| |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 18, 2000
Hillary Isn't an Anti-Semite
By Dennis Prager
Hillary Clinton has been accused of anti-Semitism. In the forthcoming
book "State of a Union," author Jerry Oppenheimer writes
that she called Paul Fray, the manager of her husband's failed
1974 congressional campaign, a "Jew bastard."
I wish to defend Mrs. Clinton. I do so as a practicing Jew and
a Republican -- and, most importantly, as one who believes Mr.
Oppenheimer's claim that Mrs. Clinton uttered this anti-Semitic
slur.
We must cease this moral idiocy of judging people by stray private
comments. As David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman revealed,
one of the most courageous friends that American Jews and blacks
had in the White House frequently used "kike" and "nigger" in
private. He even wrote them down: In a letter home from New York,
Mr. Truman described the city as "kiketown."
Was this unfortunate? Yes. Defining of the man? Absolutely not.
Yet for decades, politicians and the media have gleefully deployed
isolated remarks to besmirch the entire life of public figures.
Take the reaction of liberals to the revelations on the White
House tapes that President Nixon made anti-Jewish comments in
the privacy of the Oval Office. These comments, supposedly, proved
what an anti-Semite he was. As a Jew, I can only say that if
all anti-Semites behaved toward the Jewish people as did Richard
Nixon, Jews would be living in the most sympathetic environment
since the days of Abraham.
What matters in assessing Nixon's decency toward Jews was that
he appointed the first Jewish secretary of state, and that the
late Moshe Dayan credited the president with saving Israel during
the Yom Kippur War. Mr. Nixon had nothing to gain politically
from his actions: Jews vote Democratic.
Was Mr. Nixon an anti-Semite? If by that we mean a person who
bears ill will toward Jews, and who, if given an opportunity,
would harm the Jewish people, the answer is clearly no. To define
anti-Semitism in a less rigorous way only cheapens the term.
Unguarded private remarks do not constitute a personal philosophy.
What is true of Truman and Nixon is true of others as well. I
do not believe that Jesse Jackson, who was pilloried for his
private description of New York as "hymietown," is
anti-Semitic.
That is why I am repulsed by the loose talk about Mrs. Clinton's
long-ago utterance. If that renders her an anti-Semite, then
virtually every Gentile is anti-Semitic and almost every Jew
is an anti-Gentile bigot.
But don't such remarks as "Jew bastard" -- even if
uttered in private, and even if uttered but once, and in anger
-- tell us a great deal about a person's true feelings? No, they
tell us little. Even if those words did reflect some negative
feelings about a group, we still need to measure the speaker
by two other criteria: How does she behave toward that group;
and how does she speak publicly about them? By either measure,
no one can call Mrs. Clinton (or Nixon) anti-Semitic.
It is highly misleading to probe private comments for evidence
of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry and sexism. The present trend
emanates largely from a lethal combination -- the totalitarian
temptation inherent in contemporary liberalism, and the media's
sensationalism.
As the media's penchant for hyping the trivial is well known,
let's explain the role of post-1960s liberalism. Liberals ask
society to monitor citizens for signs of bigotry. Those who are
uncovered face grave consequences. To liberals, it was important
that Justice Clarence Thomas read Playboy in college. This was
a sign of a sexual harasser. To liberals, it was critical to
cast John Rocker, the baseball player, as a pariah for comments
he made in a car to a reporter, such as disparaging remarks about
Asian women drivers.
Perhaps the inane discussion of Mrs. Clinton's "anti-Semitism" will
teach liberals just how dangerous this practice is. But don't
count on it. In the meantime, non-liberals must take the high
road and defend an icon of liberalism, even if neither she nor
her fellow Democrats would defend a non-liberal icon against
the same charges. |
 |
|
|
