Benyamin Korn, Director of Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin (what a lonely fellow),
has a column up trying to argue that educated Jewish Americans are turning toward the former half-term Alaska governor. His examples? Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Bill Kristol, Seth Lipsky, and John and Norman Podhoretz.
Color me "lol". The fact that Republican
hacks "intellectuals" like Kristol and the Podhoretzs support Palin demonstrates nothing more than the shallowness of what constitutes intellectualism in the conservative movement. Lipsky, now at the New York Sun, finds it fascinating that Palin is a constitutional originalist -- I'll pay $40 to the first person who can show to me that the Governor has thought through that position with anything approaching a 1L's rigor (not to mention, originalism as an exegetical method is pretty foreign to Judaism). And then we have Joe Lieberman, whose following amongst intellectual Jews (outside Kristol-esque hacks) has withered to virtually nothing.
I mean, can any read this paragraph without breaking out laughing?
Lieberman, Kristol, Lipsky, and the Podhoretz’s are sophisticated, educated, thinking Jews who appreciate Palin's heartfelt support for Israel, her forceful and informed advocacy for energy independence, her strong stance on national security, and her fealty to traditional moral values (sometimes we forget these are Jewish values, too!). All are bellwethers of the increasing respect for Sarah Palin amongst us – the educated and affluent American Jews.
It's a giggle a minute, here.
18 comments:
It's no defense of Paline, but you grossly overestimate the rigor employed by most 1Ls in the selection of their constitutional philosophy.
I really don't.
Nah, legal realism being correct, everyone just picks a mode of interpretation that yields their preferred outcome :P
Calling Kristol and Podhoretz hacks speaks about you, not them. While they represent a different point of view than mine (or yours), I do recognize bright minds when I see one.
Evidently, you define intelligence by whether a person agrees with you. That, to me, is very troubling. Read: Bernard-Henri Lévy's American Vertigo, where he interviews some of these hacks and concludes, rather distressingly (since he is a socialist), that they have more on the ball than anyone in the US on the left side of the political spectrum. Lévy makes a pretty compelling case for his assertion, interviewing large numbers of supposedly leading lights on the left.
There are plenty of folks I disagree with whom I don't consider hacks. For example, philosophically speaking, I'm a Pragmatist, which means I disagree with the bulk of the Western philosophical corpus. But I don't consider Rawls, or Nozick, or Dworkin, or Hobbes (to name just a few) hacks. In terms of modern political conservatives, I don't consider Reihan Salam, or Richard Lugar, or John Danforth, or (hell) even Mark Sanford to be hacks. I will say that the thrust of the modern conservative movement has been taken over by folks (like Bill Kristol) whose intellectual chops are sorely lacking and whose normative commitments beyond masturbatory exercise of American power are, at best, blurry. But there is more to the set of "people I disagree with" than those who currently set the course and heading of the GOP.
Bill Kristol and the Podhoertzs are hacks in the purest sense of the word. Bill Kristol by all appearances judges political arguments the same way an 11-year old boy judges movies -- the coolest explosion wins -- and the Podhoertzs are scarcely any better (Leon Wieseltier's evisceration of Norm remains a personal favorite of mine). Neither represents a compelling example of American intellectualism, much less proof of any "trend" that educated American Jews (who, even on the most charitable reading of Kristol and Poedhoertz's intellects, have never shown the slightest inclination to agree with them).
The irony here is that on the one hand, conservatives like to mock liberals because they tend to react to things political on an emotional level. Assuming that's the case, it's funny, because conservatives who are so enamored of SP are relating on purely an emotional level. Take this quote:
"Lieberman, Kristol, Lipsky, and the Podhoretz’s are sophisticated, educated, thinking Jews who appreciate Palin's heartfelt support for Israel, her forceful and informed advocacy for energy independence, her strong stance on national security, and her fealty to traditional moral values"
All you have to do is take out the bold conditional and informed, and suddenly the sentence is very accurate. Palin strikes a chord because she is forceful, has strong stances, and shows fealty to religious stuff. She, in essence, is a toned-down female version of Alan Keys, with the bonus that she is an example of a conservative feminist, and is pretty.
David,
I am not quite sure I understand your position. The elder Mr. Podhoretz was a magazine editor. The younger Mr. Kristol is the son of a well known member of the New York Intellectuals who worked for the GOP. He is now editor of a magazine. The younger Mr. Podhoretz is a somewhat less important figure but inherited his father's position at Commentary and has a newspaper column.
Of these writers, the one I know best is the elder Podhoretz. He was, as you know, once a liberal (and was more radical still in his youth). His early years at Commentary were good ones for the magazine. Later, he decided to re-orient that magazine from offering a variety of viewpoints - albeit, mostly of the moderate left - to one which basically advocated for his new idea, which became more and more conservative as time went on. Still, he never rejected, so far as I know, the view that government ought to help the needy.
His real beef concerned Vietnam war protests, which he saw as not only undermining that war but helping the USSR. I opposed the war and marched against it (the moratorium marches), so I disagreed with his assessment. I still think that war was a mistake. However, his view about the USSR was, it turns out, far closer to the facts than were those of his former allies. Which is to say, the USSR was far more oppressive and far more Antisemitic and far more interested in spreading its ideology than liberals were willing to consider. In short, he was and is no hack. However, he is far too quick to want to pull the trigger for war - hence, my disagreement with his point of view.
The various other thinkers you mention do not belong on the same page as Hobbes, who is a first rate mind. The rest will be forgotten icons read for the next few decades in jurisprudence 101.
NF: Actually, if anything, David is way too soft on pseudo-intellectualism... and not just when engaging with conservatives, as I'll show below.
I will say that the thrust of the modern conservative movement has been taken over by folks (like Bill Kristol) whose intellectual chops are sorely lacking and whose normative commitments beyond masturbatory exercise of American power are, at best, blurry.
I find it hilarious to read this with the knowledge that David, in years past, spent a lot of energy doting on the "wisdom" of Tom Friedman. Tom Friedman who justified the Iraq war on the enlightened principle of (and I quote) "Suck on this."
Of course, it's possible that time has soured David on Mr. Friedman. (A few years back -- I think it was around the 2004 elections -- he also lavished praise on Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and we know that definitely changed for the better!) But we still have very regular, very keen interest in what Jeffrey Goldberg is saying. Yes, the same Jeffrey Goldberg who stands by the invasion of Iraq (because of human rights, you see, which is supposed to make everything all better because he has good intentions?). Who justified the serious topic of us being in that war with a veiled Holocaust joke. A charming guy, really.
And lest we think I just am interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must disagree. (And calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's think Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily., to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll. Not by a long shot.
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement.
NF: Actually, if anything, David is way too soft on pseudo-intellectualism... and not just when engaging with conservatives, as I'll show below.
I will say that the thrust of the modern conservative movement has been taken over by folks (like Bill Kristol) whose intellectual chops are sorely lacking and whose normative commitments beyond masturbatory exercise of American power are, at best, blurry.
I find it hilarious to read this with the knowledge that David, in years past, spent a lot of energy doting on the "wisdom" of Tom Friedman. Tom Friedman who justified the Iraq war on the enlightened principle of (and I quote) "Suck on this."
Of course, it's possible that time has soured David on Mr. Friedman. (A few years back -- I think it was around the 2004 elections -- he also lavished praise on Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and we know that definitely changed for the better!) But we still have very regular, very keen interest in what Jeffrey Goldberg is saying. Yes, the same Jeffrey Goldberg who stands by the invasion of Iraq (because of human rights, you see, which is supposed to make everything all better because he has good intentions?). Who justified the serious topic of us being in that war with a veiled Holocaust joke. A charming guy, really.
And lest we think I just am interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll. Not by a long shot.
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement.
NF: Actually, if anything, David is way too soft on pseudo-intellectualism... and not just when engaging with conservatives, as I'll show below.
I will say that the thrust of the modern conservative movement has been taken over by folks (like Bill Kristol) whose intellectual chops are sorely lacking and whose normative commitments beyond masturbatory exercise of American power are, at best, blurry.
I find it hilarious to read this with the knowledge that David, in years past, spent a lot of energy doting on the "wisdom" of Tom Friedman. Tom Friedman who justified the Iraq war on the enlightened principle of (and I quote) "Suck on this."
Of course, it's possible that time has soured David on Mr. Friedman. (A few years back -- I think it was around the 2004 elections -- he also lavished praise on Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and we know that definitely changed for the better!) But we still have very regular, very keen interest in what Jeffrey Goldberg is saying. Yes, the same Jeffrey Goldberg who stands by the invasion of Iraq (because of human rights, you see, which is supposed to make everything all better because he has good intentions?). Who justified the serious topic of us being in that war with a veiled Holocaust joke. A charming guy, really.
And lest we think I just am interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll. Not by a long shot.
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement. (And the other point of this list is to show that just as there are worthwhile conservative intellectuals, the left is far from perfect, there is hackishness of every stripe, and we're all at risk of being suckered.)
And lest we think I am merely interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll as far as rigorous inquiry goes. Not by a long shot.
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement. (And the other point of this list is to show that just as there are worthwhile conservative intellectuals, the left is far from perfect, there is hackishness of every stripe, and we're all at risk of being suckered when folks start passing off their baser thought processes as common sense.)
[Blogger keeps eating this post, which is weird, but I fortunately type just about everything in word documents and c/p these days...]
And lest we think I am merely interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll as far as rigorous inquiry goes. Not by a long shot.
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement. (And the other point of this list is to show that just as there are worthwhile conservative intellectuals, the left is far from perfect, there is hackishness of every stripe, and we're all at risk of being suckered when folks start passing off their baser thought processes as common sense.)
[Blogger eventually stopped eating my first post - really the first half of this post before it claimed everything was too long - so I guess I'll keep trying to get the follow-up to stick. Maybe there's a problem with the links?]
And lest we think I am merely interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll [FN 1] as far as rigorous inquiry goes. Not by a long shot.
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement. (And the other point of this list is to show that just as there are worthwhile conservative intellectuals, the left is far from perfect, there is hackishness of every stripe, and we're all at risk of being suckered when folks start passing off their baser thought processes as common sense.)
Footnotes:
FN1: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/06/posted-by-arkades-deeky-erica-c.html
FN2: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=shakesville+cult
[Blogger eventually stopped eating my first post - really the first half of this post before it claimed everything was too long - so I guess I'll keep trying to get the follow-up to stick. Maybe there's a problem with the links?]
And lest we think I am merely interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll [FN1] as far as rigorous inquiry goes. Not by a long shot [FN2].
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement. (And the other point of this list is to show that just as there are worthwhile conservative intellectuals, the left is far from perfect, there is hackishness of every stripe, and we're all at risk of being suckered when folks start passing off their baser thought processes as common sense.)
Footnotes:
FN1: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/06/posted-by-arkades-deeky-erica-c.html
FN2: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=shakesville+cult
And lest we think I am merely interested in going after traditionally "conservative" positions, whether they be from overall conservative or liberal sources, I must preempt the thought. (And I must note that calling people neo-cons just because they supported the war is bullshit, by the way. When half the Democratic party votes for it, along with most moderates and almost all Republicans, the problem is systemic, not with some narrow foreign policy sub-faction.)
Let's talk Andrew Sullivan. (Supported the war but backtracked mightily, to his credit.) That's a man who actually parrots every pseudo-intellectual "skeptical" birther claim there is when it comes to Trig Palin's parentage. And the whole creepy fixation of his also says something about how widespread the public notion is that women's bodies are like communal property.
Moving even farther left, well, let it never be said that Atlantic writers were the only problematic thing on David's blogroll as far as rigorous inquiry goes. Not by a long shot. (I speak of course of the epic meltdown that is Shakesville.)
So given everything that David sees as not hackish, when he goes after someone for it, I'd call it understatement. (And the other point of this list is to show that just as there are worthwhile conservative intellectuals, the left is far from perfect, there is hackishness of every stripe, and we're all at risk of being suckered when folks start passing off their baser thought processes as common sense.)
Does blogger usually eat posts so consistently or what?
joe,
Your problem with Tom Friedman is that you disagree with him. That, however, is not a ground to object to him as a thinker. Now, as a thinker, he is, so far as I can tell, a lightweight, akin to Mr. Sullivan.
Sullivan, note, seems to have difficulty coming to grips with facts. At this point, it is the fact that the driving forces of opposition to Iran's drive for nuclear weapons are Arab states, not just Israel and that, in fact, those states have been more boisterous about starting a war against Iran than Israel has been.
He does not care enough about facts including, as the Wikileaks now clearly shows, the fact that Israel simply does not drive US policy in the Arab regions. (And, by the way, all the Judeocentric hacks - e.g. Walt, Mearsheimer & Co. - have a lot of explaining to do, given that the march to war seems to be driven by the likes of Saudi "cut the head of the snake off" Arabia.
Post a Comment