Wes Clark steps on a third rail...
Poor Wes Clark. I really, really, really like Wes Clark, and now I read he attacked rich New Yorkers who are Jews who are pushing for war with Iran. Let's have Matt Yglesias tell it:
"Retired General Wesley Clark is, like me, concerned that the Bush administration is going to launch a war with Iran. Arianna Huffington spoke to him in early January and asked why he was so worried the administration was headed in this direction. According to Huffington's January 4 recounting of Clark's thoughts, he said this: 'You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.'"
Oh, well. Third rail stepped on. Buzz! You're outta here, Wes. Don't even think of running for president right now. Too bad. I really, really like you--Oh, I said that already. Sigh.
Putzim like little Jonny Chait are all upset about this--even though, contrary to Chait, it is true. What cracks me up is that Clark has long ackowledged that his Dad was Jewish. He's no anti-Semite, but he understands American politics very, very well. Again, sigh.
Read the entire Yglesias piece. It is worth the read.
UPDATE on February 4, 2007: Glenn Greenwald links to the right ward NY Sun for an article that, by its own language and analysis, supports what Wes Clark said. Is the NY Sun, a Likudnik American newspaper, anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic? Um, no. Right?
posted by Mitchell J. Freedman @ 10:53 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Snark alert!
Yeah, there are NO rich people in NY who aren't Jewish.
Go back to Kansas with your stereotypes.
No problem, Anon. But I was born and lived my first two months in Oklahoma, not Kansas. Guess it rubbed off, even though, as I'm sure you know, I'm Jewish, too.
Despite my defense of Clark, Clark's comment still stung. Still, though, I would ask you to review Yglesias' essay, and note that the Democratic Party's donors in NY who are actively pushing for war with Iran are not Protestant. You might find one or two non-Jews among those donors, but the excpetions prove the rule. The better argument against Clark is that George Soros, a Jewish donor living in NY, is certainly not pushing for war in Iran. Clark was best off saying "some" NY donors, but it's what happens when you speak off the cuff to someone in a limited context (Arianna was speaking about war in the context of Democratic Party politics).
Clark's point is that Democratic Party office seekers (as opposed to Republican Party office seekers) have to go to NY, where many of the major donors are Jewish and Likudnik about Israeli and Middle East politics. That is why Pelosi and Co. went to the right of Bush during the Israeli-Hezbollah war last summer.
Clark understood, and I give him credit here, that the Hollywood Jewish donors are not the ones who seek war with Iran (nor did they with Iraq). The NY donors did and do. I know. I've met some in my time (I grew up in NJ and moved to CA after college).
So, guess I'll check the airlines for a return trip to Oklahoma, but Anon., we just can't close our eyes and yell "stereotype" "anti-Semite." There is significant truth in Clark's statement, from the perspective of a Democratic Party office seeker, and it should be acknowledged, even as this Jewish blogger continues to oppose the Iraq War and the expansion of war into Iran--and oppose Likudnik policies in Israel.
Because the NY donors often control policy for the national Jewish organizations like AIPAC, ADL and Jewish Federation, and attempt to speak in my name, I think it important to call them out, too.
Hey, I'm a Jew who lives in KS (altho I grew up in Atlanta GA). "New York money people" means just that to me. Rich New Yorkers. Wall Street. Manhattan. The Hamptons. Some of 'em are Jews, because there are so many of us in New York, relatively. But the majority are not. But many of 'em are pro-Israel (nothing wrong with that), some are more pro-Likud (now there's the issue!) and sadly, some are pro-military industrial complex no matter where they find it (the worst of the three).
I'm not "anonymous" above, but I tend to agree that you're applying your own stereotypes to what Clark actually said.
Jai,
Maybe I am applying my own stereotypes to what Clark said. I just can't help but wonder about the context. Clark was talking about Jews in the same breath. That's why I really can't say Anon. is completely wrong, and I'll say here he could be right. It's just that we shouldn't jump to deep end conclusions about Clark (or me), considering Clarkk has never been anti-Semitic and is in fact a very humane person.
Oh, I hear ya, Mitchell. And I understand the concern. I don't mean to be too critical.
I'm just pointing out that what Clark said would be interpreted differently by many if not most of us who don't live in the northeast. I don't know where Matt Yglesias is from, but he doesn't appear to appreciate the difference.
Since Clark grew up in Arkansas (where he worked as a life guard at the Jewish country club), and since his Jewish family is all from Chicago, he'd be more likely to be familiar with Jewish attitudes typical to my region of the country than with what you'd find in NY or NJ.
Fwiw, I wouldn't be too quick to assume "Clark was talking about Jews in the same breath." It may look that way from how AH wrote it up, but that's a matter of inflection that many times gets misreported. How much more likely when English is a second language (and yes, I know her assistant took the notes, but AH wrote or at least blessed the final copy and probably relied on her own ear).
Don't think I'm quibbling. Clark obviously was talking about Jews in the previous clause -- but who knows how distinct a break he made? It's just as possible that he was purposely making a distinction between Jews, who he said are "split," and the NY money people who are pushing for an attack. I think it's significant that AH writes nothing at all about what she thinks Clark meant. Doesn't it make sense that if she had picked up on "NY money people" being controversial, she'd have mentioned it?
Well, by the same token, she's probably not the best judge. In any case. without hearing Clark's words first hand, it's impossible to know for sure how accurately AH captured Clark's real meaning with the punctuation in her account of the conversation.
What we can know, and as you say, Clark is no anti-Semite. We know he spoke to Abe Foxman (no push-over when it comes to so much as the perception of anti-Semitism) and was able to convince the ADL leader that he does not support any conspiracy theory about Jews controlling US policy. And we know that Clark has been an outspoken defender of Israel's right to defend herself, and as a presidential candidate pledged to support Israel if/when ever necessary. I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt.
My bottom line (the main reason for taking you to task, and what I have written to Yglesias about... hopefully more succinctly) is that when we accept the assertion, even tacitly, that Clark's reference to NY money must mean the Jews, we play into the GOP's same old game of using twisted or out of context soundbytes to discredit good Democrats.
I don't think it's any accident that they zero in on Clark at a time when he is working very hard with Pelosi and Reid to fight Bush's escalation plan, and is probably one of our party's most credible voices on national security. No accident either that it comes at a time when we are finally gaining traction with American voters that Democrats can be trusted to keep our country safe.
Sorry for being so long-winded. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home