Prager to Dershowitz: How can you still be a liberal?
posted at 7:55 am on January 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Dennis Prager sent a challenge to Alan Dershowitz yesterday about his politics, not because Dershowitz wrote something with which Prager disagrees, but because he understands the issue of Israel so well. After excoriating Israel’s critics for “moral idiocy” for ignoring the genocidal intent of Hamas, and their insipid arguments of proportionality, Prager thinks Dershowitz should reconsider his entire political bent — or at least the company he chooses:
In his Monitor column, Dershowitz describes “three types of international response to the Israeli military actions against the Hamas rockets” — “Iran, Hamas, and other knee-jerk Israeli-bashers,” “the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and others who, at least when it comes to Israel, see a moral and legal equivalence between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that responds by targeting the terrorists,” and “the United States and a few other nations that place the blame squarely on Hamas.”
It is relevant to the question I will pose that he omits any mention of the world’s left, even when mentioning the European Union. Who exactly in the European Union is condemning Israel? Its conservatives? Who in America is condemning Israel? Conservatives? Who in Australia or Canada? Conservatives? Of course not. As regards Israel (and America and much else), the Western world’s moral idiots, to use the term in the title of the Dershowitz column, are virtually all on the left, including and especially many of his colleagues in academia.
So, I have a question for my friend Dershowitz. (I say ‘friend’ because we’ve known each other for years and debated and dialogued together.)
Given that Israel’s security is so important to you, given that you believe that the ability to morally distinguish between Israel and its enemies is tantamount to the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and given that those who condemn Israel for its “disproportionate” response to Hamas terror-rockets are almost all on the left in America and Europe, why do you continue to identify yourself as a man of the left?
Everyone who thinks sometimes differs with one’s ideological compatriots. But when one’s ideological compatriots are morally wrong on the greatest moral issue of the moment and perhaps the very clearest as well, don’t you at least suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Prager notes that Dershowitz seems to go far out of his way to avoid blaming the Left specifically. Dershowitz doesn’t even mention that most of these critics come from the Left, and tries to put at least half of the blame on “the extreme Right”, helped no doubt by people like Ron Paul. However, the Ron Paul isolationist absolutists (and Stormfront allies) only comprise a tiny percentage of the people holding rallies on campuses and in metropolitan areas. Those arguments mainly come from groups like International ANSWER, World Can’t Wait, and other radical Left groups that combine animus for Israel with animus for the US.
However, Prager seems to fall into the same trap that Republicans did with Joe Lieberman, who took a similarly courageous stand against his political allies to support victory in Iraq. I’d call Lieberman a hero for that effort, sacrificing his political standing and almost losing his seat rather than surrendering to his party’s insistence on exploiting potential defeat for political gain. But I wouldn’t call Lieberman a conservative, or even a center-right politician, even when he got the one critical issue correct. Lieberman is a solid and unapologetic liberal, unlike Zell Miller, for instance, whose basic center-right instincts got short shrift from Democrats.
Dershowitz has remained strong in his support for a war on Islamist terrorists and for Israel. He hasn’t quite remained strong enough to name names properly when excoriating critics for their moral idiocy, which Prager rightly criticizes. However, overall Dershowitz is a doctrinaire liberal, and unless his allies abandon him like Lieberman’s party did when Lieberman stuck to his principles, Dershowitz will unfortunately remain more comfortable with the Left than the Right … and vice versa.
I’d be reasonably happy if Dershowitz skipped embracing conservatives while continuing to dismantle the Left’s attacks on Israel and their support for genocidal tyranny with Hamas.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Dershowitz’s unwillingness to connect the dots leading to the Left mirrors the same unwillingness in America’s liberal Jews.
Imagine, being thrown out of a club you started. With no choice left to go (not with Christian America!), expect to see more of this schizophrenic behavior.
Identity politics in the Left singes the Jews, just as it did Hillary.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 8:08 AM
This guy got OJ off so he must be good at what he does. He is a lefty who loves Israel, nothing wrong with that. We need more lefties like him. Just because he eats, sleeps, and breathes like a conservative does not mean he is one. The left should stop eating their own who do not agree with them. He just cares about Israel. Just like we conservatives.
kanda on January 7, 2009 at 8:09 AM
The only difference, Ed, is that Israel is Dershowitz’s defining policy. You are absolutely right that he’s a doctrinaire liberal otherwise.
Personally, I don’t want him, either. But he’s got blinders on.
Jaibones on January 7, 2009 at 8:12 AM
The way the left works is that they all have a Victimhood Scale in their minds.
When considering ANYTHING, they have to refer to this scale to see which course of action is required. Especially when you have conflicting victims.
The only difference between Dershowitz and other liberals is that his Victimhood Scale isn’t completely synchronized with those of his comrades on the point of Israel.
It doesn’t make any sense to ask Dershowitz why he isn’t a conservative, as he still uses his Victimhood Scale to get to his conclusion.
ebrawer on January 7, 2009 at 8:16 AM
But that’s precisely the problem. Conservatives seem to appreciate Israel for what it represents. Dershowitz seems to care about it because he’s Jewish. It implies that if he weren’t Jewish, he’d be on the other side along with the rest of the left. This is what makes his position irrational, not worth listening to, and dangerous to Jews and ultimately Israel.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 8:17 AM
Israel has the right–no, the responsibility–to kill Islamofascists & destroy their stuff until Israel is safe…not until the body count is even.
jgapinoy on January 7, 2009 at 8:18 AM
Tragically, one of the left’s central tenets is “anti-Zionism” which is a thinlly veiled eupehmism for anti-Semitism. Even sadder because liberal ideolgy, thought and social movements were founded in large part by Jews as a legitimate answer to the anti-semitism, racism and inequities of the time (late 19th early 20th century). Dershowitz refuses to realize that those movements have long ago been corrupted by those who seek the destruction of American, Western and Judeo/Christian values and just cannot bring himself to level criticism at them. It’s always the Ron Pauls, David Dukes and John Birchers who are lumped together with today’s conservatives and Republicans who are the real enemies of the Jews and Israel. This is why the vast majority of Jews and blacks have voted and will continue to vote Democrat.
That said, Dershowitz’s defense of Israel is powerful and we should be thankful that his voice is there to counter the all too many Chomskys and Saids out there.
J.J. Sefton on January 7, 2009 at 8:19 AM
The dilemma that Dershowitz faces is the same for a lot of Jews in America, many of whom are Liberal/Left: How to stay true to Israel, while not condemning your fellow Lefties (who, by and large, are unabashedly anti-Israel, some even anti-Semitic). Personally, I don’t understand the dilemma. If a fellow Conservative suddenly turned into a rabid racist (a la Southern Democrats in the 50’s), I wouldn’t sweat calling this person out. If one day the Republican platform calls for a return to slavery, hey, I’m out of this party. No dilemma.
Yet, people like Dershowitz like to have it both ways. Behind closed doors, when it comes to Israel, they are probably indistinguishable from Bush and Cheney. But out in the open, with their Loony Leftie friends, it’s a different story: Gauzy-edged criticism or just plain vanilla silence.
It’s moral Zeligism. The cure is simple: A good night’s sleep and a good dose of courage.
EMD on January 7, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Did we stop fighting Islamofascism when we killed as many of them as they killed on 9/11?
jgapinoy on January 7, 2009 at 8:26 AM
The Jewish people I know vote Dem no matter how far left the Dem party moves. At the same time, they would have gladly voted for McCain if he was the Dem. nominee. They have no fixed political philosophy as far as I can see, except to see secularism triumphant. They live in such constant fear that the St. Olaf’s of the world will get them that they are blind to other dangers. As such, they are lambs being led to the slaughter.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 8:28 AM
He’s also a trial lawyer, and the Dem party has done much to make his profession very rich, and, in turn, they have a huge influence over Dem policies.
blue13326 on January 7, 2009 at 8:30 AM
He’d be lonely otherwise. No media attention. No cocktail parties. He’d be a pariah in Cambridge, estranged from his community.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 8:34 AM
“Liberal” has a different meaning now. People who are “liberal” would not advocate what American Leftists advocate these days.
SlimyBill on January 7, 2009 at 8:56 AM
I seriously don’t know how anyone Jewish could be a liberal or vote Democrat. One quick read at Huffington Post lets you know who the anti-Semites are really quickly. And ZsaZsa is a Jewess herself. Go figure……Soros, a Hungarian Jew, pretended to be a Gentile during WWII when he was redistributing stolen Jewish property. With him, I know he’s Satan…..
adamsmith on January 7, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Well, let’s be explicit here and ask the question: Would Alan Dershowitz be defending Israel if he weren’t Jewish?
It’s clear to me that if Dennis Prager were a Roman Catholic that he (Prager) would not change one bit of his defense of Israel. Or if Israel were a Christian state (broadly speaking) Prager too would still be a vocal defender of Israel.
But how about Dershowitz?
SteveMG on January 7, 2009 at 9:05 AM
Yes.
Bob's Kid on January 7, 2009 at 9:11 AM
…and broke.
Historically, neo-liberal sadists and masochists altered aesthetic harmonic treatment nearly a century ago by denying any tonal center. The field-trip through dissonance as the new consonance began through the initial mannerism that equates the tonal function of semi-tones as synonymous. That augmentation of harmonic parameter functioned so far as tonal relativity remained intact. But beyond their expressionism, revising relativity into the denial of tonal relationships hardly led the way to illuminate life’s purpose beyond futility. When all was said and done promoting the 20th-century excursion through the Serial Briar Patch of mechanical reproductions, finally it was officially declared a dead-end. Those who imposed their “will” to destroy structural tonality demanded to be recognized as heirs of musical prophecy. They were officially declared dead, though that announcement took decades after the fact to be made. We exist today in that dead-end socially conscious prophecy of ambivalent antagonism.
So, sense comprehensively what experience has already taught. Repudiate the equivalency of opposites. Repudiate revisionism that erases origin. Value the essence of harmonic progression as it returns home odyssey after odyssey, changed but home at last where the records are kept intact.
maverick muse on January 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM
The difference between Dershowitz and Lieberman is that Lieberman DID confront the Left on the issue. I think that may be Prager’s (underlying) point.
Beo on January 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM
One issue doth not a conservative make.
The acid test? Sneak up behind him and whisper “Sarah Palin” and see if he chokes on his caramel macchiato.
whitetop on January 7, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Dershowitz can just say that no party represents every ideal that someone holds.
That the extreme parts of the party are the zealots, but the mainstream is not.
That the “anti-semitism” comes from not wanting any more bloodshed or war…something brought on by Bush’s and the rights love affair with conflict.
So, Alan would say, why would Pragar support a group that will attack at a drop of a hat, why would Pragar support attacking a regime that never attacked us…blah, blah, blah…
right2bright on January 7, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Before the war in Gaza began, I got a mass email from a Jewish liberal friend asking all of us to sign an online petition criticizing the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel. It was all I could do to stop myself from sending a mass response that people like her had lost any standing they had to complain.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Many Jews like Dershowitz are conservatives when it comes to Israel and Liberal otherwise. This is the hypocrisy ,
Dennis D on January 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM
The fact that no American president so far has abandoned Israel means that liberal like Dershowitz can remain in denial about the fact there are people out there, primarily on the left, who want the U.S. to abandon Israel (Alan was far more happy to go after James Baker and the Bush 41 foreign policy team over their alleged coziness with Arab states than they were with Jimmy Carter’s problems with the Israeli government, until Carter was well out of office and could be attacked without fear of reprisals).
The attacks on Obama by some radical Islamic leaders in the past 10 days for not signaling an impending shift in U.S. foreign policy is their open way of saying both what they were led to believe and what a lot of people on the left in this country think, but won’t say — that an Obama Administration will take a much tougher line on Israel, especially if Netanyahu wins next month’s election.
Barack’s foreign policy selections and his naming of Emanuel as White House CoS seem to indicate he’s not going to want to make any major changes at least at the outset, but Bibi is pretty much Israel’s version of Dick Cheney to the left — if he regains power, the pressure will really be on Obama from many who supported him to slap down the pushy Jew, and if that happens, people like Dershowitz are going to have to twist their rationales like a pretzel to keep justifying their overall support for the left, once the hypothetical isolation of Israel becomes a looming reality.
jon1979 on January 7, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Good discussion. I’ve often wondered myself how they can remain Dems, when only about 31% of Dems support Israel’s right to defend itself.
I’m not Jewish, but I was at our local Jewish Community Center this week for a parks board meeting. I was relieved to see that the Center had a whole table covered with literature on how to advocate for Israel, and why it’s important. I picked up a bunch of it. It’s useful information. Of, course, this is Texas, so maybe that’s why I didn’t see any of that lefty pacifist stuff there.
juliesa on January 7, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Why bother with the what ifs?
When was the last time a liberal had consistent positions on anything?
vinman on January 7, 2009 at 10:05 AM
There is something many here are overlooking in their comments, or simply do not understand.
I’ll explain. =)
I’m not Jewish. Never was Jewish. I’m also a total atheist (as some here know). I believe in the right for same-sex “marriage” (although I don’t mind calling it something else to soothe ruffled feathers). I’m pro-choice, pro-NRA, and pro-adult entertainment. I don’t believe in ID or any creationist story out there. Oh and I’m for lowering taxes.
I also am a die-hard Zionist.
In fact, I’m such a die-hard Zionist that in 2006, I hopped on a plane and went to Israel to show my support and did things up north to prove it. I probably was the only blonde goy girl around, and I was proud of it.
I don’t consider Islam to be a “valid” religion. I base this on my judging all religions equally, obtaining different results from each.
So why do I support the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, etc? Why do I support Israel?
Because, much as it really pisses off a lot of die-hard conservatives to admit it, Western society, including Israel, is a “liberal” one.
I don’t mean “liberal” as in “left”, but as in classically liberal. Whether we approach the goals of a liberal society from a Right or Left viewpoint, the end result is the same in many respects.
As I see it, our “liberal” society is under threat from Islam. There’s really no two ways about it. Christopher Hitchens is very much correct and I was very sad to not see more liberals take his side in this war on “terrorism” - Islam, really.
The point is, I still view myself as a liberal in some areas but I try to take a broader view of “liberalism” than just a party line. I don’t tend to identify with party lines. I’m talking about societal philosophies here. Whether we are conservative or liberal (and our society is made up of both), we have a duty to defend what we have helped to make. And as dysfunctional as our societies can be sometimes, we are a far, far, better society than any others out there that I know of - certainly far better than anything in the Muslim world.
So as a “liberal”, I support these actions - because I’m a liberal. Just as many here support them because they are “conservatives”. What we really are supporting is “westernism”, and I make no apologies for it. I’m proud of it. I’m proud of our history’s accomplishments in a way, even if I may have had almost no impact at all in my life. It is something I wish would spread over the world. If it did, then the world would be a far better place.
But as to calling myself a Democrat, I no longer do that. Not since 2001, and I probably will not do so ever again.
Summer on January 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Except welfare, gun control, ect……….
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Good comment. There are many classical liberals here. They too are no longer Democrats, or never were.
I prefer when the Left uses the term “Progressives” to define themselves. I can smell the socialism in it. I regret they expropriated a fine belief, liberalism, and began the process of morphing that into fascism.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 10:39 AM
The democratic party has turned into the socialist/communist party.
Johan Klaus on January 7, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Summer, that totally rocked.
nukemhill on January 7, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Thank you =)
I agree for the most part and it is very sad to see. It’s why I’m no longer with them.
Thank you. =) Yes, I agree on the “progressives” thing. I like to think of them more along the lines of “regressives”, really. I know that they won’t be happy until we’re all living in a tribal group in some rain forest somewhere and dying at the ripe old age of 20 due to lack of any civilization whatsoever.
Summer on January 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Very well said. I also used to call myself a democrat. 9/11 opened my eyes and I grew up and realized the dem party was insane and no longer stood for anything I believed in.
4shoes on January 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Also, I think that many people are confused by the term “Jewish” when referring to American Jews.
When we speak of the Christian community in America, we tend to me the Christian religious community.
By contrast, the “Jewish” community in America generally refers to the majority non-religious community. I think that helps explain why so many people don’t get modern “Jewish” voting patterns. Replace jewish with secular and modern liberal and it will make more sense.
The religious jewish community in America tends to be conservative.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 11:12 AM
So no choking would conservative make?
mycowardice on January 7, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Jewish liberals are like Greens
As Greens follow their path to karma they must admit humanity itself is a curse to the planet and yet, yet it feels so good to ski at Tahoe or swim with dolphins. So they make a few exemptions for themselves while carrying the guilt of knowing they are the rodents of the earth
Jewish liberals accept the world must be re ordered and yet the handbook says zionism is a criminal offense, so they must divorce themselves from their identity.
Jewish liberals have the double burden of wanting to swim with dolphins and pretending that being a liberal jew is not the same thing as being a jew, so no one will blame them for destroying world peace.
It is like a black hanging out at a klan meeting thinking he is one of the guys because he also believes in racial separation.
entagor on January 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The question should be: How can Prager consider himself a liberal while objectively supporting a totalitarian fundamentalist regime that imposes its policies by force?
Socratease on January 7, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I still don’t get why the Left sympathize with terrorists. All sides of the political spectrum should be united against terrorism.
jediwebdude on January 7, 2009 at 12:49 PM
And we wonder how pro-Life Democrats can stay Democrats… for the same reason Dershowitz hangs around leftists… somewhere in their heads they detest free markets, gun rights and low taxes more than “the defining moral issues of our time.”
mankai on January 7, 2009 at 1:07 PM
If Dersch came out and said he was conservative he wouldn’t be invited on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC,NBC, CBS, etc
Bevan on January 7, 2009 at 1:17 PM
This a question that remains unanswered for many who support Israel.
What justification can any thinking rational person of Jewish heredity condone the liberalism that frankly would let Israel be destroyed.
Its like riding the Democrat party bus that the marquee says Hell on.
Speakup on January 7, 2009 at 3:28 PM
My apologies if someone else has made this point; I confess to not having read all comments.
Actually, guys like Derschowitz are more useful to conservatives when they REMAIN liberals. Consider three headlines:
“KNOWN CONSERVATIVE SUPPORTS ISRAEL” (yawn)
“KNOWN LIBERAL SUPPORTS LIBERAL CAUSES” (ho hum)
“KNOWN LIBERAL SUPPORTS ISRAEL” (WOW!! Really?!?)
That third headline is an attention grabber, and has the POTENTIAL to cause some left-leaners to reconsider their opinion on Israel — and, who knows, maybe even other issues as well.
If Derschowitz were to ‘become a conservative’, his statements would trigger the first (non-newsworthy, non-helpful) headline, instead of the third (newsworthy, helpful) headline.
Furthermore, his being a liberal does very little to help the liberal cause generally, because when he supports an increase to minimum wages or some other liberal boilerplate, it is “dog bites man”, and no one cares.
So as a liberal, he does the conservative cause generally little or no harm, but does the conservative cause on Israel some considerable good.
RegularJoe on January 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I’m a Christian who was raised in a Jewish-conservative family. my father’s first vote was for Goldwater in ‘64-my mother for Nixon in ‘68.
My mother resigned from the National Council of Jewish Women over their leftist views in the early 1980’s.
The day after RR won his first term(I had just turned 10) I was hazed at Hebrew School because my parents weren’t “genuine”.
Up until that point I believed that most Jews were conservative.
Wrong.
With the exception of the Orthodox-modern day Judaism has become less of a faith and more like the religious wing of the democratic party.
They believe in “anything goes”.
My father used to say that leftist Jews had a “ghetto mentality”
It was because of that “ghetto mentality” that Christianity, initially caught my eye in 1996.
I was a practical atheist at the time-and was tired of being treated like a pariah by my own “tribe”.
Several attempts at going back(most recently last summer) well…Jesus shouted in my ear.
I believe in Jesus now-but I’m sure there are others like me…that partially left Judaism due to political alienation.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Not sure why you just didn’t become a religious Jew, but I assume you have your reasons. I’m Jewish but not religious, and have nothing to do with the secular community because of it’s liberalism, and little to do with the religious community because of it’s too strict doctrines and exclusivity, which doesn’t appeal to me. I feel alienated from American Jews. I try to learn a lot about all faiths, and fashion something that works for me. I’ve pretty much settled on a born-Jewish gnostic.
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 4:42 PM
I found orthodox Judaism to be too legalistic.
As far a Christianity-it chose me.
I didn’t choose it.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM
That was the point of it I think, from a “civilizational” point of view. Others found it dry too. So we got the Hasidim.
Good. I think most religions can take you where you want to go(although I’ll pass on Islam, which includes a political component I find repulsive, and lacks a reformation.)
annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2009 at 4:46 PM
JiangxiDad on January 7, 2009 at 6:13 PM
It is simply not possible to live and work in the People’s Republic of Cambridge and not be identified with the left. To enter the city limits without a collection of leftist causes shouting out from the rear of your car is to risk death by stoning. Dr. D is a closet conservative — he’d never be able to teach at Harvard Law otherwise.
BillyRuffn on January 7, 2009 at 9:23 PM