Newsflash:
Its not what you think it is.
A
few years ago, I was invited to a meeting at the Jewish Community Center of
Dallas – a meeting including a diverse group of local Jewish “leaders” to
discuss the problem of antisemitism on university campuses. I was invited as a
Jewish faculty member at the University of Texas at Dallas. Also present were Jewish
faculty from other local schools, the head of the Dallas Jewish Federation and
other local Jewish communal bodies, the head of AIPAC (who happened to be from
Dallas), Jewish student group staff, a few prominent Jewish business leaders
active in community affairs, etc.
I
forget who chaired the meeting or even most of the details of what he and what
others said. The time was spent going around the table letting everyone have
their say – reporting on what they knew and expressing their opinions about
what could be done.
At
that time, it was becoming apparent that anti-semitism was growing on campuses
nationwide, though as yet had not become very visible in Texas. Most of the
remarks were vague or silent regarding the causes of this new development and
it became clear to me that it was generally assumed that the problem was an
increase in the familiar crude right-wing anti-Jewish (anti-black/Hispanic/Asian
– you name it) rhetoric and action – crude, rude and violent.
Somewhat
shocked I realized that I may have been the only one in the room who knew what
was really going on. There may have been others, but nobody was able to
articulate what seemed to me were essentially new elements in the current
situation. When my turn came I tried, with the limited soundbites allocated to
me, to suggest that we were witnessing the surface phenomenon of a much deeper
cultural shift that emanated from a different political demographic source,
namely, what is commonly identified as “the left wing” of the social divide. My
remarks were ignored. This forum was not there to gain a deeper understanding
and to form effective responses. It was, rather, a typical exercise in public
relations signifying not much at all.
The
truth is, if I had been asked to give a thorough analysis of this cultural
shift and why it manifested in part in an increase in anti-Jewish animus, I
would not have been able to do it. At that time, I had not connected all the
dots, nor had I realized the extent of the abiding, stubborn, and frankly naïve,
American Jewish commitment to all cultural and social aspects of what is
commonly called “liberalism” in America. But, I began to realize that unless
the American Jewish Community at large could be made to see past its obsolete
assumptions, no effective response to antisemitism would be found. Later, I
found out, it was much more serious. The weight of Jewish communal action was
actually fueling the problem – making it worse.
When
its about the Jews, its not just about the Jews, its not even really about the
Jews at all.
In
the intervening period, realization has begun to grow, generally, but
significantly within the Jewish community that the old categories do not apply.
The “liberals” are making a big category mistake, a mistake that diverts
attention away from the most serious attack on American civil society in a
century. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing type problem. And unless you see it’s
a wolf you may think its your friend, when actually it is about to tear you
apart and eat you.
The
category mistake involves the meaning of “liberal” – a concept, that, in
spite of its straightforward origins, has become fraught with confusions and
ambiguities. For starters, it does not mean the same thing in the UK or
Australia or Europe that it does here in the US. I should start then by
clarifying terms before linking to the real-world problems they can help us
understand. I have realized that
progress has been greatly inhibited by semantic confusions leading to
debilitating miscommunication.
The
most robust, yet confusing, framework for analysis among the American
intelligentsia is the “left-right”/” liberal-conservative” divide. This is
always ground zero for any political discussion, or for any discussion of
social and economic policy. It is reinforced by and is the basis of our
unalterable two party system. It has always been wrong and confusing, but, now
much moreso than ever.
A
serious, but not the most serious, problem is the naïve simplicity of this
framework. It reflects gross binary thinking. If you are a “liberal” then
anyone who disagrees with what you think is liberal is “conservative”. Equally,
if you are a Conservative (with a big C), anyone who disagrees is a “liberal”.
The only nuance comes from inserting the term “moderate” as in “moderate
liberal” (or centrist liberal), or “moderate conservative”. It is not only
binary, it is one dimensional. And once you have decided who fits wear that is
all you need to know to know whether they are right or wrong. It is a dumbing
down of the political discourse. And the worst of it is that academia, and much
of education generally, has bought into this. In terms of this linear
left-right spectrum the left outnumbers the right 18-1 in our universities, and
the number is much higher in the humanities and social sciences. This, in
itself, though at a relative high, would not be so serious, if our institutions
of higher learning were still firmly committed to the doctrine of tolerance,
open discussion, and the encouraging of diverse viewpoints. Bias plus
intolerance, however, is what we have, gross intolerance of any alternative
viewpoints. This is the result of a significant radical change in the character
of American “liberalism” – or, more accurately, a change in who gets to set and
dominate the “liberal” narrative. It is what we may conveniently refer to as the
”woke revolution”. And, in a nutshell, because of what it essentially is, the
woke revolution is what is responsible for the explosion of AS on campus and
everywhere else.
If
its Woke it ain’t Liberal.
The
critical literature explaining wokism is huge and is growing – many articles
and books exist. I won’t attempt here to provide a complete account of it, but,
instead, will concentrate on the essential relevant aspects.
The
first thing to note is that woke is not liberal. It is the opposite of liberal
– in all plausible variations of that term. Before the label was highjacked, to
be a liberal meant you were someone who believed in the sanctity of equal
individual human rights, in equal individual freedom. This freedom consists
simply of the right to be free in one’s person and property from coercion by
others. Since it applies equally to each and every individual, regardless of
race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, etc., having freedom does not imply
license to complete freedom of action. Any action I take that compromises your
body or your property – which would be a violation of your freedom – is
prohibited to me. The practical limits of individual freedom are defined by property
rights. Property rights include ownership of one’s body and the ownership
of any property acquired legitimately by gift or trade. As such, liberalism
looks askance at any interference in voluntary transactions.
The
details and complexities of this doctrine can be greatly expanded and
explained. But, the main point here is to understand that this, broadly
speaking, is what liberalism meant, and, many believe, should continue to mean.
Its appealing features are associated with its commitment to individual
autonomy and equality before the law - the king is subject to the same law as
the peasant; on its belief in the sanctity of freedom of expression,
association, assembly, the value of diverse opinions, etc.; and to its
association with enrichment of the masses. The advent of liberalism (not in its
complete ideal form, but, certainly in the most important of its features)
ushered in what has been called the Great Enrichment, the explosion of wealth
creation in those nations that adopted it. This is undeniable. For most of
human history, the vast majority of people were miserably poor and ignorant.
Since the rise of liberalism, for the first time (roughly over the last 300
years and picking up speed) the majority of humans do not live in poverty. To
be sure, the gains vary greatly between people, but, the gains have been
considerable. Commitment to liberalism, properly understood, has been based on
its morality and on its massive widely distributed benefits.
Toward
the middle of the 19th century, ideas critical of the foundations of
liberalism began to grow in popularity, the most common being the doctrine of
socialism. Socialists challenge the most basic ingredient of liberalism,
namely, property. They challenge the sanctity and even the meaning of
individual property rights. They challenge the notions of equality before the
law to protect such property rights, insofar as such protections are seen not
to apply to the “wealthy”. Socialists regard unequal outcomes as evidence of
injustice, and claim the right, the necessity, to “reform” the distribution of
income and wealth to make them equal. The most far-reaching variant of
socialism is Marxism, which seeks to abolish private property completely.
These
remarks are not meant to persuade as much as to clarify. But, any attempt at
persuasion would start with the consequences of implementing policies that
involved gross violations of individual property rights, such as those
involving extensive government regulation, taxation, and spending to encourage
“social justice” outcomes, like socialist countries or those with extensive
welfare states. The consequences are that poverty increases and economic growth
falls. In the extreme, socialism causes economic collapse and dictatorship.
Numerous examples exist. No example of prosperous socialism exists.
But,
the important point to make here, is that the ideology known critically as
wokism originates not from any liberal source, but, from its antithesis, from a
variant of Marxism, known as Critical Theory. Wokism denies the validity of
every important aspect of liberalism, most significantly the value of freedom
of expression and open inquiry. Modern American “liberals” who have jettisoned
the firm commitment to protection of individual property rights, at least still
agree on the importance of tolerance of individual viewpoints and the
encouragement of civil discussion of such alternative points of view. As such
they should not seek to make common ground with the Progressives who have
embraced the tenets of wokism. Understanding that wokism is illiberal is also
the key to understanding why it is responsible for the rise in (this new
variant) of anti-semitism.
Jews
Don’t Count
Wokism,
“social justice revolution”, Critical Race Theory, “Anti-racism”, equity, diversity,
inclusion, … .and other various components of this new ideology, all seek to
articulate an alternate worldview that is antithetical to liberalism and
liberal democracy, and to the very foundations of western science. In this
worldview, the ideas and perceptions of all individuals are indelibly shaped by
their identity, in the original Marxist concept by their social class, but, in
this modern variant, by their race (- ethnicity, culture, etc., but mainly
race). Truth is not objective in the sense we usually understand it. Rather,
the truth of the “black experience” or the anguish of gay people, cannot be
understood, therefore should not be described or researched, by anyone who is
not black or gay respectively – and equivalently for any of the other oppressed
minorities usually identified. One had to have access the “lived experience” of
the minority group members themselves for this.
So,
whites, who live privileged lives, should just shut up about this, unless it is
to seek to understand the role that they have played historically, and continue
to play, in the ongoing oppression. These are not claims made as an invitation
to a discussion, they are dogmas, to be acted upon. Identity determines
character. This principle is completely and insidiously destructive of the idea
of the uniqueness of the individual. The individual is completely eclipsed by
the contours of the group to which she belongs. There is no transcending the
nature of one’s group (racial) identity. It is of a type with Marxist class
determinism, where class is replaced by race (and other minority designations).
So,
Martin Luther King’s hope for a colorblind society is naïve at best and
complicit at worst. The woke agenda, by contrast, seeks to emphasize race, to
dethrone and shame whites for benefitting from white supremacy, and remake the
entire social system (by massive government intrusions, educational
indoctrination challenging all and every “white” shibboleth imaginable). I have
yet to find an account of what the new world achieved by this revolution is
supposed to look like.
The
manifold manifestations of wokism and their implications can be found in the
vast literature to which I referred. My purpose here is to address their
connection to anti-semitism. Published work has begun to appear on this. I just
read two recent books, one about the UK (Jews Don’t Count by David
Baddiel) and the other about the US (Woke
Antisemitism by David Bernstein). I highly recommend them both. Perhaps the
most notable thing about them, is that they are both written by avowedly
“liberal” authors, self-described as “leftist”. As such they appear sadly
ignorant of the problems associated with the “leftist” agenda in general, to
which they remain favorably disposed. But, both, in spite of this, have become
completely disillusioned and alarmed by the woke (Progressive) agenda, not
least because of its inevitable anti-semitic element.
Baddiel
is a well-known British-Jewish comedian/public intellectual. Bernstein is an
eminent American-Jewish communal leader. Both became disillusioned over time,
especially Bernstein, as they began to realize that the woke folk were not the
traditional friends to the Jews that “liberals” had always been. Further, they
came to the realization that following the well-worn path of Jewish-liberal
alliances would no longer work with the latest brand of “liberalism”. In fact,
and this is key, the vigorous attempt by Jewish organizations to curry favor
with the organizations adopting one woke principle after another, was not only
undermining traditional Jewish values of tolerance and open-mindedness, it was
not even working to maintain the alliances regarded as valuable. Instead, these
efforts were rebuffed and treated with contempt (for chapter and verse read
Bernstein).
In
the woke worldview Jews cannot be victims, notwithstanding the evidence to the
contrary. The Holocaust was terrible, but it is not relevant to the current
environment of “systemic racism” in which Jews are “white adjacent” – part of
the privileged white class. (Whiteness has been mystified to go beyond skin
color to include a state of being). In fact, Jews, because of their relative
success as a group, are an obvious and easy target when it comes to attacking
white privilege. They have used their “whiteness” to garner disproportionate numbers
in the institutions of power. As Baddiel points out when it comes to
anti-semitism, “Jews don’t count” as victims, because they are way down on the
hierarchy of racisms. Don’t complain about being oppressed by Jeremy Corbyn or
Ye. Your suffering pales into insignificance in this world of systemic racism
against blacks, Hispanics and others. And,
by the way, Asians are, likewise, white adjacents, who have benefitted by their
token whiteness. No, they are not included in the club of the oppressed.
Indeed, the world is divided into oppressed and oppressor and if you are not
part of one you are part of the other.
No
small part is played in this anti-Jewish animus by the uncompromising
anti-Israel rage that characterizes the woke folk. Criticism of Israeli
government policy absolutely need not be anti-semitic, but, upon close
examination, most of it in social media turns out to be grossly anti-semitic. To
wit, the gross historical distortions that characterize the reporting, the
historical misinformation, the singling out of Israel for human rights
violations far less egregious than those of its neighbors or, indeed, numerous
countries around the world, the insidious allusions to the Jewish character of
the Israeli nation and so on. The association of Jews with the demon Israel has
done much to make left-wing anti-semitism respectable.
You
need not take my word for it. In a short essay I cannot provide the kind of
evidence necessary to document the character (caricature?) of wokism and the
implications of it for Jews and for Jewish organizations. For that you should
read especially Bernstein. Anyone in any position of Jewish leadership should
read that book. But, if this is right, if Bernstein is right, then Jews in America
and everywhere that wokism is a factor, should understand the fundamentals of
wokism and why it is necessary for Jewish organizations to distance themselves
from it, and to combat its blatantly illiberal precepts. Those precepts are
essentially anti-liberal and anti-Jewish in nature. There is no way to
compromise with them. Racial preferences for blacks imply racial discrimination
against non-blacks. Cancelling people with critical views is fundamentally
anti-democratic. Whenever and wherever freedom in society is compromised, Jews
will be targeted. Antisemitism is a litmus test for the degree of intolerance of
dissidents in general.
Conclusion
If
you have read this far, you will understand why I was at a loss at that
community meeting to articulate the nature of the antisemitism that had emerged
on campus. Since that time the problem has gotten worse. Jewish students on
many campuses are at pains to hide their Jewishness. Jewish organizations have
to have security at their events. University administrations have caved to the
demand of woke student organizations to adopt their agendas and strike
anti-Israel poses. None of this comes from the right-wing. Finally, at my
campus, UTD, signs of this have emerged – so far among the student body, not
yet endorsed by the administration – which, hopefully, never will.
As I
write, as evidenced by the two books referenced here, awareness is beginning to
grow. But the anti-woke awakening is still small and slow to grow. In America,
an effective policy to combat this new anti-semitism, on campus and elsewhere,
will depend on a fundamental change in the typical American Jewish mindset. It
is a big change, but, one that I actually feel is possible, even likely, given
the growing impossibility of denying the obvious.
