…and Andrew Sullivan Probably Isn’t, But…

Several things make Andrew Sullivan a great blogger. One is his immediate, visceral approach: he says what he thinks about something in any given moment. Another is his intellectual honesty: he will say “I was wrong” when new information prompts him to correct or adjust something he’d said. A third (and by no means the last) is his human touch: he lets his emotions show, he comes across as a real person and not a calculated media persona.

Add to this the fact that I also agree with him on just about every substantive issue and it’s no wonder he’s one of my favourite bloggers. What are those issues? The Media. Iraq. Sarah Palin. President Obama. Health Care. Torture. Gay Rights. Israel. And many others.

Whoah, wait a minute — Israel? Absolutely. And why not? As far as I can make out, Sullivan thinks that all of the West Bank and Gaza should become a proper, independent Palestinian state, and so do I. As far as I can make out, Sullivan doesn’t think that Israel has any business building anything at all on territory it conquered in 1967, and neither do I.

No, I don’t have any problems with Sullivan’s positions on Israel/Palestine.

And I most certainly don’t have the slightest problem with his position on torture, nor with his powerful and necessary criticism of how the issue is dealt with (or not dealt with) by the NYT and WaPo.

But sometimes I’m bothered by some of his symbolism and language. One example: the “some of my best friends are Jews” moment he had recently (which I posted about here). Another example: a point made by his colleague Jeffrey Goldberg about Sullivan being amused by things Jew-baiters write.

And so I do have a problem with this: “The fight for America to remain a torturing nation is resilient. It’s what the neocons believe in: the torture of terror suspects, especially Arab or Muslim ones…”

Now just hang on a minute. “Especially Arab or Muslim ones”? How could you possibly know this, Sullivan? What other categories (non-Arab/non-Muslim) of terror suspects has America been dealing with in recent history, the treatment of whom recommended by the “neocons” might have allowed for an observation of contrast to justify this accusation? There is simply no basis for it. It’s a specious, gratuitous smear. It appears that Sullivan is so disgusted by the neocons that things which he merely imagines become, for him, reality. But – and this is the crucial point – the reason they become reality for him is that, as a result of his prejudices, they seem probable to him.

Sullivan uses the word “neocon” a lot. For some people, this is code for “Jew”. I have always been, and I remain, willing to give Sullivan the benefit of the doubt; it is easy enough, after all, to see why a guy who considers and calls himself a “conservative” would want a way to distinguish between his world view and that of a set of people he so strongly (and rightly) disagrees with. But when I see it juxtaposed in this way with a completely baseless, gratuitous smear that quite clearly has no relation to any kind of reality at all, and that, moreover, and perhaps more to the point, conjures a set of prejudices that many who use the word “neocon” in as code for “Jew” would happily impute to those they so name, I begin to wonder: what are Sullivan’s real feelings about Jews? (In reality I began to wonder that quite a while ago.)

I’ll tell you what I think they are. I say this in full recognition of the very real possibility that I could be completely wrong. I say it in full recognition that it’s based merely on having read the guy’s blog, not on having met him, much less spoken to him at length. So, I could be wrong, but here’s what I think: I think Sullivan thinks that while Jews had a rough time of it up to and, especially, including the Second World War, they’ve since been in the ascendancy and today are doing so well that we really needn’t worry about them. Let’s support the downtrodden by all means, and fight against racism that is directed against disenfranchised minorities, but the Jews, my God, they’re rich and powerful; they practically run US Foreign Policy through AIPAC, they practically control Hollywood and Wall Street, and we really don’t need to worry on their behalf.

It sounds harsh, and maybe it’s too harsh, but I find that’s really the best I can credit Sullivan with at this point.  I wouldn’t call him an anti-Semite. But is he a Jew-baiter?

Well, he was amused enough by an image of Anne Frank in a keffiyeh to link to a post about it on the blog Little Green Footballs, giving his own post the chortling title “LGF Bait”. Now think about this. Sullivan is a very sophisticated man. Think about the name Anne Frank, or the image of her face: what do these things connote? Of course. Jew. Now think about Sullivan’s use of the word “bait”. And now ask yourself: is it really believable that a guy like Sullivan could have decided to do that post, and link to that image, and title his post as he did, all without the idea of “Jew Bait” ever occurring to him? It’s impossible to imagine. I think Sullivan thought his title very clever indeed, that’s what I think.

Several things make Andrew Sullivan a great blogger. One is his immediate, visceral approach: he says what he thinks about something in any given moment. Another is his intellectual honesty: he will say “I was wrong” when new information prompts him to correct or adjust something he’d said. A third (and by no means the last) is his human touch: he lets his emotions show, he comes across as a real person and not a calculated media persona.

Add to this the fact that I also agree with him on just about every substantive issue and it’s no wonder he’s one of my favourite bloggers. What are those issues? The Media. Iraq. Sarah Palin. President Obama. Health Care. Torture. Gay Rights. Israel. And many others.

Whoah, wait a minute — Israel? Absolutely. And why not? As far as I can make out, Sullivan thinks that all of the West Bank and Gaza should become a proper, independent Palestinian state, and so do I. As far as I can make out, Sullivan doesn’t think that Israel has any business building anything at all on territory it conquered in 1967, and neither do I.

No, I don’t have any problems with Sullivan’s positions on Israel/Palestine.

And I most certainly don’t have the slightest problem with his position on torture, nor with his powerful and necessary criticism of how the issue is dealt with (or not dealt with) by the NYT and WaPo.

But sometimes I’m bothered by some of his symbolism and language. One example: the “some of my best friends are Jews” moment he had recently (which I posted about here). Another example: a point made by his colleague Jeffrey Goldberg about Sullivan being amused by things Jew-baiters write.

And so I do have a problem with this: “The fight for America to remain a torturing nation is resilient. It’s what the neocons believe in: the torture of terror suspects, especially Arab or Muslim ones…”

Now just hang on a minute. “Especially Arab or Muslim ones”? How could you possibly know this, Sullivan? What other categories (non-Arab/non-Muslim) of terror suspects has America been dealing with in recent history, the treatment of whom recommended by the “neocons” might have allowed for an observation of contrast to justify this accusation? There is simply no basis for it. It’s a specious, gratuitous smear. It appears that Sullivan is so disgusted by the neocons that things which he merely imagines become, for him, reality. But – and this is the crucial point – the reason they become reality for him is that, as a result of his prejudices, they seem probable to him.

Sullivan uses the word “neocon” a lot. In the mouths (or pens or keyboards) of some people, this is code for “Jew”. I have always been, and I remain, willing to give Sullivan the benefit of the doubt; it is easy enough, after all, to see why a guy who considers and calls himself a “conservative” would want a way to distinguish between his world view and that of a set of people he so strongly (and rightly) disagrees with. But when I see it juxtaposed in this way with a completely baseless, gratuitous smear that quite clearly has no relation to any kind of reality at all, and that, moreover, and perhaps more to the point, conjures a set of prejudices that many who use the word “neocon” in as code for “Jew” would happily impute to those they so name, I begin to wonder: what are Sullivan’s real feelings about Jews? (In reality I began to wonder that quite a while ago.)

I’ll tell you what I think they are. I say this in full recognition of the very real possibility that I could be completely wrong. I say it in full recognition that it’s based merely on having read the guy’s blog, not on having met him, much less spoken to him at length. So, I could be wrong, but here’s what I think: I think Sullivan thinks that while Jews had a rough time of it up to and, especially, including the Second World War, they’ve since been in the ascendancy and today are doing so well that we really needn’t worry about them. Let’s support the downtrodden by all means, and fight against racism that is directed against disenfranchised minorities, but the Jews, my God, they’re rich and powerful; they practically run US Foreign Policy through AIPAC, they practically control Hollywood and Wall Street, and we really don’t need to worry on their behalf.

It sounds harsh, and maybe it’s too harsh, but I find that’s really the best I can credit Sullivan with at this point.  I wouldn’t call him an anti-Semite. But is he a Jew-baiter?

Well, he was amused enough by an image of Anne Frank in a keffiyeh to link to a post about it on the blog Little Green Footballs, giving his own post the chortling title “LGF Bait”. Now think about this. Sullivan is a very sophisticated man. Think about the name Anne Frank, or the image of her face: what do these things connote? Of course. Jew. Now think about Sullivan’s use of the word “bait”. And now ask yourself: is it really believable that a guy like Sullivan could have decided to do that post, and link to that image, and title his post as he did, all without the idea of “Jew Bait” ever occurring to him? It’s impossible to imagine. I think Sullivan thought his title very clever and funny indeed, that’s what I think.

Update: I’d neglected to mention how Sullivan had been quite captivated by Ron Paul during the last Republican primaries. I only once met someone who was actually loony enough to be a proud Ron Paul supporter. In almost the same breath that that person declared his adoration of Ron Paul, he also managed to reveal that he was a raving anti-Semite. Not that, knowing what one does about Ron Paul, this was in any way a surprise. (I excused myself from the table in order to avoid punching the man in the face. Later it occurred to me that I probably should have taken the latter course of action.)