OK, I'll grant that she has a bad record, and antisemitism is likely. However, if you said on any other topic that Congressmen are motivated principally by seeking illicit personal profit, including through lobbyist dollars, would anyone bat an eye? That's why people form lobbyist groups, right? That's why most of Congress are millionaires, though not all of them were when they got there, right?
Look at the net worth of some of these Congressfolk of long service, and calculate how much of that came from their salary. This isn't a very controversial thing to say about, say, why Republicans tend to favor amnesty in spite of the fact that their constituents hotly oppose it. It's the money, right? The Chamber of Commerce and many rich industries really want to depress the price of labor, both unskilled and skilled. That's why there's always such a push for amnesty, for more H1 visas, and why eVerify never manages to get through the Republican-led houses of Congress.
Pick your topic. Does anyone doubt that Congress is being bribed in various ways, as well as being allowed to profit off prior knowledge of how they are going to legislate?
So why would it be antisemitic to assert that a Jewish lobby is behaving like every other lobby? That's treating Jews -- these particular ones -- just the same way as everyone else. It's the opposite of bias, it's genuine equality.
I have a similar concern when people cry "Antisemitism!" about complaints about George Soros' deploying his vast wealth to try to create effects in American politics. Yes, Soros is a Jew. Yes, there's an ancient trope about Foreign Jews doing things like that which has been used by actual antisemites in the past. However, Soros really is spending a lot of money on organizations designed to create effects in American politics,
Now, I don't think what Omar said is actually true. My sense is that AIPAC isn't actually powerful enough to do what Omar claims they do; if they were, there would have been no Obama-era Iran deal. It's wrong to raise false charges. But it's not antisemitic, necessarily, to believe that what is true of Congress in most cases involving lobbyists is still true of Congress where there are Jewish lobbyists. It's only treating them on even terms with everyone else, which is surely fair game.
18 comments:
I see what you're saying and generally agree but also disagree in part.
A number of people have pointed out that AIPAC doesn't do campaign contributions so Omar's specific tweet singling them out as the source of bribes doesn't make sense.
Yes, it's not anti-Semitic to oppose what AIPAC or Soros are lobbying for. The question is the relative emphasis on the Jewish component. If you're uniquely complaining that Jewish organizations or people are bribing Congress through lobbying money but not complaining about the influence of Tom Steyr or Emily's List then I think it's fair to say your arguments have an anti-Semitic basis.
I think this what most people are objecting to in the case of Omar, and to a certain degree with Soros depending on the group complaining about him. We do a lot of winking and nodding about how the game is played, but the fact that there's a lot of monetary gain among Congress people only seems to come up when discussing the activities of specific organizations and people.
FYI, Soros is a naturalized US citizen, although still despicable.
While I generally agree with your post, you seem to be conflating attempts to influence politicians by enriching them personally, which is illegal, and attempts to influence politicians by donating to their campaigns, PACs and political parties, or making independent campaign expenditures, which is just how the system works, for good or bad. Politicians moving from middle class to wealthy while in office (e.g., LBJ) happens less than it used to - these days, Congressmen are usually wealthy when first elected.
I don't remember your having commented before, Mr. Shield. Welcome.
FYI, Soros is a naturalized US citizen, although still despicable.
I had no idea that was the case. You always hear about him in relation to Davos and the EU -- just today he has a piece out about the EU's future and the need to fight populists. I knew he dealt with the Nazis as a youth, and made his money short selling the British Pound. It never occurred to me that he'd have been an American citizen.
So in that case he's entitled to pursue politics here. He's not a citizen everywhere he is trying to shape politics, though; we may not have the right to complain, but somebody does.
...you seem to be conflating attempts to influence politicians by enriching them personally, which is illegal, and attempts to influence politicians by donating to their campaigns, PACs and political parties, or making independent campaign expenditures, which is just how the system works, for good or bad.
My point is that, as you say, this is just how the system works. It wouldn't be odd to say in any other sphere that Congressman X is motivated to pursue Policy Y because of campaign donations.
As for conflating them with illegal bribes, well, money is fungible. A campaign or PAC can cover your expenses, travel, meals out, "entertaining" at various levels of extravagance, salaries for your wife and children, and so on and so forth. The difference between that and a bribe is, I think, more technical than profound.
Politicians moving from middle class to wealthy while in office (e.g., LBJ) happens less than it used to - these days...
I don't know if that's true or not, but I think the real mechanism is less donations than the Congressional version of insider trading. You know your committee is likely to forward legislation approving a project, or issuing some law that will affect some industry one way or the other. You know that's going to happen, and what its odds are, earlier than others. And it's not illegal for you to invest accordingly.
Where do you get the money to invest? Well, it turns out you have a little extra put aside because your campaign/PAC/etc picked up some of your expenses.
That's how I think it works. Maybe you're right and fewer do it, because they're rich first. I don't know about that.
A number of people have pointed out that AIPAC doesn't do campaign contributions so Omar's specific tweet singling them out as the source of bribes doesn't make sense.
I've read that today myself, although it's the first time I've heard that claim. I had always thought that of course they did, insofar as I ever thought of it at all. It would be ironic, wouldn't it, if the Jews really were the only interest group not doing what it is an antisemitic trope to claim they do?
...Tom Steyr or Emily's List then I think it's fair to say your arguments have an anti-Semitic basis.
That's fair. Today she added the NRA to her list, I hear. No doubt she'll remember to cover her bases in the future while complaining about AIPAC.
In his Twitter feed, AG_Conservative is doing a lot of writing about Omar's anti-semitism; he's done Tweetstorms on Omar and on Tlaib, laying out their pattern of behavior.
AG also included some $ info on AIPAC:
In 2018 cycle, AIPAC spent a total of 180K (58% to Dems) [snip]
For comparison: Planned Parenthood spent over 19 Mill
https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative
Funny, I always assumed Soros was a naturalized citizen, though I can't remember reading anything about it one way or the other.
I'd put the difference between Rep Omar's comments and "just pointing out that PACs influence politicians" like this.
I have a friend (perhaps long term acquaintance might be more accurate) who is truly a misanthropist. He dislikes people equally. Outside of a very small circle, he has nothing but contempt for other people. Now, if one were to say he's a racist because he dislikes people of other ethnicities, that would be ignoring the fact that he dislikes everyone else as well. It's hard to assign racial animus when he hates on people of his own race just as much.
However, if all of his comments were directed at just one ethnicity, without any others ever being directed at any other ethnicity, then I'd say the charge of racism would stick. If you asked someone for examples of who they dislike (or in this case, believe is influencing politics) and their examples all happen to be Jewish, then I think a charge of antisemitism has some merit.
Also, as Elise points out, this is hardly a one time event for Rep Omar.
I'm prepared to accept (as the OP says) that Omar is antisemitic based on her bad history. I was more after what strikes me as a general problem.
That problem might be put this way: On the one hand, we want to be sure that we are not forwarding antisemitic tropes, just as we want to be sure we are not forwarding other stereotypes. On the other hand, individuals who happen to belong to a given minority, X, can still be rightly criticized for bad behavior even if that behavior happens to fall in on a stereotype that has been long used to malign their minority group.
In order to treat them with genuine equality, we have to be able to criticize people when they are wrong. Thus, I think we need to untangle the need not to forward stereotypes/tropes from the capacity to raise pertinent criticisms against individuals who are doing bad things.
Well, the way I would go about it is to first evaluate the statement on its own. "AIPAC influences politicians". Okay, that statement is not inherently antisemitic, and only the most overly sensitive of readers would think it was. So by itself, I think it's safe to say that the statement, on its own does not demonstrate antisemitism. Now, if the statement was something like "Jews control the government", then I think we can comfortably say that this statement is inherently antisemitic on its own. The intent is not to explain that a Political Action Committee influences politicians (a near tautology), but to imply a conspiracy theory at the expense of Jewish people.
Now, just because a statement in a vacuum is not antisemitic (as we established with the first example) does not mean it cannot be antisemitic within the context of other statements made by an individual. If someone continually references AIPAC and criticizes Israel, talks about the plight of the Palestinians, and denies the Holocaust, then I think you could take that statement "AIPAC influences politicians" to mean more than "PACs influence policy". It becomes of a piece with other antisemitic statements and beliefs which form an antisemitic whole. In that case, I think you then could characterize the statement "AIPAC influences politicians" as something more sinister and antisemitic.
"Jews control the government" is antisemitic regardless of who the speaker is, and no further context is needed. "AIPAC influences politicians" is probably not antisemitic, unless spoken by someone who generally holds other antisemitic positions.
note: I might make an exception to "Jews control the government" as antisemitic IF one is speaking specifically of the Knesset. Because that would probably just be a factual statement. It also would depend on the speaker and the context as a whole.
It's hard not be sensitive - perhaps hypersensitive - when it comes to Jews because of the Holocaust. The stated goal of much of the Palestinian power structure is to obliterate Israel; in other words, slaughter another 6 million Jews. I really don't want to help anyone create a narrative that helps people shrug and say, "They brought it on themselves" if Iran decides to nuke Tel Aviv. So that's one thing.
Part of what seems different to me about Omar's statements versus the usual "money is the mother's milk of politics" is the implication that members of Congress would not support Israel if they weren't being paid. That's ugly - and different from saying Israel and American Jews try to influence policy and sometimes it works. It's like saying that members of Congress wouldn't support legalized abortion if they weren't being paid by Planned Parenthood. It's not so much an attack on Israel or on American Jews; it's more a way to make any support for Israel look corrupt. It lends credence to the idea that Israel is so heinous that no one could honestly support it; only those who have been paid to do so would stoop so low. For example, Omar has praised this story of AIPAC corrupting a poor, innocent hippy doctor running for Congress:
https://freebeacon.com/issues/ilhan-omar-praises-dem-activist-calling-aipac-central-pillar-occupation-hours-apologizing-anti-semitic-tweets/
I think this line of reasoning also ties back to Omar's earlier comment about Israel "hypnotizing" the world: somehow Jews can get people to do terrible things, like abandon their deeply held beliefs for $5000. Someone (I can't find the article quickly right now) talks about Omar's "primitive" anti-Semitism, the strain that believes the Jews are sorcerers, can get people to do things they would never willingly do. If I were a Congressional supporter of Israel, I'd be asking Omar to tell me to my face that I've been bought.
So, yes, we need to be able to criticize people who do bad things. But someone with a history of anti-Semitism and a view of Israel that does not even begin to line up with what I believe to be reality, cannot be taken seriously as an honest critic of Israel or AIPAC or Jews. It's inevitable that statements from Omar that could be interpreted benignly will not be and, in my opinion, should not be. A discussion about whether US interests would be better served by a less pro-Israeli policy should be in bounds; a discussion about whether we should continue to be hypnotized and bought-off by an apartheid, illegitimate foreign government is anti-Semitism. To quote AG_Conservative again:
It is perfectly legitimate to criticize any country. However, when you try to ostracize and hold the only Jewish country on earth to far different standards than every other country, the reason becomes fairly obvious.
Hello Grim, thanks for the welcome.
The point of campaign contributions is that they are used for campaign expenses, not to build yourself a new house or a swimming pool or to invest in the stock market. So a person could not get personally rich (lawfully) by collecting campaign contributions. No matter how many nights you sleep in expensive hotels or eat in expensive restaurants, it is not going to make you rich.
You are right about politicians becoming wealthy (or wealthier than they were) through the use of inside information. This is not against the law (unlike for people in the private sector). But AIPAC is not in a position to enrich anyone in this way.
Another point is, Arab and Muslim countries lobby Congress just as vigorously as Israel and its supporters do - and have even more resources at their disposal.
I want to cosign Elise's comments about money in politics re Israel, and apply it more broadly. I appreciate where you're coming from but I find it to be a slippery slope. Politics would certainly look different if money wasn't involved, but I'm not entirely sure that it would be any better. You'd just shift the influence to who could provide manpower for campaigns (or for busting the heads of the opposition), for a somewhat historical example. Contributions and other enticements often make the difference at the margins of policy proposals but if it wasn't money people would find another way, and it wouldn't necessarily be sweet reason. Believing that bribery, legal or otherwise, is the 'but, for' cause of how Congress people chose to vote is getting pretty close to the justification the Left likes to use for punching those they deem to be Nazis.
The point of campaign contributions is that they are used for campaign expenses, not to build yourself a new house or a swimming pool or to invest in the stock market. So a person could not get personally rich (lawfully) by collecting campaign contributions.
I think you're missing my point about the fungibility of money. Let's say that I have a salary of $100,000/yr and I'm running for re-election. If I have to spend $40,000 on my campaign, plus $15,000 supporting my wife who is a homemaker (or my do-nothing son), less taxes and additional expenses I might only have $500 at the end of the year for my investments.
But let's say I have some rich corporate donors to my campaign. Now my $40,000 in campaign expenses will be covered; and my wife (or son, or both) can work for the campaign, and their salaries will be paid. That not only saves me $15,000, but if it's my wife her salary can contribute substantially to our joint income.
So now I want to invest in this great opportunity I have insider information about. Instead of $500, though, I have at least $55,500. Maybe more, if my wife drew a fat salary.
I appreciate where you're coming from but I find it to be a slippery slope. Politics would certainly look different if money wasn't involved, but I'm not entirely sure that it would be any better.
I mean, you can't possibly run politics without money. As Tex would say, it's not like how you pay for things is a dispensable part of the story. You could swap to public financing of campaigns, for example, but that would have consequences and be corruptible in other ways.
In any case, I've said what I had to say about it. And I learned something about George Soros that I never knew, which showed I'd been (unintentionally) unfair in my thoughts towards him. So it's been a good discussion.
I also appreciate the concerns about Israel, which I do regard as threatened and important. I was there in Jerusalem in 2014. It's a special place, with an important mission.
The Jews as a community used the German created term Anti Semitism as a sort of bully card to get political benefits on the creation of the state of Israel. This was a human created project, not necessarily a god created one.
A Semite is someone in the ancient language group and ethnicity, which can be Persian, many Kurds, and so on. Thus anti Israel or Anti Jew is what they really mean, but using the sophistry of their German enemies, they broaden the term to be antisemitism, as a form of morality shield that benefits the victim.
This is victimhood becoming profitable. It is why the DS supports the Red vs Blue fight in the US. It is a distraction and tactical decoy.
It is very useful to have citizenship in one of the more powerful countries of Earth. Why? Because if Soros was a foreigner in the US, he could be extradited to some other place for war crimes... and while his wealth is substantial, that does not mean he has no enemies in the Deep State or other realms that won't hit him if he makes himself vulnerable.
If Soros or Soros corporations are hit in the US, and he is a foreigner, then the US has no political interest in defending him. But with citizenship, that changes things. It allows him to levy the almost full power of the State Department to be his defender and protector. Thus creating America as his cannonfodder shield against the enemies he has elsewhere.
And he can also cleverly influence Russians into thinking he is working for the CIA, because he is an American citizen and has many interests and allies in DC.
Thus any "blowback" is actually absorbed by Americans in the USA. Neat, isn't it.
That's how a king pin, monopolist, puppet master should work. It wouldn't be very entertaining or challenging of these puppets of the DS and the elohim, were too incompetent and stupid.
Grim, anybody who funds their own campaign for Congress or any other significant office is already quite rich, and very few do it (even Trump eventually turned to fund raising). A campaign for a contested House seat costs in the millions. So nobody gets rich, or richer, through campaign contributions, unless they're breaking the law.
Post a Comment