I have told the story before, most recently I think about 10 years ago, but here it is again for those who have not read it or have forgotten it.
"[I]n the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, I was called in Northampton by a young political scientist in New York who told me that a group of political scientists were trying to raise the money to take a full page ad in the TIMES calling for the impeachment of Nixon. The TIMES, rather hard-headedly, wanted the money for the ad up front, and this young man was calling to ask whether I could help him reach Barry Moore or Marty Peretz for contributions. I told him to forget about Barry -- like many upper class types with inherited money, Barry was quite stingy when it came to giving it away. But I was pretty sure I could reach Marty through Mike. I phoned Mike, exchanged pleasantries, and then explained why I was calling. There was a long pause at the other end of the line. Very softly, Mike said, "well.... you see .... we are supporting Nixon." I was so astonished that I exploded, asking him what on earth he was talking about. There was an even longer pause. Then, in a sweet, sad voice, almost as though he were describing something being done to him, rather than something he was doing, he said, very hesitantly, "Well... you see ... Israel." Nixon, whatever his crimes, had adopted a strongly pro-Israel policy, and that, it seemed, trumped all other considerations.
12 comments:
Prof Wolff, did you read the Peretz piece that LFC linked to? It's an excerpt from Peretz's memoir. The title of the excerpt is "Christians and Jews at Harvard."
He mentions Marcuse, Barrington Moore, and Kant.
Peretz writes:
American colleges were becoming more competitive as they started to become breeding grounds for the experts who would administer the growing federal government and build the weapons to win the Cold War. This was the reason more Jews were getting into Harvard, where before there had been quotas imposed on admission in the name of “social cohesion.” Perhaps with this in mind, Jewish students and even faculty were very quiet about being Jewish.
...
Then there was a whole other cohort of Jews at Harvard, a social type I recognized but had never known. These were the assimilated upper-class Jews, most of whom were German. They weren’t afraid or aspirational but simply established....
Politically, they were much more moderate than the people I came from.... They’d been in America longer, they’d seen capitalism work for them, and they’d lost interest in socialism or even social democracy and had become welfare-state liberals....
They wanted to help new Jewish arrivals, but they were embarrassed by our Yiddishkeit: It was too old-fashioned, too anti-modern, and too unassimilated....
A significant number of established American Jews opposed Israel on the grounds that once you gave a nation to the Jews, you were putting a false ethnic category in the Kantian universalist, individual, ethical firmament.
How do these characterizations sound to you, as a Harvard contemporary?
Related to the above comment, what do you think are the variables that lead to people like Walzer on one hand and others like Chomsky on the other?
Thanks
A brief comment on the Peretz piece (since I'm the one who linked it). The piece is full of names, most of which mean something to me and definitely will to RPW. The excerpt has the title and focus it does because it's being published in Tablet magazine. However, one of the more amusing anecdotes, imo (relating to the investigation of marijuana use in one of the Houses [the one that Peretz was affiliated with]) is only v. indirectly connected to the theme of "Christians and Jews."
On the first quoted point from P. above, I think strict admissions quotas for Jews were in effect only for a period in the 1920s, but I believe there were some informal restrictions for a time thereafter -- I'm not sure of the details of the history here. (Jerome Karabel's book on the history of "elite" college admissions policies, which I haven't read, I think is usu seen as authoritative.)
You (RPW) stopped talking to someone because he supported Nixon and Israel?
My maternal grandfather was a Nixon fan until the end as was a cousin and both very pro-Israel Jews. I didn't stop talking to either although by the era of Watergate we didn't see each other much.
A college friend was also pro-Nixon. We corresponded until the Reagan era when besides Republican, he became openly racist and misogynistic. I'd say that blatant racism, misogyny and homophobia did and still would lead me to cut ties with someone.
There are people here who will jump out and say that Republicans have always been racist, misogynist and homophobia, but it's expressed and reiterated beliefs which lead me to stop talking to people, not what I suspect they may believe.
I suppose everyone has such lines that they draw and we all differ a bit. In Chile it's Pinochetism and class snobbery, not being rightwing per se.
To Professor Wolff:
You buried the lede--- it does not become clear until late in your post that the "Mike" in question was Michael Walzer... THAT Michael Walzer, the author of several estimable books on justice, the morality of war, and so on.
So, as one who never heard the story that you have told many times, let me ask, by way of seeking clarification: Did Michael Walzer really support the vile Nixon, just because he (Nixon) supported Israel? Surely, no Democratic politician in the 1970s would have failed to support Israel just as strenuously. The uncritical pro-Israel Washington consensus was even stronger then than now. So, why would a democratic socialist (as I believe Walzer was) support Nixon, to the extent that he would not support an ad opposing Nixon in the NYT?
Is there some further backstory?
DZ,
When Prof Wolff posted this story some yrs ago, I asked a similar question. I forget what the response was.
Walzer's politics are, and were, quite well known. That he wd have supported Nixon at any time strains credulity. I'm not saying this story in the OP didn't happen. I take RPW's word that it happened. It's just hard to believe.
The more natural response, I think, after Walzer said "Israel" would have been to question him further (e.g., "You mean you don't think Ford will be just as pro-Israel?"). Instead RPW apparently said goodbye and hung up.
Quine was a Nixon supporter. And he made this known in print during the 1972 election season. (For example, he signed a full-page campaign ad that appeared in the New York Times, which was composed and paid for by the Committee to Reelect the President (the acronym for which was CREEP).) The botched Plumbers Operation was already well-known by that time, though nobody knew then where the ramifications of that break-in were headed. (It is interesting, looking back over 50+ years, that Nixon had pulled some other dirty tricks (perhaps tantamount to treason) in the 1968 campaign with his overtures to North Vietnam. Johnson had found out about that at the time but had kept quiet about it. Etc. Etc.)
More pointedly, the question is: why would Walzer, who was at the time the co-editor of Dissent and had participated in the anti Vietnam war movement (indeed it was Vietnam that was the original spur to his writing Just and Unjust Wars) have been opposing Nixon's impeachment during Watergate? The only answer that occurs to me is that he and Peretz thought Gerald Ford wd change US policy toward Israel -- which seems a bit weird on the face of it. Walzer and Peretz are both alive, so someone who knows them might ask them. It would save a lot of speculation. it's also possible that Peretz addresses this in the memoir.
LFC: Why don't we ask him? Or point him to Bob's post and see how he responds? I think he is still with the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.
Anonymous,
I believe he is an emeritus professor there (of course, there are no students there but they call them professors anyway).
re: the demographically intoxicated
Israel is a highly polarized society. The article below, which mentions Nixon, might be gated so I'll quote a few paragraphs (emphasis mine):
A letter to Israel’s demographically intoxicated
You're right. You do have many children – more than anyone else in Israel. But guess who has even more children
With the cool breeze of Jerusalem on our faces, sitting and talking with a supporter of Israel’s far-right politician Itamar Ben Gvir, we cut straight to the end. “Look,” he cut our conversation with a smile, “it’s very simple. I have six children, and these leftists from Tel Aviv hardly have half a child. This is how I end every conversation with them,” he told me.
The person speaking to me was no exception. Much of the tension and unprecedented social tension surrounding judicial reform is about demographics. Many of Israel’s non-Orthodox would like to know what happens when they are no longer the majority in Israel. In contrast, many religious people see the clock ticking in their favor, just to wonder how long to wait before making their majoritarian victory official. One of the judicial reform’s biggest advocates, Moshe Koppel of the Kohelet forum said so very recently. If what they want will not pass now, it will pass in one or two, or five years. Why? Because “religious people have more children,” Koppel said.
It is the demographically intoxicated who feel like their time to rule and trample on the rest has come that I would like to address here.
Dear Demographically Intoxicated Israelis,
You are right. You do have many children — the most — more than anyone else. Mazal Tov.
Do you know whose demographics are bigger than yours? 102 million Egyptians, 17 million Jordanians, 83 million Iranians, 10 million Jordanians, 43 million Algerians, 40 million Iraqis, and so on. It is time to start thinking about what is stopping Israel’s many enemies from waltzing into Israel next time there is some kind of conflict, and the Middle East is prone to conflict. It is time to think really hard about that.
The last time that happened, on Yom Kippur of 1973, were it not for very heavy and immediate American aid launched by President Nixon, also known as Operation Nickle Grass, Israel might have been completely wiped out. The number of children a Ben Gvir, Shas, or Agudah voter will not make much of a difference in case of war.
A letter to Israel’s demographically intoxicated
This article explains the polarization in Israel and why judicial reform is now a central issue. The article might be gated, so I'll quote a few paragraphs (emphasis mine):
Blue and White MK panned for saying Mizrahi Jews have ‘culture of Arab drums’
A Blue and White MK’s comments on the culture of Arabs and Mizrahi Jews elicited outrage and accusations of racism from opposing politicians on Friday, though he insisted he never intended to assert Ashkenazi supremacy.
Yoaz Hendel, one of the more right-wing figures in the centrist party, who was once Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s director of communications, told Haaretz during an interview that of the Jews who immigrated to Israel to form the state, “Some came here with a mentality of Vienna concerts and some came with a mentality of darbukas [Arabic-style goblet drums].”
The MK was speaking of the need for a shared Israeli culture, and specifically of his refusal to accept the “culture of chaos” he believes exists in the Arab sector.
The comment about darbukas, prominent in the music of Jews of Mizrahi descent, was read by right-wing politicians as a smear.
Ethnicity is a sensitive subject in Israeli politics, with Mizrahi Jews (descended from immigrants from Arab states) having long complained of institutionalized discrimination by the establishment, which is perceived as being predominantly Ashkenazi, or European-descended.
Blue and White MK panned for saying Mizrahi Jews have ‘culture of Arab drums’>
Post a Comment