly vulnerable. In Colorado, Democrats have become the dominant political force, capturing the Governor's mansion, both houses of the state legislature, and a Senate seat.

In all of these states, the Republican Party is tightly under the control of its most conservative branch, a wing that simply can no longer compete in general elections, but can still prevent any internal reform to reposition the Party in a more palatable light to their changing electorate. This is a very dangerous position for the Republicans to be in. It gives Democrats free reign to take over huge swaths of the American middle with virtually no substantive opposition. And as these voters continue to trend Democratic, the remaining Republican office-holders will list evermore right-ward, pushing more people away and giving Democrats an even greater advantage.

Huckabee's Holocaust

Christian right darling Mike Huckabee:

"Sometimes we talk about why we're importing so many people in our workforce," the former Arkansas governor said. "It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973."

Though the claim that Jews are prime targets for Republican conversion is, to my ears, overstated, even if there were a grain of truth to it Huckabee is precisely the sort of candidate who would insure the Jewish vote stays safely Democratic. Strong social conservatism turns off most Jews anyway, but gratuitous Holocaust comparisons (incidentally, "Holocaust" is a proper noun, referring to a specific event, and should thus be capitalized. It is not a generic term to be applied to all genocides -- there are not "holocausts", just the Holocaust) are the fastest way I can think of to earn the ire of American Jews, and fast.

This isn't even the first time Huckabee has made such a "gaffe." Commenting on his noted weight loss, Huckabee remarked last year:

"I have just come from six weeks at a concentration camp held by the Democrat party of Arkansas in an undisclosed location, making a hostage tape. That's why I look that way."

Democrats are Nazis, and Dachau was just a proto-fat camp! Oh Huckabee, you charmer, you.

Seriously, though all props to Huckabee for really make a good push in the GOP field, don't think the Jewish community is going to let this sort of thing lie. If Republicans are serious about attracting our vote, they can't nominate candidates like this. And if they're not serious, well, then don't be surprised when we use whatever leverage we have in the political system to voice our discontent.

Who's Responsible?

I very much like Marc Lamont Hill's post on the question of "responsibility" regarding issues facing the Black (particularly urban) community. Working off Philadelphia's new "10,000 men" program, which trains (mostly Black) young men to enter dangerous neighborhoods and act as "peacemakers", deterring illegal activity, Hill grapples with the strategic benefits and drawbacks of programs preaching such personal responsibility. Of course programs like 10,000 men are beneficial, if for no other reason than that they offer an alternative to the "police state" model of crime prevention in run-down areas -- an approach which has decimated these communities and made entire generations view the police as enemies, rather than protectors. But the rhetoric of such programs -- that with sufficient virtue and work ethic, the Black community can eliminate its problems without any broader social change, is dangerous. Hill argues:

If we’ve learned nothing from the historic Million Man March –where African American men became the first group of people to launch a protest march against themselves– we found out that the government and mainstream Americans will never stop large numbers of Negroes from confessing their collective sins in full public view. The problem is that, instead of inspiring policymakers to support our efforts, such actions reinforce the absurd notion that violence and poverty can be eliminated by embracing a gospel of individual responsibility. In this case, by agreeing to “take back our neighborhoods” we concede the point that we lost them solely due to our own personal failings.

The last time I checked, joblessness and crack had something to do with it too.

Rather than demanding higher wages, better schools, and stricter gun laws, the current plan absolves the government of its responsibility to protect our most vulnerable citizens. For example, even if we are to accept the quixotic idea that ten thousand unarmed civilians can make peace within inner-city war zones, couldn’t we expect even greater results from ten thousand trained officers? Unfortunately, the current initiative makes no such demands from the State.

The obvious solution, and the one Hill advocates, is to do both -- personally work to reduce violence and crime in our own neighborhoods, while also demanding that society at large do its part to remedy the structural forces holding back urban communities: lack of jobs, rundown and inadequate educational facilities, and economic isolation, to name a few. Certainly, personal responsibility is one plank in the bridge that will lead America to a just racial solution -- but a bridge with one plank is not very useful, no matter how solid it may be. A total solution is what's needed, and anybody who tries to look at the problem from a single angle -- be it totally structural, or totally personal, is going to come up short.

Rumsfeldian Politics

You go to the polls with the ideas your party has, not the ones you wish it had. Ezra Klein makes this point eruditely with the myth of the "real" conservative positions:

The basket of policies pushed by recent conservative politicians have done very poorly. And they're sort of the basket voters need to be evaluating when trying to judge conservatism and the candidates who pledge fealty to it. Any Marxist will tell you that "real" Marxism was never tried. That said, just about every time something called Marxism was tried, it traveled down much the same course, and failed in much the same way. Which is what you should be passing judgment on. Similarly, conservatism isn't ending up in this mess by accident. The constellation of interest groups and donors who fund the movement, when mixed with the preferences of the electorate (no, you can't take away my Medicare or cut my Social Security), tend to produce a fairly predictable and similar set of policies -- tax cuts without spending restraint, corporate welfare, weak energy policy, no health care program to speak of, etc, etc. In essence, that set of policies is what conservatism becomes in office. And so it's the set that should be evaluated.

Machine Guns

We already knew robots think we taste like bacon. Now, they've finally started the revolution. Humanity is doomed.

Think I'm exaggerating? This has been a long time coming. Even in the 1960s, police were aware of the armed machine menace. Consider this excerpt from the history book I'm currently reading for class about the 1960s civil rights movement:

"Police recorded only four march-related arrests, all of white people: one Nazi, two violent hecklers, and a health insurance computer who drove to work with a loaded shotgun."

Sure, the footnote claims that "computer" refered to a human who makes computations. But who wants to bet that explanation was typed on a computer in the first place? They cover their tracks, these machines do....

John Cole Wins at Photoshop

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) didn't actually say this, but I bet he was thinking it:

John Cole, ladies and gentleman.

Brownback is Out

The conservative Kansas Senator is dropping his Presidential bid Friday, CNN reports.

This puts a whole new spin on his announcement of a resolution apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow. Possibly, it was a last ditch effort to give his campaign some momentum. But if that's the case, then I'd have expected him to wait at least a few more days to see if it caught. As it is, it looks he'll be pursuing the resolution even outside the context of a Presidential campaign, which in some ways is more impressive. Appealing to the Black vote might matter in a national election, but I hardly think its a big concern in a Kansas gubernatorial race (Brownback is targeting the governor's mansion in 2010).

Got the Joneses

Conservative Catholic law professor Stephen Bainbridge castigates Mitt Romney for accepting the endorsements of two major figures affiliated with Bob Jones University: Chancellor Dr. Bob Jones III, and Robert R. Taylor, dean of the university's college of arts and sciences. BJU has a notorious history of religious and racial bigotry, long refusing to admit Black students (and then for awhile restricting admission solely to married Blacks), then fighting to keep up a prohibition on interracial dating. Meanwhile, BJU leaders have called both Catholicism and Mormonism "cults." So, Bainbridge says, while "[t]urning down these endorsements would have been tough" given their pull in the South Carolina GOP, "All in all, I'd have a lot more respect for Romney if he had told the folks from Bob Jones where to shove their endorsements."

Of course, it speaks volumes that an extremist entity such as this could wield so much influence in a major primary. And Romney's affiliation with this group is not something that should be forgotten. As Andrew Sullivan writes:

I had a conniption about Bush's catering to BJU bigotry in 2000 and then swiftly forgot about it. I didn't see it as the harbinger that it was: of a GOP rooted in religious prejudice, racial fears, and sexual panic. I've learned my lesson.

Shouldn't someone press Romney on this? Contrast Romney's pandering to Fred Thompson's campaign, which dismissed the radical anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church (which tried to argue that Thompson "saw eye to eye" with them on the issue) "a radical fringe group, looking to draw attention to themselves." Westboro is probably a bit further out of the mainstream than is BJU -- but only by a step or two.

Sister Souljah on a Platter

On the One Hand, It'd Be Mean

But on the other hand, it'd be oh-so-just:

[T]he comments yesterday spawned a question many of us would like asked of all the Jack Bauer wannabees in the GOP field who would literally do ANYTHING to save us from terrorist attack:

“Would you have sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack?”

Sure, it is a silly hypothetical, but so is the idiotic ticking-time-bomb scenario people throw around so damned much as an excuse for torture. So what is it, Mitt, Sam, Rudy, Mike, and company? Which is worse? A hot gay dicking or a nuke detonated in NYC?

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Mark Olson calls me out on inappropriate humor. In my defense, this arguably isn't a rape joke, per se -- assuming the unnamed male partner is consenting, the question is "would you consent to having sex with a man to stop a terrorist attack"? But it skirts close enough to the line, and I'm not that interested in splitting hairs. I've blogged before on how rape (particularly male-on-male prison rape) as a joke is one of the key barriers to reforming what is one of the primary human rights violations currently going on in American prisons. Clearly, I'm not immune to the cultural penetration of this sort of humor.

On a related note, though, I think the question of rape as a tool of our "war on terrorism" is a reasonable ground for inquiry as to the "end game" for the Republican approval of torture (at least in certain circumstances). Republicans have been falling all over themselves to assure their base that they're "tough enough" to torture (suspected) terrorists if its necessary for America's defense. Well, if we're willing to waterboard them, what else can we do? Can we rape them? Why not? What makes rape different from other forms of torture? If we catch Osama bin Laden, and our interrogators think this is the way to crack him, what then? What about "material witnesses"? What if we have someone in our custody who might help us crack a terrorism case, but isn't directly implicated in the plot? Is his body forfeit as well? The extreme case would be trying to "smoke out" a terrorist leader by capturing his family and threatening to sodomize his four-year old child with a spiked bat. Horrifying, yes -- but there is nothing inherent in the position of this administration that would render it out of bounds.

The point isn't that I seriously think Mitt Romney would endorse such behavior. It's that we need to draw a line that we will not cross. "We're fighting evildoers!" just isn't good enough anymore. In the wake of Abu Gharib and our "secret prisons", I wish I could be confident that sexual abuse is off limits for American personnel. But that fact is, that's no longer settled. And the people who are rushing to claim the toughness mantle deserved to be asked about how far is too far. "Would you sanction the rape of a suspected terrorist in order to defend America from a terrorist attack?" is, unfortunately, a live question. And it deserves answer.

Clearing the Pile

A round-up of stuff that's been hanging on my browser, but don't look to get a post of their own anytime soon.

David Law and David McGowan positively dismantle the "pragmatic defense" of originalism in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy (via PrawfsBlawg).

Brad Plumer asks us to take a closer look at "rogue prosecutors" in the context of reforming the criminal justice system. As someone who has been hitting on this issue for a long time, I hope folks take heed.

Barack Obama has put a hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the FEC. Definitely the right move morally -- Robert Mugabe could teach von Spakovsky a few things about the commitment to free elections.

Ilya Somin asks why "genocide" is worse than regular old mass murder. It does seem morally intuitive to me that 10,000 people dying randomly isn't as bad as 10,000 being killed specifically because they're Jews. But I admit it's difficult to figure out why. I suppose one answer might be that genocide psychically wounds people distant from the actual killing fields -- people who either share the ethnicity of or an analogous social position to the victims -- who see themselves in the ghosts of all those murdered. The terrorism aspect of genocide, in this way, is operationally distinct from other mass killings. There is a greater feeling of "next time, it could be me."

Rep. Tom Davis, whose nascent Senate campaign took a hit after Virginia Republicans elected to hold a convention rather than a primary, is now hinting he may not run for the seat at all. Instead, he'd let former Governor Jim Gilmore get thrashed by also-former Governor Mark Warner, and then take on the far more vulnerable freshman Senator Jim Webb in 2012.

Crazy in the Best Way Possible

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is genuinely crazy. I mean that in the best possible way.

For better or for worse, the Republican Party has a great many crazy people. They support ludicrous policies. They have an insane persecution complex about the "liberal media" which is always out to get them. They attack 12-year olds because they dare rely on the SCHIP program. This is nothing new.

What is distinctive about many of these crazy folk, though, is how hackish they are. It's not like they're just beholden to some extreme ideology which pushes them to weird and outlandish positions all the time. For if that were the case, everyone once in awhile you'd see them deviated from the electoral interests of the GOP. Yet, for many of the most passionate nut-cases in the Republican Party -- be they Christian Conservatives or supply-side voodooists, this never happens. Their craziness is not genuine. It is a mere facade for Republican Party politics.

Brownback, by contrast, is if nothing else genuine. This doesn't mean that he doesn't do crazy things. Holding up a judicial nomination because the candidate attended the commitment ceremony of a lesbian friend definitely qualifies. But at other times, he does surprisingly nice things, because he is truly committed to a belief structure beyond "Republicans winning." One example is his human rights advocacy in North Korea. Another is his recently announced resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation.

It is beyond obvious that such a statement is long overdue. An apology, which exacts no cost on any "innocent" party, is the least we could do to atone for our centuries long enactment of state-sponsored terror, discrimination, violence, and hate. Most scholars who examine the aftermath of mass atrocity (which is the best descriptor of America's racial caste system) agree that some level of reckoning by the majority culture for its deeds is crucial to reconstituting the victims. This is why truth commissions are so important -- even more so, often, than legally punishing perpetrators (this ties in nicely with my general belief that justice for the victims is more important than punishing wrongdoers). But America never went through this period of self-reflection. Indeed, as Kimberle Crenshaw noted, we shifted seamlessly into "post-racist", often without even changing the officials in charge (can you say Jessie Helms?). People victimized by mass atrocities are hurt all over again when they find that nobody cares, or that those who committed the violent acts don't even recognize their wrongdoing. The wounds of oppression live on in this situation -- a continued legacy fostered by silence.

The mass resistance too many White politicians have to simple official acknowledgment the grave moral wrongs our nation has inflicted upon people of color is untenable. I agree with Brownback, incidentally, that these aspects of racism are a national problem -- let's not let the north get off scot-free. Brownback concedes that this is an uphill fight. Indeed, in a political sense such a resolution is crazy -- it's not going to win him any votes, it's not going to restart his stalled presidential campaign, and it likely won't even succeed. But it is someone like him -- a Nixon-goes-to-China figure -- who can get the ball rolling. Has the time for this resolution passed? Not while those victimized by America's racist heritage still demand it. Even if his resolution doesn't pass, even the effort is worth something. And I applaud Brownback for his leadership in this regard.

So, while I still think Brownback is crazy, in the words of today's youth, I also want to say: "Brownback, you craaazy!" And I salute him for that.

Crazy in the Best Way Possible

Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) is genuinely crazy. I mean that in the best possible way.

For better or for worse, the Republican Party has a great many crazy people. They support ludicrous policies. They have an insane persecution complex about the "liberal media" which is always out to get them. They attack 12-year olds because they dare rely on the SCHIP program. This is nothing new.

What is distinctive about many of these crazy folk, though, is how hackish they are. It's not like they're just beholden to some extreme ideology which pushes them to weird and outlandish positions all the time. For if that were the case, everyone once in awhile you'd see them deviated from the electoral interests of the GOP. Yet, for many of the most passionate nut-cases in the Republican Party -- be they Christian Conservatives or supply-side voodooists, this never happens. Their craziness is not genuine. It is a mere facade for Republican Party politics.

Brownback, by contrast, is if nothing else genuine. This doesn't mean that he doesn't do crazy things. Holding up a judicial nomination because the candidate attended the commitment ceremony of a lesbian friend definitely qualifies. But at other times, he does surprisingly nice things, because he is truly committed to a belief structure beyond "Republicans winning." One example is his human rights advocacy in North Korea. Another is his recently announced resolution apologizing for slavery and segregation.

It is beyond obvious that such a statement is long overdue. An apology, which exacts no cost on any "innocent" party, is the least we could do to atone for our centuries long enactment of state-sponsored terror, discrimination, violence, and hate. Most scholars who examine the aftermath of mass atrocity (which is the best descriptor of America's racial caste system) agree that some level of reckoning by the majority culture for its deeds is crucial to reconstituting the victims. This is why truth commissions are so important -- even more so, often, than legally punishing perpetrators (this ties in nicely with my general belief that justice for the victims is more important than punishing wrongdoers). But America never went through this period of self-reflection. Indeed, as Kimberle Crenshaw noted, we shifted seamlessly into "post-racist", often without even changing the officials in charge (can you say Jessie Helms?). People victimized by mass atrocities are hurt all over again when they find that nobody cares, or that those who committed the violent acts don't even recognize their wrongdoing. The wounds of oppression live on in this situation -- a continued legacy fostered by silence.

The mass resistance too many White politicians have to simple official acknowledgment the grave moral wrongs our nation has inflicted upon people of color is untenable. I agree with Brownback, incidentally, that these aspects of racism are a national problem -- let's not let the north get off scot-free. Brownback concedes that this is an uphill fight. Indeed, in a political sense such a resolution is crazy -- it's not going to win him any votes, it's not going to restart his stalled presidential campaign, and it likely won't even succeed. But it is someone like him -- a Nixon-goes-to-China figure -- who can get the ball rolling. Has the time for this resolution passed? Not while those victimized by America's racist heritage still demand it. Even if his resolution doesn't pass, even the effort is worth something. And I applaud Brownback for his leadership in this regard.

So, while I still think Brownback is crazy, in the words of today's youth, I also want to say: "Brownback, you craaazy!" And I salute him for that.

Library Flashback

This brings me back to my WC days:

Quick note to lawyers: Please remove the pocket part "Article I" from the Constitution, and discard.

Law library geek jokes. Excellent.

God and the Media

Ezra Klein:

The media's treated in rather the opposite way that God is in sports. A player, at the end of a successful game, will turn to the camera, lift his eyes, and thanks the heavenly father for helping his team put more balls in baskets than their opponents were able to manage. You'll never hear his opponents turn and say, "well, I guess Jesus really had it in for us today."

Conversely, no winning candidate mounts the stage on election night and says, "I'd like to thank the media, whose affection for my candidacy proved so crucial in turning public opinion against my opponent." But they should!

I'm getting eerie memories of the incessant "I'd like to have a beer with W" narrative from 2000....

The Trouble with Anti-Semitism

The comments in this Alas, a Blog post have hosted a roaring discussion about whether Jews ought to be considered a subordinated people for the purpose of left-wing critical theory. I staked out the original "yes" position, the hosts of the blog (Amp, joined by Mandolin and Maia) seem to disagree. It's going better than I had hoped -- I've garnered some support from other commenters, and it's generating a very lively debate. I certainly think I've gained ground as the discussion has progressed.

Yet, at the same time, it is very tiring. One of my allies in the comment section analogized the issue to "feminism 101" problems, wherein feminist bloggers are constantly forced to rehash the basic precepts of feminism because "well-meaning" outsiders simply don't know the first principles. My friend remarked that, to a large extent, we seem to be stuck at "anti-Semitism 001". At least with regards to feminism or racism, there is usually an admission (at least from, to quote Feminist Law Profs, "supposedly liberal doods") that misogyny or racism is a problem, and a preface of "I'm not a racist, but...." or its topical equivalent. With anti-Semitism, by contrast, we still seem to be stuck on whether or not the problem exists at all -- the post in this case was an unfortunately unremarkable essay deriding those who see anti-Semitism as anything but the most marginal part of anti-Israel discourse. Apparently, we're too quick to play the anti-Semitism card. For people whom, in other contexts, would be the first to demand that victims be allowed to define their own oppression, this is particularly frustrating. And all the other typical reactionary arguments were deployed as well, from the "I've got Jewish relatives, I can't be anti-Semitic", to "you're essentializing Jews and excluding those who disagree with you." When I noted that Jews face barriers in society when, for example, lobster is served at a state dinner, I stood accused of excluding non-Kosher Jews. Speaking as a Jew who keeps only a nominal version of Kosher (albeit one that doesn't eat lobster), I can assure my interlocutor that not keeping Kosher isn't the problem for me as a Jew. It's when I do engage in differential practices from the secular/Christian norm that I run into trouble. This is 101 material -- and it's particularly frustrating to have to run through it with people who I know know better.

In the wake of such conversations, my mood tends to follow a predictable pattern. At first, I want to fight fire with fire -- write the post-of-all-posts that will lay the issue to rest forever. A Critical Jewish Manifesto (in this case)! But very quickly, that mood dissipates, and I'm instead left tired and wanting. I don't know how to write a manifesto. I don't even know if one can write a manifesto by oneself (it feels so presumptuous to write "we demand" while being a single author). The problem is that I feel very, very alone in this endeavor. For every discovery of Albert Memmi (thanks Phoebe!), there are twenty more reminders that my cause is not well-represented among the people I want to call my compatriots.

For example, The Blog and the Bullet linked approvingly to my post on Martin Luther King, Why is the Only Good Civil Rights Leader a Dead One? Much obliged, and thank you. The Blog and the Bullet styles itself an aggregator of blog posts on a variety of critical anti-subordination issues. And if you look at their sidebar, they range quite the gamut of topics, everything from "Arab Issues" to "Caste" to "Anti-Feminism" to "Pacific Islander Issues" to "Transphobia." 88 categories in all, by my quick count. On religion alone, they have "Islam", "Hindu", "Sikh", even "Christianity." But do they have a topic on "Jews" or "Judaism"? Nope. "Anti-Semitism"? Nope. ("Occupation"? Of course). Is there really no critical blogging out there on anti-Semitism that is worthy of their time? Are we really that marginal to the overall struggle? A site search for anti-Semitism turns up nothing. Ditto, Jew, ditto Judaism. It is a complete, utter, and total annihilation. And I'm sick of it.

I was tempted to write a comment about it. But I don't want to be drawn in to yet another discussion about how my oppression isn't real, about how I'm just over-sensitive, how my quest for liberation is just so much Euro-American colonialism. Enough is enough. I shouldn't have to hold your hand -- it's time for the left to step up to the plate. Stop trying to silence our voices by accusing us of playing the anti-Semitism card. Stop running us together with White, European Christianity. Stop forgetting the unique issues, burdens, history, and violence that Jews have face and continue to face in an anti-Semitic world. Stop ignoring the presence of anti-Semitism as a structural, institutional phenomenon that shapes the very fabric of our society and infects the vision of all people at all levels of society. And most of all, stop acting shocked when Jews demand a vision of liberation that incorporates our needs and experiences too.

The Trouble with Anti-Semitism

The comments in this Alas, a Blog post have hosted a roaring discussion about whether Jews ought to be considered a subordinated people for the purpose of left-wing critical theory. I staked out the original "yes" position, the hosts of the blog (Amp, joined by Mandolin and Maia) seem to disagree. It's going better than I had hoped -- I've garnered some support from other commenters, and it's generating a very lively debate. I certainly think I've gained ground as the discussion has progressed.

Yet, at the same time, it is very tiring. One of my allies in the comment section analogized the issue to "feminism 101" problems, wherein feminist bloggers are constantly forced to rehash the basic precepts of feminism because "well-meaning" outsiders simply don't know the first principles. My friend remarked that, to a large extent, we seem to be stuck at "anti-Semitism 001". At least with regards to feminism or racism, there is usually an admission (at least from, to quote Feminist Law Profs, "supposedly liberal doods") that misogyny or racism is a problem, and a preface of "I'm not a racist, but...." or its topical equivalent. With anti-Semitism, by contrast, we still seem to be stuck on whether or not the problem exists at all -- the post in this case was an unfortunately unremarkable essay deriding those who see anti-Semitism as anything but the most marginal part of anti-Israel discourse. Apparently, we're too quick to play the anti-Semitism card. For people whom, in other contexts, would be the first to demand that victims be allowed to define their own oppression, this is particularly frustrating. And all the other typical reactionary arguments were deployed as well, from the "I've got Jewish relatives, I can't be anti-Semitic", to "you're essentializing Jews and excluding those who disagree with you." When I noted that Jews face barriers in society when, for example, lobster is served at a state dinner, I stood accused of excluding non-Kosher Jews. Speaking as a Jew who keeps only a nominal version of Kosher (albeit one that doesn't eat lobster), I can assure my interlocutor that not keeping Kosher isn't the problem for me as a Jew. It's when I do engage in differential practices from the secular/Christian norm that I run into trouble. This is 101 material -- and it's particularly frustrating to have to run through it with people who I know know better.

In the wake of such conversations, my mood tends to follow a predictable pattern. At first, I want to fight fire with fire -- write the post-of-all-posts that will lay the issue to rest forever. A Critical Jewish Manifesto (in this case)! But very quickly, that mood dissipates, and I'm instead left tired and wanting. I don't know how to write a manifesto. I don't even know if one can write a manifesto by oneself (it feels so presumptuous to write "we demand" while being a single author). The problem is that I feel very, very alone in this endeavor. For every discovery of Albert Memmi (thanks Phoebe!), there are twenty more reminders that my cause is not well-represented among the people I want to call my compatriots.

For example, The Blog and the Bullet linked approvingly to my post on Martin Luther King, Why is the Only Good Civil Rights Leader a Dead One? Much obliged, and thank you. The Blog and the Bullet styles itself an aggregator of blog posts on a variety of critical anti-subordination issues. And if you look at your sidebar, they range quite the gamut of topics, everything from "Arab Issues" to "Caste" to "Anti-Feminism" to "Pacific Islander Issues" to "Transphobia." 88 categories in all, by my quick count. On religion alone, they have "Islam", "Hindu", "Sikh", even "Christianity." But do they have a topic on "Jews" or "Judaism"? Nope. "Anti-Semitism"? Nope.

Caption This Photo

The man on the right is Robert Haines, the first candidate to officially register for the New Hampshire state primary. The guy on the left is New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner.

From the Political Ticker.

Return to Convention

The Virginia Republican State Central Committee has just voted
to hold a nominating convention instead of a primary to determine who will be their 2008 Senate candidate against wildly popular former Gov. Mark Warner in the race to succeed retiring Republican Senator John Warner (no relation). The move is seen as benefited former Gov. Jim Gilmore, the more conservative candidate, over Northern Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, Warner's preferred successor and a moderate. Though I thought Gilmore would still have the advantage in a primary, a convention merely enhances the benefit he gets from being the bona fide conservative in the race. Which I'm perfectly content with, as Warner will thrash Gilmore in the general. Davis, at least, would have put up a live fight. (Of course, the real question on everybody's mind is how this impacts Peter Pace.)

But, being too young to have really lived in the days of contested floor fights (outside The West Wing), I'm just excited to see one in my own backyard. It's like a political junkie's dream come true!

I Don't Hate Mid-Term Mondays!

It's mid-term break here, which means I have the day off today. Carleton doesn't believe in holidays, so this is the one day off we get all term. It sounds abusive, but given four years of "Columbus Day? What's that?", and we start getting downright teary-eyed over one freebie. Actually, at first I thought that maybe we wouldn't celebrate the holidays of the oppressors -- like Columbus Day or President's Day -- but surely a liberal commie school like Carleton would throw us a bone on MLK day? Alas, no such luck. We're hardcore here.

From a blogging perspective, however, the drawback of it being mid-term break is that I still feel like it's a weekend. I haven't really wrapped my head around the fact that it's Monday, and I should be blogging.

Anyway, this NYT column by Verlyn Klinkenborg (only in Minnesota....) about Gustavus Adolphus College (go Gusties!) rang a bit close to home. Gustavus is Carleton's athletic conference, and one of the many schools in these parts that are very Scandanavian (Q: How does Gustavus differ from St. Olaf's college (in Northfield)? A: "They're Norwegian. We’re Swedish."). Klinkenborg explores the kind of polite hesitation one inevitably comes across in Minnesotan classrooms -- a desire not to stand out, not to be flashy, and for the love of God not to be a gunner. It's probably not as bad at Carleton as it is elsewhere, as we draw proportionally fewer students from the ten thousand lake state as do our peers, but I can definitely still sense it here (I think that even us outsiders acclimate to Minnesotan norms pretty quickly). In any event, if you want a window into the strange and mysterious land I currently inhabit, it's a fun article to check out.