Please post something of interest.

by

I’m a fan of the Volokh Conspiracy, and generally agree with Volokh contributor David Bernstein in the broad strokes, but this post protests a bit too much.  Indeed, the original Bernstein post that touched this whole thing off broadly accused "the Left" of promoting "Likudnik" as an anti-Semitic slur; is it any surprise, then, that a putative member of "the Left" (DeLong) took offense?   (Indeed, as I discuss with Pejman, here, the Bernstein post in question was pretty damn sloppy.) 

Bernstein’s a fascinating thinker and writer, and this grade school pissing contest is beneath him.  Please move on, Professor. 

UPDATE:  Lest I be misunderstood, I actually agree with Bernstein on the narrow point that "Likudnik" is an oft-misused (and easily misusable) term.  I get off the bus where he charges that "the Left (along with the Washington Post, which used the term in a major article attacking Bush Admnistration neonconservatives [both sic]) has let this particular anti-Semitic genie out of the bottle, and it’s their responsibility to put it back in."  [Note:  if you follow the link, you will see that the WaPo actually "used" the term in a direct quote by a governmental official discussing the Bush Administration’s purportedly pro-Likud policies; in other words, the WaPo used the term in its Bernsteinian "proper" sense]

I’m not a lefty by any stretch, but that’s just a silly charge — and one that Bernstein does not support with evidence (as I point out at Pejman’s blog.)  So DeLong gets a little pissy, and Bernstein gets pissy in return, claiming that he’s been willful misread (when, in fact, Bernstein has been unclear); then Bernstein gets pissier still when DeLong fails to de-piss to Bernstein’s standards.  All that’s really illustrated in this exchange among professors is the old adage about the academy:  The fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small.

Which, finally, begs the question:  If my point is that this is a pointless & silly dispute, why am I blogging it?  Heck, friend, I’m a lawyer.  I live for pointless and silly disputes.

UPDATE 2:  Rilkefan points out that I’ve misused the phrase "begging the question," above (see here for how); since I’ve attacked others for the exact same kind of misuse, I must rely upon the ultimate von’cuse:  I am an idiot.

20 thoughts on “Please post something of interest.”

  1. Well, I agree about the sloppy wording and that two posts devoted to De Long’s reaction is two too many. However, I think De Long over-reacted as well — Bernstein never said that anyone who uses “Likudnik” is an anti-Semite, just that it’s beginning to be used as a general term of abuse. And of course the Left as a whole should not be held accountable for this development, but that kind of broad-brush accusation is so common that I don’t know why De Long decided to take offense at it in just this particular case.

  3. “Bernstein’s a fascinating thinker and writer, and this grade school pissing contest is beneath him.”
    Is it? He recently accused Juan Cole of being ignorant of American history, based on the fact that Cole had written:
    “I received a very weird phone call from a prominent Jewish-American investigative journalist the other night. He kept muttering about bias against Sharon and how the Israeli security wall is no different from the wall near the Rio Grande (which isn’t true: did the US annex Mexican land to build that?)”
    The answer to Cole’s rhetorical question is, of course, no; the US did not annex Mexican land for wall-building purposes. But that didn’t stop Bernstein from launching into a childish tirade about Cole’s alleged ignorance of 19th century history.

  4. I agree with Bernstein, I think. Though he seems to be muddling the point by getting all upset at DeLong. I understand him to mean that one should reserve the use of the term “Likudnik” for those who support right-wing Israeli foreign policies, lest it become a synonym for “Jew” and therefore an anti-semitic slur.

  5. Oy. And the pointlessest and silliest disputes, which is to say the best, are the ones that have to do with language!
    praktike my reading of this is that using the term “Likudnik” to refer to Jews who support non-Likud right-wing Israeli policy is pretty much exactly what Bernstein is complaining about. That’s everybody to the right of Yossi Beilin, so AFAICT you’re agreeing with what Bernstein is denouncing, which just goes to show something but I don’t know what. I got the impression that Bernstein’s wants us to restrict likudnik to card-carrying members, and if we can’t call Wolfie a likudnik, that’s pretty much all that’s left.
    Going by the examples he provides, the main thrust of Bernstein’s argument is that having policies substantially similar or even identical to Likud policies and maybe even having an extensive history of warm personal and professional contact with the (current) Likud leadership, is not sufficient cause to be referred to as a Likudnik unless you are also an avowed supporter of the party per se.
    Can I call these people “liabniks” or is that too Orwellian? Can I call them “shtarkniks” or is anything vaguely yiddish-sounding off limits? And he doesn’t seem upset about it being used with gentiles. Does that mean I can continue to call W or Karl Rove a likudnik? What about Colin Powell? How about if I’m sloppy with the term when referring to the goyim, er, gentiles that is, but use it only in the strict literal sense when referring to Jews? Is that a mitzvah because it dilutes the ethnic implications, or am I just being a chachem now?
    I think Bernstein is just a farbessoner with too much time on his hands. Jews have had worse problems than this and managed somehow. 😉
    knobboy, that’s mighty purty. Our black currant x flame arrow paph just got finished with a bloom a little while ago. My sweetie’s ex-boss actually grows orchids — we just try to keep them alive.

  9. Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time seeing where the (ahem) liberal application of the term “Likudnik”–to refer broadly to anyone whose attitudes towards Israel and Palestine track closely with the Likud party’s–equates to anti-semitism, considering that a fair number of the people so labeled aren’t, well, Jewish.

  13. I can’t believe I’m breaking a month’s “silence” for this, but here goes:
    Don’t we need a word that refers to a person (of any faith or ethnicity) who while trying intentionally to implement the strategic vision of the Israeli governing party ends up unintentionally furthering the broad strategic goals of Iran?
    Back to oblivion . . .

  14. I am not here to comment on the merits of the term “likudnik” as used by leftists, Bush Admin officials, the WA Post, or others who try to discuss policies vis-a-vis Israel, but I did want to comment on the fact that Von misused a logic term and then admitted to having done so, making him that rarity in the blogosphere and in punditry writ large, someone who says “whoops, I made a mistake”. Kudos to you, von. Although from my past few months reading this blog he is way to the right of me on most issues I am now an official fan. Anyone who can admit when they are wrong is such a rarity and a breath of fresh air.

  15. praktike/radish
    I think Volokh’s orginal point had to do with using the word Likudnik to refer to any Jew with any view you dislike, whether right- or left-wing, related to Israeli foreign policy or not.
    Case in point was his orginal post, about a month ago, where a correspondent used it to comment about an article suggesting that not all Bush voters are morons. “Not all Bush voters are morons” is view that had broad left- and right-wing support in Israel. More seriously, so does support for the separation barrier or for the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state.
    I don’t think Volokh is seriously suggesting that we restrict the word to card-carrying members of the party. I do think that he is suggesting we should not expand it to anyone more pro-Israel than the Hamas charter.

Comments are closed.