Thursday, November 10, 2011

Stuart Has Some Words and Jews Should Definitely BDS the Democratic Party

Stuart said...


Iranian nukes: Bad.

Solution: None that are attractive.

Are elected Dems coming out in favor of Iranian nukes? I haven't seen it.

But on the larger point...I think you've been attempting to lay out an argument for Jews leaving the Democratic party based on a logical set of guidelines. Your willingness to accept Evangelicals as part of an alliance belies your logical argument against supporting Democrats.

The heart of your argument is really that Republicans are better for Israel than Democrats and nothing else matters. Is that not so? (I don't think it's true, by the way.)

November 10, 2011 5:23 AM

My claim, as you know, is that the progressive movement welcomes anti-Semitic anti-Zionists as part of its larger coalition.

Am I wrong? Is that false?

My conclusion is that, therefore, Jewish people and friends of Jewish people should abandon the Democratic Party which serves as a home for the progressive movement in the United States.

I do have a question for you, tho, Stuart.

If Israel takes out Iranian nukes, will you support the Jewish state?

The heart of your argument is really that Republicans are better for Israel than Democrats and nothing else matters.

I am not a Republican, not yet, but I surely trust them far, far more than I do malicious progressives.

Your movement has sold the Jewish people down the river.

And that is nothing to smile about.

Your movement has betrayed the Jews.

You have to address the argument one way or the other. Either the progressive-left has, or has not, accepted anti-Semitic anti-Zionism as part of its larger coalition.

This is either true or it is false.

If it is true, then why should we support your political movement?

If it is false then you might tell us how it is false.


Iranian nukes: Bad.

You do not care if Iran gets nuclear weapons?


That does not bother you?

It doesn't bother you that a feudal theocratic regime that has threatened genocide against us may soon develop nuclear bombs?

Well, there are reasons that the polls show a big drop-off of Jewish support for the Democrats. My bet is that Obama's support within the American Jewish community will go from 80 percent in '08 to 65 percent or under in '12.

I am just happy to see Jewish people beginning to awaken. We do not need to support the Democrats or the progressive movement.

And many of us no longer will.

I have never endorsed the Republicans, but you guys may convince me, yet.


  1. You are STILL mistakenly conflating "the Progressive Left" (aka the Far Left) and "the Democratic Party". These are NOT the same thing. The former has exactly zero influence on the actual policies of the later at the moment.

    What "the Progressive Left" has done is irrelevant to what the Democratic Party has done. What the Democratic Party has done is steadfastly support Israel, both in the overwhelming majority of its elected officials and platform.

  2. The theories of the Progressive Left do resonate in the Democratic Party, and the trend has been in the wrong direction, as the Clinton speech is the latest illustration.

    It's not futile like in many other places, but Democrats need to understand that the theories being proposed have a sad ending for Democrats and all liberals.

  3. I really don't know how you infer that I don't care if Iran gets nukes. I'm insulted that you'd make that inference.

    And the whole ownership of the left is absurd. There are progressive positions. A tiny group of progressive candidates. But a movement? Less organized than OWS.

    It seems your ability to craft a cogent argument has disappeared.

  4. Nonsense.

    All 3 of you are desperately attempting to protect the Democratic party by pretending it has nothing to do with the progressive-left.

    The Democratic Party is to the progressive-left what the Republican Party is to the conservative-right. I can understand why you would not one associated with the other, but associated they are... right at the hip.

    Stuart, I apologize for the insult, but the smiley face before the "Iranian nukes: bad" seemed to suggest a carelessness concerning Iranian nukes.

    But I do wonder, if Israel hits Irans nuclear program will you stand with Israel?

  5. Nonsense. The tea party helped the Republicans take control of the house. Something like 80 members in congress who subscribe to the Tea Party agenda, and most presidential candidates trying their hardest to please them.

    The conservative right actually weilds power. The progressive left has almost none. And the piece of the progressive left that you (and I) object to, is an even tinier piece of a powerless entity in the body politic. I would like the progressive left to weild power. It never has. I don't fear that desperate little group of wannabe radicals, who occupy that tiny little space in the liberal blogosphere. She wants to be somebody. She is an ignorant nobody. (college campuses is a whole different story).

    That doesn't mean that they should be ignored. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be monitored. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be challenged on every racist word. They must be. But today I think they're incidental, bordering on irrelevant.

    The smiley face had nothing to do with my response to the Iranian nukes question. It was my response to your change in topics in the comment that preceded it.

    And my unequivocal answer to your last question is yes. I don't want it to happen. But neither do I want Iran to have nukes. I think a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat to Israel. And an existential threat to Israel is an existential threat to me and my kids. If that happens, Israel can't win, only bad things will happen. So Israel will hit Iran's nuclear program. (Again) I have no doubt. None whatsoever. The only question is the method.

  6. Bordering on irrelevant?

    They control the conversation on the conflict, so how can they possibly be irrelevant?

  7. Irrelevant.

    The president of the United States is a progressive.

    How irrelevant can they be when they actually get one of their own elected president?

    You guys are splitting hairs in order to protect the party.

    For the life of me, I cannot imagine why.

  8. Irrelevant because none of what they want (the elimination of Israel?) ever approaches the Democratic platform. None of what they want is material to anything that an elected Democrat does. Obama is NOT one of them. THEY did not get Obama elected. They are not even meaningful within the incredibly loosely affiliated or defined progressive movement. They aren't welcome. At very best they are tolerated because nobody wants to deal with them. The two are not the same thing.

    Calling them welcome is like saying you welcome the bugs in your house because you don't hunt down every single one and kill them. You swat at a fly, and if you miss you probably go on with your day. Most people who read the blogs you so object to, do just that. They don't chase after the fly in the corner. Those that care chase after them. But that doesn't mean they're welcome.

  9. You are seriously misunderstanding the challenge that we face if we honestly care about the state of Israel, as I know that you do.

    The Jewish people of the Middle East are about 5.5 million strong, surrounded by between 300 and 400 million Arabs and 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide who, for the most part, do not want them there and a small (irrelevant?) percentage of whom have been trying to kill them for almost 100 years, now.

    They are, in fact, a people under siege.

    Their enemies, however, do have allies in the west. Their allies are TIME magazine when it prints articles claiming that Israel doesn't want peace because Israelis are too busy making money.

    Their allies are the UK Guardian which, on pretty much a daily basis, defames and demonizes the country of Israel.

    Their allies are the Huffington Post, which is probably the largest, most significant, progressive-left venue in the United States.

    Their allies include any number of faculty on college campuses throughout Europe and the United States.

    The so-called "progressive-left" (however much you may wish to imply its insignificance) is a huge force in western politics, particularly in Europe.

    And the progressive-left, as we know, is no friend to the Jewish state.

    It has, in fact, betrayed the Jewish state by opening itself to anti-Semitic anti-Zionism.

    You can close your eyes to what is going on, but anyone who really understands anything about the conflict knows that Israel is undergoing a campaign of delegitimization that is derived, in part, from your political movement.

    You can either face that fact, or not.

    It's entirely up to you, but whether you face it, or do not face it, it remains the case.

    It's not just about this or that political blog, nor about this or that particular leftist newspaper, nor about this or that particular professor, but about a wide-spread political trend that is seeking to isolate and defame the country of Israel.

    This movement is neither small, nor irrelevant.

    What I don't understand is why so many liberal Jews are afraid to stand up.

    It's a shame, really.

  10. I am not protecting the Democratic Party, but merely saying that I think there is room for education to tilt the balance against the anti-Israel voices.

    Or should we just give up on open minded Democrats whose natural instinct is to look at the issues from different sides?

    One problem of many pro-Israel advocates is to demonize, just as the anti-Israel side does regularly. The worst part is that it's almost always unnecessary. The pro-Israel arguments speak for themselves. They lose power when insults and labels get thrown about. To the open-minded, it's already confusing. It becomes a blur. They come to see both sides negatively.

    Pejorative arguments are not only weak, but turn off the intended listener. Such arguments frequently in echo chambers or shouting matches like those at Daily Kos. They are useless and non-productive in my estimation.

    True, I often criticize the Left. I am a member and believe in self-examination and respect for core values. But Rightist activists are often no better in terms of behavior and treatment of others, and that hinders their advocacy on these important issues.

  11. The difference in our views as that you see the "progressive-left" as the enemy because a piece of that piece of the political spectrum is dangerous.

    I don't see the progressive left as a policy driving movement. (Voting, probably, they just don't drive policy. Hence the crappy health care bill we got.)

    You want me to abandon the Democratic party, because of a Time magazine article? Because of a news outlet in the UK? Elected Democrats support Israel. (And I know we have different opinions on this, but I haven't seen anything from Obama that indicates it's not true. The "he's telling Jews where they can and cannot live" is twisted framing.)

  12. I think if Obama was not constrained, he would not be so "true" as was just mentioned.

  13. Oldschool, can you be more specific? Who is restraining him, and what do you think would he do?

  14. I think he is more pro-Palestinian than he can show and is constrained by Congress and important members in his party and the military who understand the importance of Israel.