• Share/Bookmark

NJDC Cocoon

Let’s get something out of the way at the onset: from a strictly argumentative perspective, the election campaign waged by liberal American Jewish groups was shamelessly imbecilic. The arguments that they trotted out were either demonstrably untrue or straightforwardly stupid. So this post isn’t going to be another tired “here’s their argument, here’s why you’d have to be an idiot to accept it” exercise. First of all, that’s useless: the Democratic electorate is already so stacked with low-information voters that they don’t have the basic context to evaluate deliberative appeals. More to the point: it’s a mistake to act like each side is making arguments that ostensibly pro-Israel American Jews then line up and evaluate. That’s not what’s going on.

The National Jewish Democratic Council and their ilk have a different approach. Their goal is to provide thinly-veiled excuses so liberal American Jews can vote the way they’ve always voted. Since those excuses kind of suck as arguments, these tools have to insulate their propaganda with sneering condescension and faux sophistication. The result: American Jewish groups unblinkingly claim that the Democratic Party is “pro-Israel” even though the Democratic electorate is overwhelmingly against broadly-supported Israeli policies and even though the new Democratic Israeli-Arab envoy steadfastly opposes the vertical settlement growth that even liberal Israelis support. Because why should pesky things like “what words actually mean” matter?

Example: friend of the blog Larry Greenfield just published a Bush retrospective for the Jewish Journal. The first few paragraphs gave some historical background, the upshot being that American voters regularly switch which party gets to control the White House. The rest of the article was a balanced “on one hand but on the other hand” evaluation of the Bush years:

But the collapse of Bush’s poll numbers in his second term (from roughly 50 percent to roughly 30 percent) and their failure to rebound, resulted, notably, from conservative rejection of the Bush program (massive government spending without presidential veto, including the prescription drug entitlement, failure to secure the borders before promoting legalization/amnesty for illegal immigrants, the Dubai Ports homeland security debacle). Bush is widely admired as a sincere and decent man. But, at the close of his Presidency, it also appears that the Hurricane Katrina crisis helped to define the Bush administration as less than competent. It is true that local officials failed, too, lessons were learned… But the always punctual and prepared George Bush never overcame the consensus that his management skills and personnel choices did not meet the promise of his Harvard MBA.

Among the major policy areas in which Bush was right in theory, but unsuccessful in practice: democratization … Darfur, deterrence of Iranian nuclear development and domestic government-entitlement reform. These are grand projects, and the president deserves credit for not kicking the can down the road. But presidents are not graded on a curve, and Bush would probably be the first to admit that his liberty/human rights agenda and constant search for security and prosperity remained elusive goals in a globe troubled with failed states, terror organizations and ideological foes. Also standing in his way was the purposeful avoidance of any serious conversation by the Democrats to meet him halfway in addressing growing national unfunded liabilities unfairly billed to our children and grandchildren.

History may record Bush, therefore, as dedicated and principled but ultimately hamstrung… It is his fault? Are jihadists interested in compromise and peace? Is Putin? Is China? And, are big-government domestic liberals interested in fiscal discipline and solving the entitlement crisis?

Subsequent paragraphs went on the same way, answering “yes” in some cases and “no” in others. The article has a broad sweep and you should read the whole thing.

And now comes the obnoxious part. NJDC Press Secretary Aaron Keyak got wheeled out to publish an hit piece on Greenfield in the Huffington Post (that well-known bastion of pro-Israel sentiment). Again – I’m hesitant to go paragraph by paragraph because it might convey the impression that the diatribe had arguments. Obviously it didn’t. But Keyak’s attack is just too perfect to pass up. It’s almost what philosophers used to call an ideal case: the combination of dishonesty, smugness, and indignation – adding up to an obnoxious air of self-satisfaction – is quite simply exemplary. So paragraph by paragraph:

Today, Larry Greenfield, immediate past California Director for the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), has an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal titled, “A Grade of W.” Greenfield suspends belief and ignores reality as he weaves a revisionist version of history where President George W. Bush had a successful Presidency. A quick tip to Greenfield — this propaganda works better once Bush is at least forgotten from our short-term memory.

At first I was going to compliment Keyak on how he’s graciously sharing the NJDC’s publishing tips. Liberal American Jewish groups certainly spent much of the election brazenly misrepresenting Biden’s anti-Israel history – something that the electorate had banished from short-term memory. And they shamelessly invented smears about Palin’s past – again, nothing recent. But then I remembered that they also absurdly denied the existence of Obama’s anti-Israel advisers – people who had publicly been on Obma’s team throughout the election. Plus they out-and-out lied about dozens of controversies, many only a few weeks old. So rather than generously sharing the NJDC’s strategy, it seems like Keyak is trying to monopolize bald-faced dishonesty via schoolyard jeers and heavy-handed taunts. But who knows. Maybe he’s a misunderstood egalitarian who merely sounds like an insecure and condescending partisan hack.

As you might suspect, Greenfield’s piece seeks to improve Bush’s legacy. Nonetheless, Greenfield concedes, “Bush was never universally beloved” and “[Bush] received merciless left-of-center criticism ever since [the 2000 election].” Greenfield’s op-ed also states that, “Bush is widely admired.” According to CNN/Opinion Research Corp., “Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Friday said they’re glad Bush is going; 23 percent indicated they’ll miss him.” I guess when Greenfield writes, “Bush is widely admired” he is only referring to the 23% who will miss him. When three quarters of those surveyed indicated, “they’re glad Bush is going,” he is hardly “widely admired.”

Of course Greenfield’s original quote was “Bush is widely admired as a sincere and decent man. But, at the close of his Presidency, it also appears that the Hurricane Katrina crisis helped to define the Bush administration as less than competent… the always punctual and prepared George Bush never overcame the consensus that his management skills and personnel choices did not meet the promise of his Harvard MBA.” But why let context get in the way of providing a few liberals with the petulant certainty that Republicans are too stupid to read polls? If they didn’t have that they’d have to entertain the possibility that people legitimately disagree with them!

But why wasn’t Bush able to achieve his “supportable goals”? Greenfield implies that Bush may not be responsible for his failures when Greenfield asks, “Is it his fault?” Bush is not responsible for the implications of the actions and policies he took as President? Talk about false victimhood.

I suppose one interpretation of Greenfield’s position is that “Bush is not responsible for the implications of the actions and policies he took as President.” Another interpretation – based on phases from the article like “but presidents are not graded on a curve” and on paragraphs about the Bush administration’s shortcomings – is that Aaron Keyak is either illiterate or dishonest. Could go either way I suppose.

Greenfield’s op-ed isn’t the first time RJC walked into the “twilight zone.” Matt Brooks, RJC Executive Director, authored a piece immediately following Election Day where he bragged about RJC’s success because, “Obama was unable to exceed Bill Clinton or Al Gore, and only slightly improved on John Kerry’s support in the Jewish community.” For those who aren’t familiar, Brooks took credit for the fact that Obama only received about 78% of the Jewish vote. (Kerry, Gore, and Clinton received from 77% to 80% of the Jewish vote.) Brooks also claimed that the Obama campaign “adjusted” some of its positions because of RJC’s “efforts” and “challenge[s].” Yeah, right.

Of course any second-year Comm undergrad knows that it’s functionally impossible to trace how particular “efforts” and “challenges” affect the broadest electoral trends. It’s just a brute methodological shortcoming. But that didn’t stop Keyak from punctuating his paragraph with a strutting “yeah right.” And it certainly didn’t stop his shallow readers from chortling about his smug braggadocio. I still have to wonder though: if the RJC was so ineffective, why did the Obama campaign repeatedly ban NJDC reps from debating Larry Greenfield? It’s not like they had any reason to worry – American Jews ignore arguments and vote on historical party ID anyway. Having literally run and hide from the RJC – doesn’t it seem like Keyak ’s insufferable “yeah right” is kind of pathetic?

I know that Republicans aren’t happy about Bush’s 75% disapproval rating or the Obama victory, but that doesn’t give them license to make up reality on Bush’s legacy.

Because when I think “reality-based community,” I think “liberal American Jewish groups.” Obviously. Though you do have to admit: his incoherent arguments and mediocre reading skills aside, Keyak genuinely excels at giving liberal hacks shallow excuses for self-styled intellectualism. So at least he’s good at his job!

What. A. Tool.

References:
* 70 Percent Of American Jews Ready To Say “We Didn’t Know” When Obama Detonates US-Israel Alliance (Plus: They Most Definitely Know) [MR]
* Democrats Outraged Over Jewish-Issues Poll Questions That Are… Umm… Demonstrably True [MR]
* NJDC: Biden Is Pro-Israel Because… Umm… Err… Because He Just Is OK? [MR]
* Watchers Council Nominations – Low-Information Democrats Plus Media Bias Equals Obnoxious [MR]
* Social Science Confirms: Sheer Stupidity Only Explanation For Democratic Jews (Plus: Joe The Plumber Agrees: “A Vote For Obama Is A Vote For The Death Of Israel”) [MR]
* Liberal Think Tanks, Majority Of Democratic Voters Condemn Israeli Self-Defense In Gaza [MR]
* George Mitchell to be Mideast "Peace" Envoy?? [Rosen]
* A Grade of W [Greenfield / Jewish Journal]
* Republicans Continue to Declare Victory in Defeat, Success Amidst Failure RSS stumble digg reddit del.ico.us mixx.com Share this on Facebook ShareThis [Kayek / HuffPo]
* Obama Surrogates Now Openly And Demonstrably Lying About Biden’s Anti-Israel Policies [MR]
* New Leftist Meme: Palin “Solved Jewish Problem” That Obama Never Really Had (Plus: Anti-Palin “Buchanan Endorsement” Meme Also A Lie) [MR]
* Obama Defenders: What Brzezinski Guy? (Plus: That’s Not Even Their Worst Argument) [MR]
* Pro-Obama Jewish Group’s Anti-RJC Smears Are Asinine, False [MR]
* Obama Campaign Demands Ban On Republican Jewish Group, Escalates Thuggish Intimidation [MR]
* Noted Democratic Shill Begs Nutroots Not To Viciously Attack Emanuel For Being Too Jewish [MR]

Previously:
* Israeli Officials: Hey, Do You Think That Maybe Obama’s Going To Detonate The US-Israel Relationship?
* Cheney: Biden Really Is Kind Of Breathtakingly Stupid, Isn’t He?
* Mere Rhetoric: Of Course: "Pro-Israel" J-Street Is More Anti-Israel Than Israel’s Sworn Enemies, Equates Israeli Self-Defense With Hamas Violence