The Lincoln Plawg

Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:48 a.m.

Moran - what exactly is the charge?

As I explained at some length in my earlier piece, I'm concerned in the case not to defend either the man or his statement; but rather on account of

curiosity - almost entirely unsatisfied to date! - as to the subject-matter which with he unwisely dealt; and
suspicion that, in some way not yet clear to me, the complaints so forcefully made about Moran imply a proposal that certain matters ought not to be discussed - whether by politicians or anyone else.

However, a correspondent and fellow-blogger has commended to me the WaPo editorial of March 12 which roundly condemns Moran and his comments with all the authority of a (if not the) leading political newspaper in the nation.

Which brought me back to Moran; and to ask, What, exactly, is supposed to be wrong with what he said? And to take the Post's editorial as representative (as best as anything could be) of the indictment against him.

I think we can dismiss straight away the notion that WaPo thinks he should resign because he has made a statement which is factually incorrect. One would have few politicians left after six months if making factually incorrect statements were made a resigning matter.

There must be something else. The first statement in the editorial helpful to identifying the gravamen of the charge is this:

...by blaming American Jews for an Iraq policy he opposes, the seven-term congressman has confirmed our opinion about him.

Interestingly, it does not even open with an allegation of falseness: Moran's crime is merely stated as

...blaming American Jews...

The piece goes on to say (emphasis mine)

it may be useful to examine Mr. Moran's assertion

Again, the verb suggests that the question of the truth or falsity of the statement is, in its eyes, of secondary importance to the identity of the persons referred to - or, even, entirely irrelevant - in establishing Moran to be guilty of that crime.

It then cites Moran's statement:

If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this...[1] The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should.

Immediately after the quotation, it continues:

The comment perpetuates a stereotype of Jews as a unified bloc steering the world in their interest and against everyone else's.

Here, as in the rest of the piece, words are apparently chosen with considerable care. Note that Moran's comment is not itself characterised as embodying a stereotype; but it's suggested that it perpetuates such a thing. How? one may pause to ask. By Moran's massive authority and celebrity throughout the nation? No evidence is given for the assertion - which on general knowledge seems implausible, to say the least.

Then, stereotype. The Webster's definition is

a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment

One might query just which groups in the US (surely we're not attributing worldwide influence to the Congressman from Alexandria, VA?) might hold such a view. There will be some - but in how many will that view be perpetuated by Moran's comments?

What evidence does the Post have of the extent to which the stereotype which it states is held by Americans? Or does its assertion represent

an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment?

The piece continues

Over the centuries anti-Semites have used this libel...

Let's just pause there a moment. Already, we have the introduction of the A-word. Not, of course, that the article directly accuses Moran of being an antisemite. But it does say that Moran has done something that antisemites have also done.

And note the word libel, following a mere four words after anti-Semites. This word (again, one may consult Webster) is in today's usage typically employed as a legal term of art; incorrect or false statements in politics are not naturally called libels - though many may indeed in theory be defamatory. The allusion that is evidently sought here is that of the blood libel: that is, the medieval myth that Jews killed Christian children in order to use their blood to make matzos for Passover [2].

Not every American might pick up the allusion - but the readers (Jew or Gentile) of the Post editorial, I suspect, mostly would. By innuendo (in effect, if not in intention...), Moran thus finds himself placed by the paper in the company not only of antisemites, but specifically of those who perpetuated (to coin a phrase) a fantasy that got many Jews killed.

Let's carry on:

....to distract attention from their own failings and to instigate violence and discrimination against Jews. In the United States today, though anti-Semitism is far from eradicated, such violence may seem a mercifully distant danger.

Is the Post denying (or, at least, declining to assert) that Moran's comments will have any effect in the US (the only country, surely, where any significant number of people have heard of him)? Or merely suggesting that any such effect would tend not to have a violent outcome? The use of may seem appears to promise a subsequent but - followed by evidence that this impression is false. Such an appearance is misleading.

But Mr. Moran's comment will be used to concentrate the poison of anti-Semitism in many parts of the world where it remains virulent and dangerous.

The Post here is making a bald and downright assertion of fact for which no evidence is adduced. That the remark of an insignificant legislator from the Old Dominion should travel the world is hard enough to accept; that it should do something as radical as concentrating the poison of anti-Semitism around the globe seems purely fanciful.

I say again, this is a matter of fact. For aught I know, the Post may be right. But, where's the evidence? There are mountains of this antisemitic propaganda online in English - and a lot more in Arabic, I suspect. Newsgroups are full of the stuff. If Moran's name has appeared, for example, on Egyptian or Saudi websites in support of a pile of lies, the heirs of Woodward and Bernstein wouldn't even need to crease their suits to find it!

[Hey! I'll give them a head start: I've just looked on Google; and I count 38 Usenet threads mentioning James Moran since the story broke [3] (all of which looked relevant - but not all seemed to be antisemitic propaganda).]

A separate point: the Post doesn't actually say that Moran's comments are antisemitic. It's quite possible, I suppose, that purely innocent comments, a slip of the tongue, even, might equally serve the purpose of antisemitic propagandists. Are such comments also blameworthy?

Surely not. Except, as in the reaction to Moran - and in the speech of Lawrence Summers I referred to in my piece on March 12 - for the suggestion that there was a class of statement that was

anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent

In other words, that antisemitism was, as it were, a crime of strict liability. No mens rea required. The most cursory Google search will show that this formulation seems a popular one. The phenomenon is one that deserves to be looked at. Another time.

Only then is the factual question raised by Moran directly addressed:

Jews in fact are far from unified in their opinion of President Bush's Iraq policy.

If it were Moran's facts with which it was concerned, no doubt the Post's ample resources would have enabled it to demonstrate its own assertion (negativing his) with polling data and other more or less objective evidence. It does nothing of the sort.

It continues

Nonetheless many people argue, often in more sophisticated ways than Mr. Moran, that the Bush policy is being engineered by and on behalf of Jews or Israel.

This is a worrying turn. Crude statements of (supposed) fact (including - perhaps, especially - statements on matters related to ethnicity) have a tendency to be wrong. What the Post is pleased to call

more sophisticated

statements covering much the same ground may be more easily be proved to be accurate.

To take an old example - the assertion that Africans (and their diaspora) can run faster than otherwise comparable athletes of other races. Such a bald statement is liable easily to be falsified. However, scientific study does show that there are certain Africans who do benefit from a genetic predisposition to be better athletes.

There are, I believe, some who think that studies on the relative athletic performance of Africans ought not, as a matter of principle, to be done, however scientifically valid they might be.

Similarly, what the Post seems to be suggesting is that, since the area (the impact of American Jews on USG Middle East policy) may be dealt with crudely (as by Moran), that fact alone in some way condemns more limited, targeted, evidence-based statements covering the same area.

The piece proceeds

At its most conspiratorial

- pausing there to wonder at the choice of word! -

the theory goes like this
A small group of Jews (sometimes referred to, in a kind of code, as "neoconservatives" or "neocons") decided years ago that Saddam Hussein should be overthrown to improve Israeli security.

Hitherto, the complaint has been that Moran is attributing uniformity to a heterogeneous American Jewry. And from that, we move to a supposed argument concerning a small group of Jews.

Having given no space to adducing evidence to prove incorrect what Moran actually said, it devotes 117 words (out of 700) to an extravagant counterfactual, in tendentious language, which we are - presumably - meant to take as an example of the

more sophisticated

formulations which it seems to wish to tar with the Moran brush.

There are a further 148 words, in a somewhat self-congratulatory tone, spent in demolishing this ramshackle Aunt Sally.

At last, the up-sum:

It's perfectly legitimate to debate Israel's place in U.S. Mideast policy, or Israel's own behavior; charges of anti-Semitism shouldn't be permitted to stifle criticism.

One notes at this point, on seeing the copyright notice, that the Post will, in fact, make no attempt to deal with the factual correctness or otherwise of Moran's statement.

And then one proceeds to study the Post's suggested amendment to the First Amendment. At first blush, there seems to be the implication of a water's edge sort of concept: one may talk about Israel, so long as one doesn't mention American Jews. (And let's keep the words

perfectly legitimate

ringing in our ears, by all means.)

Then

It's not anti-Semitic to stand up for Palestinians' human rights.

The Post, then, identifies two classes of statements: those which are legitimate and those which are anti-Semitic. It is generous enough to exempt standing up for the human rights of Palestinian's. But what, say, of their political rights? And how stand up?

Almost there.

It wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic -- just demonstrably wrong -- to argue that Mr. Bush's Iraq policy is motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel.

You can hear the intonation - a plunge, followed by an interrogative upward swoop - on the necessarily. The writer clearly wants to leave open the allegation of antisemitism where he can [4].

And, strangely, whilst he has spent 148 words on disproving his rather arch and melodramatic counterfactual, he spends none at all on the utterly unconspiratorial statement that he mentions in this sentence.

Almost done.

But the argument moves from merely wrong to patently offensive when it attributes to Jews or "the Jewish community" a single view and a nefarious influence.

What happened to the more sophisticated methods? Are they to be deemed for the purpose of the Post Amendment to attribute a single view even when they do not? Surely mere sophistication will not permit them to enter the legitimate class?

And - again to be noted - the writer conflates an effective or persuasive influence with a nefarious one. What is objectively the same phenomenon might well be described in approving or pejorative terms depending on the view of the speaker.

No doubt, supporters of Israel would be pleased if it were the case that certain Jews had the ability to bring their influence to bear on Middle East policy so as to favour that country's interest. Others might not be so pleased. Does the Post imply that only the former group may speak of any such influence?

At last, a statement of pure fact:

Some Jews and some non-Jews, in Israel and America and Europe, support disarming Iraq; some don't.

Then a very strange sentence indeed:

In their respective countries, they try to make the arguments on their merits.

These, one takes it, are those debaters of whom the Post approves. So what does respective mean in the context? Is it saying that only when Israelis argue in Israel, Americans in the US, Luxemburgers in Luxemburg can their contributions be legitimate?That would be the natural meaning of respective. But in context, it would be absurd.

It would, in any event condemn this poor blog utterly!

Perhaps a little dictionary work is required at the Post.

Don't think, however, they haven't saved the best for last:

Mr. Moran and his ilk should do the same.

Not only is the good Scots word ilk utterly misused [5], but it is, I suspect [6], just the sort of expression one might have expected to find in some newspapers a hundred years ago in disparaging reference to Jews!

And what, according to the Post, is Moran's ilk, one wonders?

Testing the paper's strictures:

If one were, for instance, to identify individual Jews in positions of influence in and around the foreign policy agencies of USG who are either tasked with a responsibility relevant to its Middle East policy, or whose previous work has suggested they maintain a strong interest in such policy, would that be legitimate? And if one examined their public utterances on the subject, to measure their proximity to stated USG policy?

If one were to examine the resources (financial and human) employed in lobbying USG on behalf of organisations whose membership was to a substantial degree Jewish; to compare the positions for which such lobbying argued with those eventually taken by USG?

If one were to research the links between the Government of Israel and such organisations, by way of funding or exchanges of personnel or other kinds of cooperation?

If one were to do these things, and report one's findings in a measured, scholarly fashion?

Would all or any of that be legitimate?

Or would it only be legitimate if it were done, not for the purpose of blaming but of commending such activity?

Because, my suspicion - which, lacking the necessary evidence, I do not assert as fact - is, when the Post talks about Moran's ilk, it's not overly concerned with Jew-baiting street-corner Paddies with too much stout in them [7] (who, if they exist any longer, would scarcely read the rag); but rather to seek to introduce into the minds of those with more sensitive souls the notion that the entire subject of the influence on USG Middle East policy of some American Jews and of some US organisations in which Jewish members are prominent is an obstacle-course of invisible beams, moved at random times to random places - tripping any one of which would incur the penalty of the brand of Antisemite. Bringing national obloquy and professional ruin.

If one really were a conspiracy theorist, one might suppose the Post editorial was cast in the way it was precisely to avoid giving guidance as to how its Amendment might be infringed. Certainly, as I've mentioned, at several places the choice of language used seems to raise legitimate (how that word gets around!) questions as to the intention of the piece.

Approach the matter from a different angle:

One might, with care, take by way of analogy the informal rules of etiquette that were as important as the law, if not more so, in perpetuating the regime of Jim Crow. The rules were complex and varied from place to place. This, as I understand it, served several purposes: to put Negroes who moved from their own county in fear of transgressing the local code (and the 'justice' they would likely receive as a consequence); to set a standard of docility and submission that 'good Negroes' could meet (if they knew what was good for them); to mark a colour line that whites would know not to cross (and the penalty if they did would be pretty clear, too). And so on.

It seems to me that one might analyse the Post editorial as having a similar effect - if not a similar intention. One first establishes that the penalty for infringement of the rules is dire; one makes the rules uncertain in their ambit (an improvement on Jim Crow! [8]); and one ensures that there is safe haven (under Jim Crow: stay put; under the Post's Mideast Amendment: don't comment about American Jews and USG's Israel policy).

Is there compelling evidence that the Post deliberately sought this effect? No. Which is why, in contrast to the several assertions of fact in its editorial (most of them tendentious in character and colourful in language) for which it fails to provide evidence, I do not assert it to be true.

The editorial does, however, illustrate the need for care with the use of language and argument, one's own use, and one's analysis of others'. In that respect - and in that alone - it might be said to be worth the bandwidth it occupied.

Here, the piece identifies Reston Connection as the paper that was first to report Moran's remarks.
If one searches in Google on libel jews the results (the first page of them, at least) are almost all concerned with the blood libel myth.
The first post would appear to be this, at Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:41:32 EST - some seven days after the comments were made. Why so long?
Even though the following just seems logically to exclude antisemitism in all the circumstances where the argument referred to is used.
I'm disappointed to see its use sanctioned outside the technically correct context by Webster. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) puts and his ilk in the class of Worn-Out Humour!
Subject to the adduction of evidence to the contrary, of course!
As organised by Coughlinite Joe McWilliams in the South Bronx in the late 1930s (Samuel Lubell Future of American Politics p89)
Not that I'm suggesting that the Post supports Jim Crow! (Well, not in 2003, at least.)