Is Sullivan an Anti-Zionist? Part 3

OK, this may be strike three. As I detailed in two (recently published back-)posts here and here, Andrew Sullivan has been worrying me, as of late, with his unnecessary swipes against Israel. But yesterday he totally crossed the line. Here's the letter I wrote him:

Dear Andrew,

You were making an important point in the [linked] post about taking Plain and Cheney seriously as potential GOP candidates. Then you said this (emphasis mine):

"[Palin and Cheney] represent a real populist and authoritarian option for a declining power. In the face of a bewilderingly changing world, they stand for white America, the extension of its power across the globe, the elevation of torture as a core American value, the permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and American occupation of client states like Iraq and Afghanistan."

Now, I have been a Democrat - and a liberal - all my life. I'm also a born American. I am repulsed by Cheney and Palin and the entire Republican party, and this revulsion has partially come from my growing up in the Reagan era (another Republican who I believe damaged my country). And I am also a Zionist and in favor of nuance and wisdom about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You are committing a great wrong by equating the Palin/Cheney lust for torture and preemptive war with anything to do with Israel. Israel's occupation of the West Bank is a matter of international law and is something with which reasonable people can disagree. I am a liberal, and a Zionist, and I'm calling you to task.

I know Goldblog defends your Zionist bona-fides and you get angry when someone accuses you of being Anti-Zionist... but that was an evil thing you said. It's so strange - you single out the behavior of a U.S. ally as a symbol of a domestic political party's depravity. That's not such a 'Zionist' thing to do.

Why are you so insistent to be called a 'Zionist' anyway? Just say that you're neutral about Israel - that you're treating it with the same ignorance and apathy that you would for Kashmir or Northern Ireland or Quebec, or any other of our U.S. allies.

It reminds me of Ta-Nehisi Coates' talk about 'racism' - that it's impossible to call a racist by that title in the U.S. despite a person's actual bigoted words and deeds. [ed: e.g. how Rush Limbaugh or Joe 'You Lie' Wilson will push back against being called racist even though they clearly are.] So to with you - just admit that being a Zionist isn't actually that important. And, again speaking as a liberal and a Democrat, your support for Reagan while you attack Cheney makes you sound daft.

Sincerely, JC

No, I don't expect him to respond. And I really should have cc:ed Goldblog, but he's not my constituency. And, as I said in part 2, there are reasons to read Sully as an info-resource and not as an editorialist. So be it.

Great line from Ta-Nehisi Coates

Coates is on fire:

'What's the old saying? Black folks didn't object to slavery, they objected to being the slaves. "

Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Fine Chickenhawk Smackdown

This comes from TNC via Sullivan, it's a Huffpo post by Robert Mackey commenting on a Michael Goldfarb statement. Got all that. OK. Goldfarb is a former editor of the Weekly Standard and now McCain's deputy communications director, and (sadly) a Princeton grad who is a doughy Jewish Republican. Mackey's bio states:

Dr. Robert Mackey, Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired), is a combat veteran of the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was Assistant Professor of Military History at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and served on the Army Staff and Joint Staff at the Pentagon.

Now on with the show.

Goldfarb, evidently believing that he is himself John McCain, stated this:

It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.

Mackey responded in a post entitled "Cloak of Stupidity +5, or the Art of the False Political Assumption." I am posting the majority of his response because it is so very sweet:

Ok, second admission. I played Dungeons and Dragons for years. Started with the old "blue" rule book from 1977-78, graduated to the 2nd Edition hardback books later, waiting eagerly on a small family dairy farm in northwest Arkansas for the newest module or book to come out. Working a part time job to make enough cash to afford the hobby and spending weekends staying up all night trying like hell to survive Tomb of Horrors.

Yes, I'm a card carrying geek. And at the ripe age of 17, I raised my right hand and swore to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Just like Senator McCain. Just like all veterans do. And you know what? In basic training, in the streets of Panama City, in the deserts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and in fact, all over the U.S. military, there were D&D players. It was one of those things you never expect.

Why? I wonder what the fine folks at the McCain camp think about things like teamwork, loyalty, duty, honor, responsibility, friendship, and good old wholesome family entertainment -- all things I learned and practiced playing D&D. Apparently, not too much, as noted in the quote above. It seems Mr. Goldfarb, with the blessings of his employer, has decided that anyone who plays Dungeons and Dragons is some sort of anti-social uber nerd, incapable of manly activities, such as political blogging or being shot down over Hanoi.

Well, as anyone with half a brain should know, not all D&D players live in their parents' basement. Some live upstairs.

And others, the vast majority of them, became doctors, lawyers, excelled in business, the arts, and even politics. And a more than a few of them put on the uniform and stand by the colors. And more than a few of them have come back from the very wars that men like Mr. Goldfarb have sent them covered in the colors, the same colors that are given to grieving mothers, wives, and girlfriends.

Yes, Mr. Goldfarb, I play Dungeons and Dragons. And I have, in my home, a very large box filled with medals and decorations that prove my service to this nation. Where were you, sir, when your country called? Oh yes, writing for the Weekly Standard.

While gaming geeks rallied around the flag.

Yeah, I'm a AD&D fan from my early days. And I am a non-veteran. And a geek. And I love a good smackdown, don't you?

Pic is of Goldfarb taken from an above website and motivated by me. Backpost finished 2009-12-07.

Obama Gets Some Advice On Race...

Some straight out wisdom from Ta-Nehisi Coats on Yglesias' blog:

[Obama Gets Some Advice On Race...] from arguably the last group of people who should be giving advice on race. I won't get into this too much, but I just want to say that rather than writing a memo to Obama on how to deal with "white voters" and the "race problem", Newsweek would have done better to send "white voters" a memo on how to deal with Obama and the "race problem." It was tragic to see so many interviews with folks in Kentucky and West Virginia saying point blank that they wouldn't vote for Obama because he was a colored. The conclusion always was, "Wow this is a huge problem for Obama," not "Wow. this is a huge problem for these people."

I know that seems backward, but roll with me for a second: We can all agree that a presidential election is an extremely important event, arguably the most important mass event in the country. If you have voters who essentially disqualify candidates, on race alone, isn't that, like, kind of a problem for the voters? Please do not counter with "but blacks vote for Obama on race!!" As I've said before, it ain't the same dog. Blacks--because we've basically had no other choice--have a long record of voting for white people, and will continue to do so. A guy who openly says "I'm not voting for a black guy," get's no such consideration.

Anyway, my point is that this is of a piece with the widely held view that racism is basically a problem for black people, not whites, that our history of slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, housing covenants are an injury to black people, not to the larger country. We think about the Civil War, as a war to free the slaves. But here's another way to think about it: It cost us 700,000 American lives--and the near fracturing of our country--to accomplish something that the rest of the civilized world accomplished with the stroke of a pen. I'm simplifying I know, but the point is racism poisons everything and everyone. Black folks obviously pay the most obvious price, but we really aren't its only victims.

Backpost finished on 2009-12-06.