Is he America's great hope? Credit: Jessica Rinaldi/The Boston Globe via Getty Images
The mainstream Anglo-Jewish community rejected Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in December and named Corbyn himself as an anti-Semite, rotting the party from its head. The community was accused of using anti-Semitism not to protect itself, but to slander the opposition.
I believe that Corbyn is an anti-Semite. I also believe that the Tories, who don’t care about immigrants, exploited this. It is gruesome to watch the campaigning video of Boris Johnson in the Grodzinski Bakery in Golders Green, selling doughnuts and calming Orthodox Jews, and then to read that the Dubs amendment to offer sanctuary to refugee children was rejected by his government. Simply put, they used us. Why wouldn’t they?
If Corbyn’s racism was exploitable by the Right, it is awful to watch this strategy crossing the Atlantic to fell Bernie Sanders. He is called the Jewish Corbyn. He isn’t. He is called an anti-Semite. He isn’t. The charge is absurd. Even so, it has begun.
Bernie Sanders’s father, Elias ben Yehuda Sanders, left Galicia, Poland at 17, in 1921. He was fleeing pogroms; later, most of Galician Jewry was murdered at Auschwitz. “The threat of anti-Semitism is not some abstract idea to me,” he has said. “It is very personal. It destroyed a large part of my family.”
Jewish birth doesn’t exempt you from being anti-Semitic — read the blogs of the Tony Greenstein, the son of a rabbi, now expelled from the Labour Party for his “noxious behaviour” if you disagree — but Sanders calls himself “a proud American Jew” and I believe him; he is a proud Jew in the Socialist tradition. Two things made his politics, he says: growing up in poverty in New York and the murder of his extended family in Poland.
There are two charges aimed at Sanders. The first is that he is not supportive enough of Israel. What kind of Israel is he not supportive enough of? A Greater Israel with ever-expanding settlements, with all hope of peace extinguished, in which any violence is forgivable as long as it is not towards a Jew? I would hope not; that is Trump’s kind of support and it is not, for me, support. It is, rather, enabling of the very worst elements in Israel; a summoning of something awful.
Sanders is a garden variety liberal Zionist. He supports a two-state solution, and credibly. Corbyn could never manage this, even if it was his party’s official policy. Sanders, though, wrote this in an essay for Jewish Currents: “The founding of Israel is understood by another people in the land of Palestine as the cause of their painful displacement. And just as Palestinians should recognise the just claims of Israeli Jews, supporters of Israel must understand why Palestinians view Israel’s creation as they do. Acknowledging these realities does not ‘delegitimise’ Israel any more than acknowledging the sober facts of America’s own founding delegitimises the United States.”
It is hard to disagree with this analysis; rather, it is comforting to read such sense and empathy. Even so, he is embroiled in a fight with American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac). He refuses to attend their conference this year, although he did offer to give a speech in 2016 (and was rejected). “The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security,” he says. “So do the Palestinian people. I remain concerned about the platform Aipac provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights. For that reason, I will not attend their conference”. Aipac called the remarks “odious” and “shameful” and invited Mike Pence to speak instead. Please suppress your laughter.
The second charge against him is the company he keeps, and it is true that some of his associates — the congresswomen Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar — do not share his support for a two-state solution and have sometimes fallen into anti-Semitic tropes. In 2012 Omar tweeted that Israel has “hypnotised” the world (she apologised) and Tlaib has falsely blamed Israel for the death of a Palestinian child (she retracted).
What do you say to these unpleasant associates? You could say that Sanders has other associates anti-Zionists would despise, such as the kibbutzniks he stayed with in Haifa in 1963. He later wrote: “It was there that I saw and experienced for myself many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded. I think it is very important for everyone, but particularly for progressives, to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of displacement and persecution.” Sanders needs to build a progressive coalition to defeat Trump; and we must accept, the Left being what it is, that many are anti-Zionists. But they — and this is the crucial difference with Jeremy Corbyn’s situation — are following a Jewish liberal Zionist now and I read that as victory.
This is not enough for Sanders’s Jewish enemies. They say he doesn’t practise religious Judaism — why should he? A Jewish acquaintance who stayed with Sanders on the Haifa kibbutz made a ludicrous intervention in print, saying that Sanders refused invitations to his children’s bar mitzvahs. He also complained that, when they stayed on the kibbutz, Sanders sat under a tree reading Karl Marx with his “rootless Jewish soul”.
These squabbles are normal within the Jewish community, where competitive Judaism is a sport, like chess, and the ancient debate about whether Jews should be particularists — in this case, unquestioning Zionists — or universalists — in this case, avid Socialists — rages on; how best, is the unanswerable question, do we remain safe? Sanders’s politics, I fear, is the real cause of the hostility, and this angers me; the claims of his “anti-Semitism” are spurious and cruel. Mike Bloomberg, the non-practising Jewish capitalist, has escaped such claims of “non-Jewish Jewishness”.
I have spent too much time trying to explain what anti-Semitism is, and what it isn’t. Seeking peace in the Middle East and having the integrity — and the charisma — to attract anti-Zionists when you are a liberal Zionist, and always have been, isn’t anti-Semitism. It’s good politics and cause for hope. Do American Jews really trust that the racism that Donald Trump summons — for cynicism — will not overwhelm them too? If they do, they are mad.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“…if they grant it to you out of guilt or pity they have just reduced you, not elevated you.”
Amen brother!
“…if they grant it to you out of guilt or pity they have just reduced you, not elevated you.”
Amen brother!
It’s always very dangerous to conflate British and American experiences of race. So inviting an American speaker to a British conference can create misunderstandings.
That said, I thank Prof. Loury for his wise and measured words.
Whilst I heartily agree with you that one should not conflate the British and US experiences of race, it is these countries’ experience of “anti-racism” that is being spoken of; and here the experiences are very similar. The same ideas that “colour-blindness” is racist, that black people somehow require special lower standards applied to them to compete etc. are prervalent in both countries, to the detriment od black people.
It is, however to say the least interesting that African countries prop up the bottom of every table that sets out GNP/GDP, industrial, economic, financial, and democracy statistics, and I have never seen any written or televised discussion, ditto comparisons between India and Pakistan and Bangladesh? Why?
… And any discussion on Japan and its chosen lack of err… ” racial diversity”, and the fact that Switzerland is a tri racial agglomerate, and it works?
How is Switzerland a “tri-racial agglomerate?” Tri-lingual and tri-ethnic I can understand, but three races?
Racism is a very stretchy definition these days. To many people just being white qualifies for being a racist!
Racism is a very stretchy definition these days. To many people just being white qualifies for being a racist!
How is Switzerland a “tri-racial agglomerate?” Tri-lingual and tri-ethnic I can understand, but three races?
… And any discussion on Japan and its chosen lack of err… ” racial diversity”, and the fact that Switzerland is a tri racial agglomerate, and it works?
It is, however to say the least interesting that African countries prop up the bottom of every table that sets out GNP/GDP, industrial, economic, financial, and democracy statistics, and I have never seen any written or televised discussion, ditto comparisons between India and Pakistan and Bangladesh? Why?
I agree with you that American and British experiences of race are different.
However, I would add that the American experience has now been exported to the rest of the West since the death of George Floyd. It is a form of cultural imperialism. American categories have become British ones even if our overall history and experiences are different. The appearance of Glen Loury at a UK conference is therefore both welcome and necessary from that perspective.
Very good point.
(?) I think it wins the forum award for today’s most confused point. Is the ‘necessity’ of Loury’s appearance at a UK conference an antidote for the cultural imperialism the point maker decries, or itself an instance of it? The kind of incoherence Loury opposes should be ‘exported’ to no one’s cranium, granted; but why would the UK need to import an American to deliver this plea for basic logic? What’s ‘welcome’ is that on the basis of what he says, Loury, a black man, is clearly at the conference on his own merits. What’s preposterous is that no white man could deliver the same plea without risking being denounced as a racist. That sort of thought imperialism should be resisted by defenders of coherence on both sides of the Atlantic; yet, ironically enough, Loury’s appearance caters to it, because his invitation to speak at a UK conference was clearly occasioned not by his commonsense views, which any reasonable person would endorse, but by his status as an American black man.
(?) I think it wins the forum award for today’s most confused point. Is the ‘necessity’ of Loury’s appearance at a UK conference an antidote for the cultural imperialism the point maker decries, or itself an instance of it? The kind of incoherence Loury opposes should be ‘exported’ to no one’s cranium, granted; but why would the UK need to import an American to deliver this plea for basic logic? What’s ‘welcome’ is that on the basis of what he says, Loury, a black man, is clearly at the conference on his own merits. What’s preposterous is that no white man could deliver the same plea without risking being denounced as a racist. That sort of thought imperialism should be resisted by defenders of coherence on both sides of the Atlantic; yet, ironically enough, Loury’s appearance caters to it, because his invitation to speak at a UK conference was clearly occasioned not by his commonsense views, which any reasonable person would endorse, but by his status as an American black man.
Very good point.
This is true in a general sense, but the import of American identity politics in fact means that his comments are absolutely in line with what is happening in UK institutions – hospitals, universities. An NHS Trust last month was insisting on a letter of explanation fro HR for every appointment that was not black. Is that not exactly what Glenn Loury is referring to?
Whilst I heartily agree with you that one should not conflate the British and US experiences of race, it is these countries’ experience of “anti-racism” that is being spoken of; and here the experiences are very similar. The same ideas that “colour-blindness” is racist, that black people somehow require special lower standards applied to them to compete etc. are prervalent in both countries, to the detriment od black people.
I agree with you that American and British experiences of race are different.
However, I would add that the American experience has now been exported to the rest of the West since the death of George Floyd. It is a form of cultural imperialism. American categories have become British ones even if our overall history and experiences are different. The appearance of Glen Loury at a UK conference is therefore both welcome and necessary from that perspective.
This is true in a general sense, but the import of American identity politics in fact means that his comments are absolutely in line with what is happening in UK institutions – hospitals, universities. An NHS Trust last month was insisting on a letter of explanation fro HR for every appointment that was not black. Is that not exactly what Glenn Loury is referring to?
It’s always very dangerous to conflate British and American experiences of race. So inviting an American speaker to a British conference can create misunderstandings.
That said, I thank Prof. Loury for his wise and measured words.
There are plenty of writers and commenters (identified as black/‘of color’) with perspectives different to that of the critical theory orthodoxy (and they’re not all conservatives) whose views on race are either completely ignored by the mainstream media or sidelined/ridiculed: John McWhorter, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Africa Brooke to name a small few.
Coleman Hughes, Roland Fryer, Wilfred Reilly, Jason Riley, Thomas Sowell, Robert Woodson, Carol Swain, Ian Rowe, Walter Williams, should all be household names. All highly credentialed, published, often in academia and yet ignored. Kendi, is a pseudo intellectual – the dead white males he cites in his book have not been read by him. He cites the opinion of other race hustlers. Sad for Americans and sad that he and his ilk have been able to infect the rest of the western world.
Excellent comment.
. . . Adolph Reed Jr, Karen Fields, Barbara Fields, Albert Murray, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Adrian Piper, . . .
Excellent comment.
. . . Adolph Reed Jr, Karen Fields, Barbara Fields, Albert Murray, Kwame Anthony Appiah, Adrian Piper, . . .
This is true. I follow John McWhorter’s opinion pieces in the NYT. He is quite brilliant.
Coleman Hughes, Roland Fryer, Wilfred Reilly, Jason Riley, Thomas Sowell, Robert Woodson, Carol Swain, Ian Rowe, Walter Williams, should all be household names. All highly credentialed, published, often in academia and yet ignored. Kendi, is a pseudo intellectual – the dead white males he cites in his book have not been read by him. He cites the opinion of other race hustlers. Sad for Americans and sad that he and his ilk have been able to infect the rest of the western world.
This is true. I follow John McWhorter’s opinion pieces in the NYT. He is quite brilliant.
There are plenty of writers and commenters (identified as black/‘of color’) with perspectives different to that of the critical theory orthodoxy (and they’re not all conservatives) whose views on race are either completely ignored by the mainstream media or sidelined/ridiculed: John McWhorter, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Africa Brooke to name a small few.
Wise words, which I would falter in finding the courage to repeat in my place of work. Once bitten..
Yes, you might not get a red card, but a yellow card would be a certainty.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton “I feel your pain.”
Yes, you might not get a red card, but a yellow card would be a certainty.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton “I feel your pain.”
Wise words, which I would falter in finding the courage to repeat in my place of work. Once bitten..
Loury’s show on YouTube, “The Black Guys” with John McWhorter is a great listen where actual debate on serious issues occurs. Kendi has declined to appear because Loury would destroy him.
if you subscribe to his Substack, you will have access to these shows. It is a shame that Loury, like many other thoughtful black intellectuals who disagree with the equity agenda are unknown to the general public.
And he takes on other issues as well as you can see from this episode: https://open.substack.com/pub/glennloury/p/the-false-promise-of-net-zero-emissions?
r=8stlx&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Thanks for the info.
They’re unknown precisely because they go against the narrative pitched by the CRT folks and their media allies. Censorship by willfully ignoring them.
Thanks for the info.
They’re unknown precisely because they go against the narrative pitched by the CRT folks and their media allies. Censorship by willfully ignoring them.
Loury’s show on YouTube, “The Black Guys” with John McWhorter is a great listen where actual debate on serious issues occurs. Kendi has declined to appear because Loury would destroy him.
if you subscribe to his Substack, you will have access to these shows. It is a shame that Loury, like many other thoughtful black intellectuals who disagree with the equity agenda are unknown to the general public.
And he takes on other issues as well as you can see from this episode: https://open.substack.com/pub/glennloury/p/the-false-promise-of-net-zero-emissions?
r=8stlx&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Bravo to a great scholar who has the courage (and color) to tell it like it is. I have been trying to make the same point but coward that I am, have always deleted my ideas before posting lest I be deemed a bigot.
I hold the belief that only the Blacks can help themselves in meaningful ways. Ever since the emergence of the “Great Society”, our politicians have thrown trillions to improve the Black persons plight only to discover that instead of elevating them, it served to stultify and disincentivize societal advancement.
Hopefully Mr. Loury’s ideas can gain traction and create meaningful and respectful debates that can create approaches that really work.
Bravo to a great scholar who has the courage (and color) to tell it like it is. I have been trying to make the same point but coward that I am, have always deleted my ideas before posting lest I be deemed a bigot.
I hold the belief that only the Blacks can help themselves in meaningful ways. Ever since the emergence of the “Great Society”, our politicians have thrown trillions to improve the Black persons plight only to discover that instead of elevating them, it served to stultify and disincentivize societal advancement.
Hopefully Mr. Loury’s ideas can gain traction and create meaningful and respectful debates that can create approaches that really work.
So very true sir. I applaud your perception AND be willing to state it.
So very true sir. I applaud your perception AND be willing to state it.
Yes! Concise, brilliant, true. The essence of Loury’s common sense: There’s no substitute for earning the respect of your peers: if they grant it to you out of guilt or pity they have just reduced you, not elevated you.
Loury is a realist. The popular,auditorium-filling demogogues–he named one, and the other is the one Douglas referred to as Madame Whiplash–are responsible for a new, and dreadful racism. Listen to Loury and return to Martin Luther King’s message of unity.
Yes! Concise, brilliant, true. The essence of Loury’s common sense: There’s no substitute for earning the respect of your peers: if they grant it to you out of guilt or pity they have just reduced you, not elevated you.
Loury is a realist. The popular,auditorium-filling demogogues–he named one, and the other is the one Douglas referred to as Madame Whiplash–are responsible for a new, and dreadful racism. Listen to Loury and return to Martin Luther King’s message of unity.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. If a politician made a speech this good, I might actually consider voting.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. If a politician made a speech this good, I might actually consider voting.
I am getting bored of not being able to get one single person on this medium, despite my now countless attempts, to give a written definition of ” racism”? Are Finnish rally drivers, Irish jockeys, Jewish financial institution founders, French wine makers, Brazilian footballers New Zealand rugby players, somehow racists? if not why not?… Come on there wokerati, put your multicultural diverse and inclusive non- binary m/f digits on the keyboard?
I am getting bored of not being able to get one single person on this medium, despite my now countless attempts, to give a written definition of ” racism”? Are Finnish rally drivers, Irish jockeys, Jewish financial institution founders, French wine makers, Brazilian footballers New Zealand rugby players, somehow racists? if not why not?… Come on there wokerati, put your multicultural diverse and inclusive non- binary m/f digits on the keyboard?
Always encouraging to see some common sense out there thanks !
Always encouraging to see some common sense out there thanks !
Thomas Sowell was one of America’s greatest thinkers/writers. He was philanthropic in thought and action; never afraid to point out failings without demeaning his targets. He was speaking to Congress back in the Fifties – clearly elucidating governmental failings. Never angry, but loaded with facts and statistics, he persuaded via rationality.
You, Glenn are of the same tradition; kind, humane and always dismissive of untruths or arrogance.
Thank you.
Thomas Sowell was one of America’s greatest thinkers/writers. He was philanthropic in thought and action; never afraid to point out failings without demeaning his targets. He was speaking to Congress back in the Fifties – clearly elucidating governmental failings. Never angry, but loaded with facts and statistics, he persuaded via rationality.
You, Glenn are of the same tradition; kind, humane and always dismissive of untruths or arrogance.
Thank you.
Complete equality is the enemy of specialization. Specialization is a foundation of civilization. We can have a society closer to complete equality in a hunter-gatherer society with short lives and few stakes. To build a civilization (and to preserve it), we need people specially selected to devote their lives to something hard to do, master it, and do it for others while being supported in their sacrifice in not being generalists any longer.
Therefore equality is one of those noble sounding ideas that’s in fact a double-edged sword. It does good in some cases, it does harm in others. When we take it as an ultimate cornerstone of morality we start destroying that civilization.
Even in hunter gatherer societies there are specializations like flint knappers and other tool makers. You can be sure they ate well and hunted less than others.
Even in hunter gatherer societies there are specializations like flint knappers and other tool makers. You can be sure they ate well and hunted less than others.
Complete equality is the enemy of specialization. Specialization is a foundation of civilization. We can have a society closer to complete equality in a hunter-gatherer society with short lives and few stakes. To build a civilization (and to preserve it), we need people specially selected to devote their lives to something hard to do, master it, and do it for others while being supported in their sacrifice in not being generalists any longer.
Therefore equality is one of those noble sounding ideas that’s in fact a double-edged sword. It does good in some cases, it does harm in others. When we take it as an ultimate cornerstone of morality we start destroying that civilization.
The heart of the argument is so-called ‘social justice’, which is, in reality, a noble sounding euphemism for envy. If we understand that, then we understand that the calls for ‘equity’ and ‘equal outcomes’ are not calls for justice or fairness in fact; they are calls for confiscation of property, prestige, and prerogatives by those who are filled with envy. But, as others have pointed out, envy is one of the most disgraceful human motives, so it always hides behind the noble rhetoric of ‘fairness’ rather than admitting its real identity. That we fall for this is the real tragedy.
The heart of the argument is so-called ‘social justice’, which is, in reality, a noble sounding euphemism for envy. If we understand that, then we understand that the calls for ‘equity’ and ‘equal outcomes’ are not calls for justice or fairness in fact; they are calls for confiscation of property, prestige, and prerogatives by those who are filled with envy. But, as others have pointed out, envy is one of the most disgraceful human motives, so it always hides behind the noble rhetoric of ‘fairness’ rather than admitting its real identity. That we fall for this is the real tragedy.
Generally very good. Shame about his unfortunate use of “yellow”, but nobody’s perfect.
I agree with the dangers of quotas, albeit qualified by the fact we shouldn’t assume the variability in outcome is then just based solely on merit. Thus in essence is not the point Loury conveys that he implies society is now meritocratic?
We can certainly contend it’s more meritocratic than in previous generations (albeit worrying that social mobility seems to have stagnated). But it would be a self justifying narrative, by those who’ve done well, to suggest everyone has the same opportunities and therefore differences in outcome are entirely self generated. We know this is not the case and the dice remains loaded unevenly.
We’re never be able to get everyone onto an even ‘start-line’. But in recognising that we shouldn’t assume where one finishes in the race was entirely fair either.
“We know this is not the case”? I am curious what you are referring to? It seems to me that deciding whether we are sufficiently meritocratic or not, is one of the contested questions.
Once upon a time, we had the idea that standardized testing could determine who had hidden talent, and used that metric to demand equal access for those with hidden talent. While testing elevated some individuals from the underclass, by and large it’s kept them where they were. So now people have taken to arguing that the testing must be faulty.
Perhaps it’s time to abandon the idea that ‘meritocracy’ would result in some kind of social leveling. On the contrary, it’s the cruelest and most unforgiving instrument of social stratification – you literally have no one to blame for your unhappy place in society but yourself. What a terrible judgment! (And that takes us to more fundamental questions about the nature of human happiness and the meaning of a well lived life.)
Much I concur with in your last paragraph KS. Won’t recite key themes here from Michael Sandel’s excellent ‘Tyranny of Meritocracy’ but suffice to say I also v much concur with that too.
Much I concur with in your last paragraph KS. Won’t recite key themes here from Michael Sandel’s excellent ‘Tyranny of Meritocracy’ but suffice to say I also v much concur with that too.
Loury developed the theory of “social capital” in which he addresses this issue. Of course some people get ahead by cheating the system or just have better connections as Loury argues in his theoretical work.. the problem is that meritocracy, flawed as it is is the best available system. What is the alternative?
I think Loury is (an American) national treasure. He is 74 and I dread his passing.
I had never heard of him before reading this article and was very impressed. I tend to divide the world into common-sense and not common-sense..he’s very much in the common-sense camp.
I had never heard of him before reading this article and was very impressed. I tend to divide the world into common-sense and not common-sense..he’s very much in the common-sense camp.
“We know this is not the case”? I am curious what you are referring to? It seems to me that deciding whether we are sufficiently meritocratic or not, is one of the contested questions.
Once upon a time, we had the idea that standardized testing could determine who had hidden talent, and used that metric to demand equal access for those with hidden talent. While testing elevated some individuals from the underclass, by and large it’s kept them where they were. So now people have taken to arguing that the testing must be faulty.
Perhaps it’s time to abandon the idea that ‘meritocracy’ would result in some kind of social leveling. On the contrary, it’s the cruelest and most unforgiving instrument of social stratification – you literally have no one to blame for your unhappy place in society but yourself. What a terrible judgment! (And that takes us to more fundamental questions about the nature of human happiness and the meaning of a well lived life.)
Loury developed the theory of “social capital” in which he addresses this issue. Of course some people get ahead by cheating the system or just have better connections as Loury argues in his theoretical work.. the problem is that meritocracy, flawed as it is is the best available system. What is the alternative?
I think Loury is (an American) national treasure. He is 74 and I dread his passing.
I agree with the dangers of quotas, albeit qualified by the fact we shouldn’t assume the variability in outcome is then just based solely on merit. Thus in essence is not the point Loury conveys that he implies society is now meritocratic?
We can certainly contend it’s more meritocratic than in previous generations (albeit worrying that social mobility seems to have stagnated). But it would be a self justifying narrative, by those who’ve done well, to suggest everyone has the same opportunities and therefore differences in outcome are entirely self generated. We know this is not the case and the dice remains loaded unevenly.
We’re never be able to get everyone onto an even ‘start-line’. But in recognising that we shouldn’t assume where one finishes in the race was entirely fair either.