Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Neoconservatism a Jewish Movement

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Understanding Jewish Influence III: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement Kevin MacDonald http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.htm ...
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 8 2:51 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Understanding Jewish Influence III:
      Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement

      Kevin MacDonald
      http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol4no2/km-understandIII.htm
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Over the last year, there has been a torrent of articles on
      neoconservatism raising (usually implicitly) some difficult issues:
      Are neoconservatives different from other conservatives? Is
      neoconservatism a Jewish movement? Is it "anti-Semitic" to say so?

      The thesis presented here is that neoconservatism is indeed a Jewish
      intellectual and political movement. This paper is the final
      installment in a three-part series on Jewish activism and reflects
      many of the themes of the first two articles. The first paper in this
      series focused on the traits of ethnocentrism, intelligence,
      psychological intensity, and aggressiveness.1 These traits will be
      apparent here as well. The ethnocentrism of the neocons has enabled
      them to create highly organized, cohesive, and effective ethnic
      networks. Neoconservatives have also exhibited the high intelligence
      necessary for attaining eminence in the academic world, in the elite
      media and think tanks, and at the highest levels of government. They
      have aggressively pursued their goals, not only in purging more
      traditional conservatives from their positions of power and influence,
      but also in reorienting US foreign policy in the direction of hegemony
      and empire. Neoconservatism also illustrates the central theme of the
      second article in this series: In alliance with virtually the entire
      organized American Jewish community, neoconservatism is a vanguard
      Jewish movement with close ties to the most extreme nationalistic,
      aggressive, racialist and religiously fanatic elements within Israel.2

      Neoconservatism also reflects many of the characteristics of Jewish
      intellectual movements studied in my book, The Culture of
      Critique3(see Table 1).

      Table 1: Characteristics of Jewish Intellectual Movements
      A deep concern with furthering specific Jewish interests, such as
      helping Israel or promoting immigration.
      Issues are framed in a rhetoric of universalism rather than Jewish
      particularism.
      Issues are framed in moral terms, and an attitude of moral superiority
      pervades the movement.
      Centered around charismatic leaders (Boas, Trotsky, Freud).
      Jews form a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core.
      Non-Jews appear in highly visible roles, often as spokespersons for
      the movement.
      A pronounced ingroup/outgroup atmosphere within the
      movement—dissenters are portrayed as the personification of evil and
      are expunged from the movement.
      The movement is irrational in the sense that it is fundamentally
      concerned with using available intellectual resources to advance a
      political cause.
      The movement is associated with the most prestigious academic
      institutions in the society.
      Access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result
      of Jewish influence on the media.
      Active involvement of the wider Jewish community in supporting the
      movement.
      However, neoconservatism also presents several problems to any
      analysis, the main one being that the history of neoconservatism is
      relatively convoluted and complex compared to other Jewish
      intellectual and political movements. To an unusual extent, the
      history of neoconservatism presents a zigzag of positions and
      alliances, and a multiplicity of influences. This is perhaps
      inevitable in a fundamentally political movement needing to adjust to
      changing circumstances and attempting to influence the very large,
      complex political culture of the United States. The main changes
      neoconservatives have been forced to confront have been their loss of
      influence in the Democratic Party and the fall of the Soviet Union.
      Although there is a remarkable continuity in Jewish neoconservatives'
      interests as Jews—the prime one being the safety and prosperity of
      Israel—these upheavals required new political alliances and produced a
      need for new work designed to reinvent the intellectual foundation of
      American foreign policy.

      Neoconservatism also raises difficult problems of labeling. As
      described in the following, neoconservatism as a movement derives from
      the long association of Jews with the left. But contemporary
      neoconservatism is not simply a term for ex-liberals or leftists.
      Indeed, in its present incarnation, many second-generation
      neoconservatives, such as David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, and Max Boot,
      have never had affiliations with the American left. Rather,
      neoconservatism represents a fundamentally new version of American
      conservatism, if it can be properly termed conservative at all. By
      displacing traditional forms of conservatism, neoconservatism has
      actually solidified the hold of the left on political and cultural
      discourse in the United States. The deep and continuing chasm between
      neocons and more traditional American conservatives—a topic of this
      paper—indicates that this problem is far from being resolved.

      The multiplicity of influences among neoconservatives requires some
      comment. The current crop of neoconservatives has at times been
      described as Trotskyists.4 As will be seen, in some cases the
      intellectual influences of neoconservatives can be traced to Trotsky,
      but Trotskyism cannot be seen as a current influence within the
      movement. And although the political philosopher Leo Strauss is indeed
      a guru for some neoconservatives, his influence is by no means
      pervasive, and in any case provides only a very broad guide to what
      the neoconservatives advocate in the area of public policy. Indeed, by
      far the best predictor of neoconservative attitudes, on foreign policy
      at least, is what the political right in Israel deems in Israel's best
      interests. Neoconservatism does not fit the pattern of the Jewish
      intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique,
      characterized by gurus ("rabbis") and their disciples centered around
      a tightly focused intellectual perspective in the manner of Freud,
      Boas, or Marcuse. Neoconservatism is better described in general as a
      complex interlocking professional and family network centered around
      Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the
      sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and
      power of the United States in the service of Israel. As such,
      neoconservatism should be considered a semicovert branch of the
      massive and highly effective pro-Israel lobby, which includes
      organizations like the America Israel Public Affairs Committee
      (AIPAC)—the most powerful lobbying group in Washington—and the Zionist
      Organization of America (ZOA). Indeed, as discussed below, prominent
      neoconservatives have been associated with such overtly pro-Israel
      organizations as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
      (JINSA), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and
      ZOA. (Acronyms of the main neoconservative and pro-Israel activist
      organizations used in this paper are provided in Table 2.)

      Table 2: Acronyms of Neoconservative and Pro-Israel
      Activist Organizations Used in this Paper
      AEI: American Enterprise Institute—A neoconservative think tank;
      produces and disseminates books and articles on foreign and domestic
      policy; www.aei.org.
      AIPAC: American Israel Public Affairs Committee—The main pro-Israel
      lobbying organization in the U.S., specializing in influencing the
      U.S. Congress; www.aipac.org.
      CSP: Center for Security Policy—Neoconservative think tank
      specializing in defense policy; formerly headed by Douglas Feith, CSP
      is now headed by Frank Gaffney; the CSP is strongly pro-Israel and
      favors a strong U.S. military; www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.
      JINSA: Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs—Pro-Israel think
      tank specializing in promoting military cooperation between the U.S.
      and Israel; www.jinsa.org.
      MEF: Middle East Forum—Headed by Daniel Pipes, the MEF is a pro-Israel
      advocacy organization overlapping with the WINEP but generally more
      strident; www.meforum.org.
      PNAC: Project for the New American Century—Headed by Bill Kristol, the
      PNAC issues letters and statements signed mainly by prominent neocons
      and designed to influence public policy; www.newamericancentury.org.
      SD/USA: Social Democrats/USA—"Left-neoconservative" political
      organization advocating pro-labor social policy and pro-Israel,
      anticommunist foreign policy; www.socialdemocrats.org.
      WINEP: Washington Institute for Near East Policy—Pro-Israel think tank
      specializing in producing and disseminating pro-Israel media material;
      www.washingtoninstitute.org.
      ZOA: Zionist Organization of America—Pro-Israel lobbying organization
      associated with the more fanatical end of the pro-Israel spectrum in
      America; www.zoa.org.
      Compared with their deep and emotionally intense commitment to Israel,
      neoconservative attitudes on domestic policy seem more or less an
      afterthought, and they will not be the main focus here. In general,
      neoconservatives advocate maintaining the social welfare, immigration,
      and civil rights policies typical of liberalism (and the wider Jewish
      community) up to about 1970. Some of these policies represent clear
      examples of Jewish ethnic strategizing—in particular, the role of the
      entire Jewish political spectrum and the entire organized Jewish
      community as the moving force behind the immigration law of 1965,
      which opened the floodgates to nonwhite immigration. (Jewish
      organizations still favor liberal immigration policies. In 2004,
      virtually all American Jewish public affairs agencies belong to the
      National Immigration Forum, the premier open borders
      immigration-lobbying group.5) Since the neocons have developed a
      decisive influence in the mainstream conservative movement, their
      support for nonrestrictive immigration policies has perhaps more
      significance for the future of the United States than their support
      for Israel.

      As always when discussing Jewish involvement in intellectual
      movements, there is no implication that all or even most Jews are
      involved in these movements. As discussed below, the organized Jewish
      community shares the neocon commitment to the Likud Party in Israel.
      However, neoconservatism has never been a majority viewpoint in the
      American Jewish community, at least if being a neoconservative implies
      voting for the Republican Party. In the 2000 election, 80 percent of
      Jews voted for Al Gore.6

      These percentages may be misleading, since it was not widely known
      during the 2000 election that the top advisors of George W. Bush had
      very powerful Jewish connections, pro-Likud sympathies, and positive
      attitudes toward regime change in Arab countries in the Middle East.
      Republican strategists are hoping for 35 percent of the Jewish vote in
      2004.7 President Bush's May 18, 2004, speech to the national
      convention of AIPAC "received a wild and sustained standing ovation in
      response to an audience member's call for `four more years.' The
      majority of some 4,500 delegates at the national conference of the
      American Israel Public Affairs Committee leaped to their feet in
      support of the president…. Anecdotal evidence points to a sea change
      among Jewish voters, who historically have trended toward the
      Democratic Party but may be heading to Bush's camp due to his stance
      on a single issue: his staunch support of Israel."8 Nevertheless,
      Democrats may not lose many Jewish voters because John Kerry, the
      likely Democratic candidate, has a "100% record" for Israel and has
      promised to increase troop strength and retain the commitment to Iraq.9

      The critical issue is to determine the extent to which neoconservatism
      is a Jewish movement—the extent to which Jews dominate the movement
      and are a critical component of its success. One must then document
      the fact that the Jews involved in the movement have a Jewish identity
      and that they are Jewishly motivated—that is, that they see their
      participation as aimed at achieving specific Jewish goals. In the case
      of neoconservatives, an important line of evidence is to show their
      deep connections to Israel—their "passionate attachment to a nation
      not their own," as Pat Buchanan terms it,10 and especially to the
      Likud Party. As indicated above, I will argue that the main motivation
      for Jewish neoconservatives has been to further the cause of Israel;
      however, even if that statement is true, it does not imply that all
      Jews are neoconservatives. I therefore reject the sort of arguments
      made by Richard Perle, who responded to charges that neoconservatives
      were predominantly Jews by noting that Jews always tend to be
      disproportionately involved in intellectual undertakings, and that
      many Jews oppose the neoconservatives.11 This is indeed the case, but
      leaves open the question of whether neoconservative Jews perceive
      their ideas as advancing Jewish interests and whether the movement
      itself is influential. An important point of the following, however,
      is that the organized Jewish community has played a critical role in
      the success of neoconservatism and in preventing public discussion of
      its Jewish roots and Jewish agendas.

      Non-Jewish Participation in Neoconservatism
      As with the other Jewish intellectual and political movements,
      non-Jews have been welcomed into the movement and often given highly
      visible roles as the public face of the movement. This of course
      lessens the perception that the movement is indeed a Jewish movement,
      and it makes excellent psychological sense to have the spokespersons
      for any movement resemble the people they are trying to convince.
      That's why Ahmed Chalabi (a Shiite Iraqi, a student of early neocon
      theorist Albert Wohlstetter, and a close personal associate of
      prominent neocons, including Richard Perle) was the neocons' choice to
      lead postwar Iraq.12 There are many examples—including Freud's famous
      comments on needing a non-Jew to represent psychoanalysis (he got Carl
      Jung for a time until Jung balked at the role, and then Ernest Jones).
      Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict were the most publicly recognized
      Boasian anthropologists, and there were a great many non-Jewish
      leftists and pro-immigration advocates who were promoted to visible
      positions in Jewish dominated movements—and sometimes resented their
      role.13 Albert Lindemann describes non-Jews among the leaders of the
      Bolshevik revolution as "jewified non-Jews"—"a term, freed of its ugly
      connotations, [that] might be used to underline an often overlooked
      point: Even in Russia there were some non-Jews, whether Bolsheviks or
      not, who respected Jews, praised them abundantly, imitated them, cared
      about their welfare, and established intimate friendships or romantic
      liaisons with them."14

      There was a smattering of non-Jews among the New York Intellectuals,
      who, as members of the anti-Stalinist left in the 1940s, were
      forerunners of the neoconservatives. Prominent examples were Dwight
      MacDonald (labeled by Michael Wrezin "a distinguished goy among the
      Partisanskies"15—i.e., the largely Jewish Partisan Review crowd),
      James T. Farrell, and Mary McCarthy. John Dewey also had close links
      to the New York Intellectuals and was lavishly promoted by them;16
      Dewey was also allied closely with his former student Sidney Hook,
      another major figure on the anti-Stalinist left. Dewey was a
      philosemite, stating: "After all, it was the Christians who made them
      `it' [i.e., victims]. Living in New York where the Jews set the
      standard of living from department stores to apartment houses, I often
      think that the Jews are the finest product of historical
      Christianity…. Anyway, the finest living man, so far as I know, is a
      Jew—[humanitarian founder of the International Institute of
      Agriculture] David Lubin."17

      This need for the involvement of non-Jews is especially acute for
      neoconservatism as a political movement: Because neoconservative Jews
      constitute a tiny percentage of the electorate, they need to make
      alliances with non-Jews whose perceived interests dovetail with
      theirs. Non-Jews have a variety of reasons for being associated with
      Jewish interests, including career advancement, close personal
      relationships or admiration for individual Jews, and deeply held
      personal convictions. For example, as described below, Senator Henry
      Jackson, whose political ambitions were intimately bound up with the
      neoconservatives, was a strong philosemite due partly to his
      experiences in childhood; his alliance with neoconservatives also
      stemmed from his (entirely reasonable) belief that the United States
      and the Soviet Union were engaged in a deadly conflict and his belief
      that Israel was a valuable ally in that struggle. Because
      neoconservatives command a large and lucrative presence in the media,
      thinktankdom, and political culture generally, it is hardly surprising
      that complex blends of opportunism and personal conviction
      characterize participating non-Jews.

      University and Media Involvement
      An important feature of the Jewish intellectual and political
      movements I have studied has been their association with prestigious
      universities and media sources. The university most closely associated
      with the current crop of neoconservatives is the University of
      Chicago, the academic home not only of Leo Strauss, but also of Albert
      Wohlstetter, a mathematician turned foreign policy strategist, who was
      mentor to Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, both of whom have achieved
      power and influence in the George W. Bush administration. The
      University of Chicago was also home to Strauss disciple Allan Bloom,
      sociologist Edward Shils, and novelist Saul Bellow among the earlier
      generation of neoconservatives.

      Another important academic home for the neocons has been the School of
      Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Wolfowitz
      spent most of the Clinton years as a professor at SAIS; the Director
      of the Strategic Studies Program at SAIS is Eliot Cohen, who has been
      a signatory to a number of the Project for a New American Century's
      statements and letters, including the April 2002 letter to President
      Bush on Israel and Iraq (see below); he is also an advisor for Frank
      Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, an important neocon think tank.
      Cohen is famous for labeling the war against terrorism World War IV.
      His book, Supreme Command, argues that civilian leaders should make
      the important decisions and not defer to military leaders. This
      message was understood by Cheney and Wolfowitz as underscoring the
      need to prevent the military from having too much influence, as in the
      aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War when Colin Powell as chairman of the
      Joint Chiefs of Staff had been influential in opposing the removal of
      Saddam Hussein.18

      Unlike other Jewish intellectual movements, the neoconservatives have
      been forced to deal with major opposition from within the academy,
      especially from Arabs and leftists in academic departments of Middle
      East studies. As a result, neoconservative activist groups, especially
      the WINEP and the MEF's Campus Watch, have monitored academic
      discourse and course content and organized protests against
      professors, and were behind congressional legislation that will
      mandate U.S. government monitoring of programs in Middle East studies
      (see below).

      Jewish intellectual and political movements also have typically had
      ready access to prestigious mainstream media outlets, and this is
      certainly true for the neocons. Most notable are the Wall Street
      Journal, Commentary, The Public Interest, Basic Books (book
      publishing), and the media empires of Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch.
      Murdoch owns the Fox News Channel and the New York Post, and is the
      main source of funding for Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard—all major
      neocon outlets.

      A good example illustrating these connections is Richard Perle. Perle
      is listed as a Resident Fellow of the AEI, and he is on the boards of
      directors of the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger Corporation, a media
      company controlled by Conrad Black. Hollinger owns major media
      properties in the U.S. (Chicago Sun-Times), England (the Daily
      Telegraph), Israel (Jerusalem Post), and Canada (the National Post; 50
      percent ownership with CanWest Global Communications, which is
      controlled by Israel Asper and his family; CanWest has aggressively
      clamped down on its journalists for any deviation from its strong
      pro-Israel editorial policies19). Hollinger also owns dozens of
      smaller publications in the U.S., Canada, and England. All of these
      media outlets reflect the vigorously pro-Israel stance espoused by
      Perle. Perle has written op-ed columns for Hollinger newspapers as
      well as for the New York Times.

      Neoconservatives such as Jonah Goldberg and David Frum also have a
      very large influence on National Review, formerly a bastion of
      traditional conservative thought in the U.S. Neocon think tanks such
      as the AEI have a great deal of cross-membership with Jewish activist
      organizations such as AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization
      in Washington, and the WINEP. (When President George W. Bush addressed
      the AEI on Iraq policy, the event was fittingly held in the Albert
      Wohlstetter Conference Center.) A major goal of the AEI is to maintain
      a high profile as pundits in the mainstream media. A short list would
      include AEI fellow Michael Ledeen, who is extreme even among the
      neocons in his lust for war against all of the Arab countries in the
      Middle East, is "resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the AEI,"
      writes op-ed articles for The Scripps Howard News Service and the Wall
      Street Journal, and appears on the Fox News Channel. Michael Rubin,
      visiting scholar at AEI, writes for the New Republic (controlled by
      staunchly pro-Israel Martin Peretz), the New York Times, and the Daily
      Telegraph. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the AEI and
      director of the Middle East Initiative at PNAC, writes for the Weekly
      Standard and the New York Times. Another prominent AEI member is David
      Wurmser who formerly headed the Middle East Studies Program at the AEI
      until assuming a major role in providing intelligence disinformation
      in the lead up to the war in Iraq (see below). His position at the AEI
      was funded by Irving Moscowitz, a wealthy supporter of the settler
      movement in Israel and neocon activism in the US.20 At the AEI Wurmser
      wrote op-ed pieces for the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, and
      the Wall Street Journal. His book, Tyranny's Ally: America's Failure
      to Defeat Saddam Hussein, advocated that the United States should use
      military force to achieve regime change in Iraq. The book was
      published by the AEI in 1999 with a Foreward by Richard Perle.

      Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the New York Times was deeply involved
      in spreading deception about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and
      ties to terrorist organizations. Judith Miller's front-page articles
      were based on information from Iraqi defectors well known to be
      untrustworthy because of their own interest in toppling Saddam.21 Many
      of these sources, including the notorious Ahmed Chalabi, were also
      touted by the Office of Special Plans of the Department of Defense,
      which is associated with many of the most prominent Bush
      administration neocons (see below). Miller's indiscretions might be
      chalked up to incompetence were it not for her close connections to
      prominent neocon organizations, in particular Daniel Pipes's Middle
      East Forum (MEF), which avidly sought the war in Iraq. The MEF lists
      Miller as an expert speaker on Middle East issues, and she has
      published articles in MEF media, including the Middle East Quarterly
      and the MEF Wire. The MEF also threw a launch party for her book on
      Islamic fundamentalism, God Has Ninety-Nine Names. Miller, whose
      father is ethnically Jewish, has a strong Jewish consciousness: Her
      book One by One: Facing the Holocaust "tried to … show how each
      [European] country that I lived and worked in, was suppressing or
      distorting or politically manipulating the memory of the Holocaust."22

      The New York Times has apologized for "coverage that was not as
      rigorous as it should have been" but has thus far refused to single
      out Miller's stories as worthy of special censure.23 Indeed, the
      Times'sfailure goes well beyond Miller:

      Some of the Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion
      of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by
      lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several
      fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided
      perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were
      played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was
      Risen's "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," which
      was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held
      for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start,
      and even then was interred on Page B10.24
      As is well known, the New York Times is Jewish-owned and has often
      beenaccused of slanting its coverage on issues of importance to
      Jews.25 It is perhaps another example of the legacy of Jacob Schiff,
      the Jewish activist/philanthropist who backed Adolph Ochs's purchase
      of the New York Times in 1896 because he believed he "could be of
      great service to the Jews generally."26

      Involvement of the Wider Jewish Community
      Another common theme of Jewish intellectual and political movements
      has been the involvement and clout of the wider Jewish community.
      While the prominent neoconservatives represent a small fraction of the
      American Jewish community, there is little doubt that the organized
      Jewish community shares their commitment to the Likud Party in Israel
      and, one might reasonably infer, Likud's desire to see the United
      States conquer and effectively control virtually the entire Arab
      world.27 For example, representatives of all the major Jewish
      organizations serve on the executive committee of AIPAC, the most
      powerful lobby in Washington. Since the 1980s AIPAC has leaned toward
      Likud and only reluctantly went along with the Labor government of the
      1990s.28 In October 2002, the Conference of Presidents of Major
      American Jewish Organizations issued a declaration of support for
      disarming the Iraqi regime.29 Jack Rosen, the president of the
      American Jewish Congress, noted that "the final statement ought to be
      crystal clear in backing the President having to take unilateral
      action if necessary against Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass
      destruction."30

      The organized Jewish community also plays the role of credential
      validator, especially for non-Jews. For example, the neocon choice for
      the leader of Iran following regime change is Reza Pahlavi, son of the
      former Shah. As is the case with Ahmed Chalabi, who was promoted by
      the neocons as the leader of post-Saddam Iraq, Pahlavi has proven his
      commitment to Jewish causes and the wider Jewish community. He has
      addressed the board of JINSA, given a public speech at the Simon
      Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles, met with
      American Jewish communal leaders, and is on friendly terms with Likud
      Party officials in Israel.31

      Most important, the main Jewish activist organizations have been quick
      to condemn those who have noted the Jewish commitments of the
      neoconservative activists in the Bush administration or seen the hand
      of the Jewish community in pushing for war against Iraq and other Arab
      countries. For example, the ADL's Abraham Foxman singled out Pat
      Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Rep. James Moran, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, James
      O. Goldsborough (a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune),
      columnist Robert Novak, and writer Ian Buruma as subscribers to "a
      canard that America's going to war has little to do with disarming
      Saddam, but everything to do with Jews, the `Jewish lobby' and the
      hawkish Jewish members of the Bush Administration who, according to
      this chorus, will favor any war that benefits Israel."32 Similarly,
      when Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) made a speech in the U.S.
      Senate and wrote a newspaper op-ed piece which claimed the war in Iraq
      was motivated by "President Bush's policy to secure Israel" and
      advanced by a handful of Jewish officials and opinion leaders, Abe
      Foxman of the ADL stated, "when the debate veers into anti-Jewish
      stereotyping, it is tantamount to scapegoating and an appeal to ethnic
      hatred…. This is reminiscent of age-old, anti-Semitic canards about a
      Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government."33Despite
      negative comments from Jewish activist organizations, and a great deal
      of coverage in the American Jewish press, there were no articles on
      this story in any of the major U.S. national newspapers.34

      These mainstream media and political figures stand accused of
      anti-Semitism—the most deadly charge that can be imagined in the
      contemporary world—by the most powerful Jewish activist organization
      in the U.S. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has also charged Buchanan and
      Moran with anti-Semitism for their comments on this issue.35 While
      Foxman feels no need to provide any argument at all, the SWC feels it
      is sufficient to note that Jews have varying opinions on the war. This
      of course is a nonissue. The real issue is whether it is legitimate to
      open up to debate the question of the degree to which the neocon
      activists in the Bush administration are motivated by their long ties
      to the Likud Party in Israel and whether the organized Jewish
      community in the U.S. similarly supports the Likud Party and its
      desire to enmesh the United States in wars that are in Israel's
      interest. (There's not much doubt about how the SWC viewed the war
      with Iraq; Defense Secretary Rumsfeld invited Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean
      of the Center, to briefings on the war.)36

      Of course, neocons in the media—most notably David Frum, Max Boot,
      Lawrence F. Kaplan, Jonah Goldberg, and Alan Wald37—have also been
      busy labeling their opponents "anti-Semites." An early example
      concerned a 1988 speech given by Russell Kirk at the Heritage
      Foundation in which he remarked that "not seldom it has seemed as if
      some eminent neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of
      United States"—what Sam Francis characterizes as "a wisecrack about
      the slavishly pro-Israel sympathies among neoconservatives."38 Midge
      Decter, a prominent neocon writer and wife of Commentary editor Norman
      Podhoretz, labeled the comment "a bloody outrage, a piece of
      anti-Semitism by Kirk that impugns the loyalty of neoconservatives."39

      Accusations of anti-Semitism have become a common response to
      suggestions that neoconservatives have promoted the war in Iraq for
      the benefit of Israel.40 For example, Joshua Muravchik, whose ties to
      the neocons are elaborated below, authored an apologetic article in
      Commentary aimed at denying that neoconservative foreign policy
      prescriptions are tailored to benefit Israel and that imputations to
      that effect amount to "anti-Semitism."41 These accusations are notable
      for uniformly failing to honestly address the Jewish motivations and
      commitments of neoconservatives, the topic of a later section.

      Finally, the wider Jewish community provides financial support for
      intellectual and political movements, as in the case of
      psychoanalysis, where the Jewish community signed on as patients and
      as consumers of psychoanalytic literature.42 This has also been the
      case with neoconservatism, as noted by Gary North:

      With respect to the close connection between Jews and neoconservatism,
      it is worth citing [Robert] Nisbet's assessment of the revival of his
      academic career after 1965. His only book, The Quest for Community
      (Oxford UP, 1953), had come back into print in paperback in 1962 as
      Community and Power. He then began to write for the neoconservative
      journals. Immediately, there were contracts for him to write a series
      of books on conservatism, history, and culture, beginning with The
      Sociological Tradition, published in 1966 by Basic Books, the newly
      created neoconservative publishing house. Sometime in the late 1960's,
      he told me: "I became an in-house sociologist for the
      Commentary-Public Interest crowd. Jews buy lots of academic books in
      America." Some things are obvious but unstated. He could follow the
      money: book royalties. So could his publishers.43
      The support of the wider Jewish community and the elaborate
      neoconservative infrastructure in the media and thinktankdom provide
      irresistible professional opportunities for Jews and non-Jews alike. I
      am not saying that people like Nisbet don't believe what they write in
      neoconservative publications. I am simply saying that having opinions
      that are attractive to neoconservatives can be very lucrative and
      professionally rewarding.

      In the following I will first trace the historical roots of
      neoconservatism. This is followed by portraits of several important
      neoconservatives that focus on their Jewish identities and their
      connections to pro-Israel activism.

      Historical Roots Of Neoconservatism
      Coming to Neoconservatism from the Far Left
      All twentieth century Jewish intellectual and political movements stem
      from the deep involvement of Jews with the left. However, beginning in
      the late 1920s, when the followers of Leon Trotsky broke off from the
      mainstream communist movement, the Jewish left has not been unified.
      By all accounts the major figure linking Trotsky and the
      neoconservative movement is Max Shachtman, a Jew born in Poland in
      1904 but brought to the U.S. as an infant. Like other leftists during
      the 1920s, Shachtman was enthusiastic about the Soviet Union, writing
      in 1923 that it was "a brilliant red light in the darkness of
      capitalist gloom."44 Shachtman began as a follower of James P.
      Cannon,45 who became converted to Trotsky's view that the Soviet Union
      should actively foment revolution.

      The Trotskyist movement had a Jewish milieu as Shachtman attracted
      young Jewish disciples—the familiar rabbi/disciple model of Jewish
      intellectual movements: "Youngsters around Shachtman made little
      effort to hide their New York background or intellectual skills and
      tastes. Years later they could still hear Shachtman's voice in one
      another's speeches."46 To a much greater extent than the Communist
      Party, which was much larger and was committed to following the Soviet
      line, the Trotskyists survived as a small group centered around
      charismatic leaders like Shachtman, who paid homage to the famous
      Trotsky, who lurked in the background as an exile from the USSR living
      in Mexico. In the Jewish milieu of the movement, Shachtman was much
      admired as a speaker because of his ability in debate and in polemics.
      He became the quintessential rabbinical guru—the leader of a close,
      psychologically intense group: "He would hug them and kiss [his
      followers]. He would pinch both their cheeks, hard, in a habit that
      some felt blended sadism and affection."47

      Trotskyists took seriously the Marxist idea that the proletarian
      socialist revolution should occur first in the economically advanced
      societies of the West rather than in backward Russia or China. They
      also thought that a revolution only in Russia was doomed to failure
      because the success of socialism in Russia depended inevitably on the
      world economy. The conclusion of this line of logic was that Marxists
      should advocate a permanent revolution that would sweep away
      capitalism completely rather than concentrate on building socialism in
      the Soviet Union.

      Shachtman broke with Trotsky over defense of the Soviet Union in World
      War II, setting out to develop his own brand of "third camp Marxism"
      that followed James Burnham in stressing internal democracy and
      analyzing the USSR as "bureaucratic collectivism." In 1939–1941,
      Shachtman battled leftist intellectuals like Sidney Hook, Max Eastman,
      and Dwight Macdonald, who were rejecting not only Stalinism but also
      Trotskyism as insufficiently open and democratic; they also saw
      Trotsky himself as guilty of some of the worst excesses of the early
      Bolshevik regime, especially his banning of opposition parties and his
      actions in crushing the Kronstadt sailors who had called for
      democracy. Shachtman defended an open, democratic version of Marxism
      but was concerned that his critics were abandoning socialism—throwing
      out the baby with the bathwater.

      Hook, Eastman, Burnham, and Macdonald therefore constituted a
      "rightist" force within the anti-Stalinist left; it is this force that
      may with greater accuracy be labeled as one of the immediate
      intellectual ancestors of neoconservatism. By 1940, Macdonald was
      Shachtman's only link to the Partisan Review crowd of the New York
      Intellectuals—another predominantly Jewish group—and the link became
      tenuous. James Burnham also broke with Shachtman in 1940. By 1941
      Burnham rejected Stalinism, fascism, and even the New Deal as
      bureaucratic menaces, staking out a position characterized by
      "juridical defense, his criticism of managerial political tendencies,
      and his own defence of liberty,"48 eventually becoming a fixture at
      National Review in the decades before it became a neoconservative
      journal.

      Shachtman himself became a Cold Warrior and social democrat in the
      late 1940s, attempting to build an all-inclusive left while his
      erstwhile Trotskyist allies in the Fourth International were bent on
      continuing their isolation in separate factions on the left. During
      this period, Shachtman saw the Stalinist takeover in Eastern Europe as
      a far greater threat than U.S. power, a prelude to his support for the
      Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and the U.S. role in Viet Nam. By the
      1950s he rejected revolutionary socialism and stopped calling himself
      a Trotskyist;49 during the 1960s he saw the Democratic Party as the
      path to social democracy, while nevertheless retaining some commitment
      to Marxism and socialism. "Though he would insist for the rest of his
      life that he had found the keys to Marxism in his era, he was
      recutting the keys as he went along. In the early 1950s he had spoken,
      written, and acted as a left-wing, though no longer revolutionary,
      socialist. By the late 1950s he moved into the mainstream of U.S.
      social democracy"50 with a strategy of pushing big business and white
      Southerners out of the Democratic Party (the converse of Nixon's
      "Southern strategy" for the Republican Party). In the 1960s "he
      suggested more openly than ever before that U.S. power could be used
      to promote democracy in the third world"51—a view that aligns him with
      later neoconservatives.

      In the 1960s, Michael Harrington, author of the influential The Other
      America, became the best known Shachtmanite, but they diverged when
      Harrington showed more sympathy toward the emerging multicultural,
      antiwar, feminist, "New Politics" influence in the Democratic Party
      while Shachtman remained committed to the Democrats as the party of
      organized labor and anti-communism.52 Shachtman became an enemy of the
      New Left, which he saw as overly apologetic toward the Soviet Union.
      "As I watch the New Left, I simply weep. If somebody set out to take
      the errors and stupidities of the Old Left and multiplied them to the
      nth degree, you would have the New Left of today."53 This was linked
      to disagreements with Irving Howe, editor of Dissent, who published a
      wide range of authors, including Harrington, although Shachtman
      followers Carl Gershman and Tom Kahn remained on the editorial board
      of Dissent until 1971–1972.

      The main link between Shachtman and the political mainstream was the
      influence he and his followers had on the AFL-CIO. In 1972, shortly
      before his death, Shachtman, "as an open anti-communist and supporter
      of both the Vietnam War and Zionism,"54 backed Senator Henry Jackson
      in the Democratic presidential primary. Jackson was a strong supporter
      of Israel (see below), and by this time support for Israel had "become
      a litmus test for Shachtmanites."55 Jackson, who was closely
      associated with the AFL-CIO, hired Tom Kahn, who had become a
      Shachtman follower in the 1950s. Kahn was executive secretary of the
      Shachtmanite League for Industrial Democracy, headed at the time by
      Tom Harrington, and he was also the head of the Department of
      International Affairs of the AFL-CIO, where he was an "obsessive
      promoter of Israel"56 to the point that the AFL-CIO became the world's
      largest non-Jewish holder of Israel bonds. His department had a budget
      of around $40 million, most of which was provided by the federally
      funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED).57 During the Reagan
      administration, the AFL-CIO received approximately 40 percent of
      available funding from the NED, while no other funded group received
      more than 10 percent. That imbalance has prompted speculation that NED
      is effectively in the hands of the Social Democrats USA—Shachtman's
      political heir (see below)—the membership of which today includes both
      NED president Carl Gershman and a number of AFL-CIO officials involved
      with the endowment.

      In 1972, under the leadership of Carl Gershman and the Shachtmanites,
      the Socialist Party USA changed its name to Social Democrats USA.58
      Working with Jackson, SD/USA's members achieved little political power
      because of the dominance of the New Politics wing of the Democratic
      Party, with its strong New Left influence from the 1960s. With the
      election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, however, key figures from SD/USA
      achieved positions of power and influence both in the labor movement
      and in the government. Among the latter were Reagan-era appointees
      such as United Nations Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, Assistant
      Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Elliott Abrams
      (son-in-law of Podhoretz and Decter), Geneva arms talks negotiator Max
      Kampelman (aide to Hubert Humphrey and founding member of JINSA; he
      remains on its advisory board), and Gershman, who was an aide to UN
      Ambassador Kirkpatrick and head of the NED.59 Other Shachtmanites in
      the Reagan administration included Joshua Muravchik, a member of
      SD/USA's National Committee, who wrote articles defending Reagan's
      foreign policy, and Penn Kemble, an SD/USA vice-chairman, who headed
      Prodemca, an influential lobbying group for the Contra opponents of
      the leftist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Abrams and Muravchik have
      continued to play an important role in neocon circles in the George W.
      Bush administration (see below). In addition to being associated with
      SD/USA,60 Kirkpatrick has strong neocon credentials. She is on the
      JINSA Board and is a senior fellow at the AEI. She also has received
      several awards from Jewish organizations, including the Defender of
      Israel Award [New York], given to non-Jews who stand up for the Jewish
      people (other neocon recipients include Henry Jackson and Bayard
      Rustin), the Humanitarian Award of B'nai B'rith, and the 50th
      Anniversary Friend of Zion Award from the prime minister of Israel
      (1998).61 Kirkpatrick's late husband Evron was a promoter of Hubert
      Humphrey and long-time collaborator of neocon godfather Irving Kristol.

      During the Reagan Administration, Lane Kirkland, the head of the
      AFL-CIO from 1979 to 1995, was also a Shachtmanite and an officer of
      the SD/USA. As secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO during the 1970s,
      Kirkland was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a group
      of neoconservatives in which "prominent Jackson supporters, advisers,
      and admirers from both sides of the aisle predominated."62 Kirkland
      gave a eulogy at Henry Jackson's funeral. Kirkland was not a Jew but
      was married to a Jew and, like Jackson, had very close ties to Jews:
      "Throughout his career Kirkland maintained a special affection for the
      struggle of the Jews. It may be the result of his marriage to Irena
      [nee Neumann in 1973—his second marriage], a Czech survivor of the
      Holocaust and an inspiring figure in her own right. Or it may be
      because he recognized…that the cause of the Jews and the cause of
      labor have been inseparable."63

      Carl Gershman remains head of the NED, which supports the U.S.-led
      invasion and nation-building effort in Iraq.64 The general line of the
      NED is that Arab countries should "get over" the Arab-Israeli conflict
      and embrace democracy, Israel, and the United States. In reporting on
      talks with representatives of the Jewish community in Turkey, Gershman
      frames the issues in terms of ending anti-Semitism in Turkey by
      destroying Al Qaeda; there is no criticism of the role of Israel and
      its policies in producing hatred throughout the region.65 During the
      1980s, the NED supported nonviolent strategies to end apartheid in
      South Africa in association with the A. Philip Randolph Institute,
      headed by longtime civil rights activist and SD/USA neocon Bayard
      Rustin.66 Critics of the NED, such as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex), have
      complained that the NED "is nothing more than a costly program that
      takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political
      parties abroad."67 Paul suggests that the NED's support of former
      Communists reflects Gershman's leftist background.

      In general, at the present time SD/USA continues to support organized
      labor domestically and to take an active interest in using U.S. power
      to spread democracy abroad. A resolution of January 2003 stated that
      the main conflict in the world was not between Islam and the West but
      between democratic and nondemocratic governments, with Israel being
      the only democracy in the Middle East.68 The SD/USA strongly supports
      democratic nation building in Iraq.

      A prominent member of SD/USA is Joshua Muravchik. A member of the
      SD/USA National Advisory Council, Muravchik is also a member of the
      advisory board of JINSA, a resident scholar at the AEI, and an adjunct
      scholar at WINEP. His book Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of
      Socialism69 views socialism critically, but advocates a reformist
      social democracy that falls short of socialism; he views socialism as
      a failed religion that is relatively poor at creating wealth and is
      incompatible with very powerful human desires for private ownership.

      Another prominent member of SD/USA is Max Kampelman, whose article,
      posted on the SD/USA website, makes the standard neoconservative
      complaints about the UN dating from the 1970s, especially regarding
      its treatment of Israel:

      Since 1964,…the U.N. Security Council has passed 88 resolutions
      against Israel—the only democracy in the area—and the General Assembly
      has passed more than 400 such resolutions, including one in 1975
      declaring "Zionism as a form of racism." When the terrorist leader of
      the Palestinians, Arafat, spoke in 1974 to the General Assembly, he
      did so wearing a pistol on his hip and received a standing ovation.
      While totalitarian and repressive regimes are eligible and do serve on
      the U.N. Security Council, democratic Israel is barred by U.N. rules
      from serving in that senior body.70
      Neoconservatives as a Continuation of
      Cold War Liberalism's "Vital Center"
      The other strand that merged into neoconservatism stems from Cold War
      liberalism, which became dominant within the Democratic Party during
      the Truman administration. It remained dominant until the rise of the
      New Politics influence in the party during the 1960s, culminating in
      the presidential nomination of George McGovern in 1972.71 In the late
      1940s, a key organization was Americans for Democratic Action,
      associated with such figures as Reinhold Niebuhr, Hubert Humphrey, and
      Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., whose book, The Vital Center (1947),
      distilled a liberal anticommunist perspective which combined vigorous
      containment of communism with "the struggle within our country against
      oppression and stagnation."72 This general perspective was also
      evident in the Congress for Cultural Freedom, whose central figure was
      Sidney Hook.73 The CCF was a group of anticommunist intellectuals
      organized in 1950 and funded by the CIA, and included a number of
      prominent liberals, such as Schlesinger.

      A new wrinkle, in comparison to earlier Jewish intellectual and
      political movements discussed in Culture of Critique, has been that
      the central figures, Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol, have
      operated not so much as intellectual gurus in the manner of Freud or
      Boas or even Shachtman, but more as promoters and publicists of views
      which they saw as advancing Jewish interests. Podhoretz's Commentary
      (published by the American Jewish Committee) and Kristol's The Public
      Interest became clearinghouses for neoconservative ideas, but many of
      the articles were written by people with strong academic credentials.
      For example, in the area of foreign policy Robert W. Tucker and Walter
      Laqueur appeared in these journals as critics of liberal foreign
      policy.74 Their work updated the anticommunist tradition of the "vital
      center" by taking account of Western weakness apparent in the New
      Politics liberalism of the Democratic Party and the American left, as
      well as the anti-Western posturing of the third world.75

      This "vital center" intellectual framework typified key
      neoconservatives at the origin of the movement in the late 1960s,
      including the two most pivotal figures, Irving Kristol and Norman
      Podhoretz. In the area of foreign policy, a primary concern of Jewish
      neoconservatives from the 1960s–1980s was the safety and prosperity of
      Israel, at a time when the Soviet Union was seen as hostile to Jews
      within its borders and was making alliances with Arab regimes against
      Israel.

      As they saw it, the world was gravely threatened by a totalitarian
      Soviet Union with aggressive outposts around the world and a Third
      World corrupted by vicious anti-Semitism…A major project of Moynihan,
      Kirkpatrick, and other neoconservatives in and out of government was
      the defense of Israel…. By the mid-1970s, Israel was also under fire
      from the Soviet Union and the Third World and much of the West. The
      United States was the one exception, and the
      neoconservatives—stressing that Israel was a just, democratic state
      constantly threatened by vicious and aggressive neighbors—sought to
      deepen and strengthen this support.76
      Irving Kristol is quite frank in his view that the U.S. should support
      Israel even if it is not in its national interest to do so:

      Large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of
      yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological
      interests in addition to more material concerns…. That is why we feel
      it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened.
      No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are
      necessary.77

      A watershed event in neoconservatism was the statement of November
      1975 by UN Ambassador Daniel P. Moynihan in response to the UN
      resolution equating Zionism with racism. Moynihan, whose work in the
      UN made him a neocon icon and soon a senator from New York,78 argued
      against the "discredited" notion that "there are significant
      biological differences among clearly identifiable groups, and that
      these differences establish, in effect, different levels of
      humanity."79 (In this regard Moynihan may not have been entirely
      candid, since he appears to have been much impressed by Arthur
      Jensen's research on race differences in intelligence. As an advisor
      to President Nixon on domestic affairs, one of Moynihan's jobs was to
      keep Nixon abreast of Jensen's research.80) In his UN speech,
      Moynihan ascribed the idea that Jews are a race to theorists like
      Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose motivation was to find "new
      justifications…for excluding and persecuting Jews" in an era in which
      religious ideology was losing its power to do so. Moynihan describes
      Zionism as a "National Liberation Movement," but one with no genetic
      basis: "Zionists defined themselves merely as Jews, and declared to be
      Jewish anyone born of a Jewish mother or—and this is the absolutely
      crucial fact—anyone who converted to Judaism."81 Moynihan describes
      the Zionist movement as composed of a wide range of "racial stocks"
      (quotation marks in original)—"black Jews, brown Jews, white Jews,
      Jews from the Orient and Jews from the West."

      Obviously, there is much to disagree with in these ideas. Jewish
      racial theorists, among them Zionists like Arthur Ruppin and Vladimir
      Jabotinsky (the hero of the Likud Party throughout its history), were
      in the forefront of racial theorizing about Jews from the late
      nineteenth century onwards.82 And there is a great deal of evidence
      that Jews, including most notably Orthodox and Conservative Jews and
      much of the settler movement that constitutes the vanguard of Zionism
      today, have been and continue to be vitally interested in maintaining
      their ethnic integrity.83 (Indeed, as discussed below, Elliott Abrams
      has been a prominent neoconservative voice in favor of Jews marrying
      Jews and retaining their ethnic cohesion.)

      Nevertheless, Moynihan's speech is revealing in its depiction of
      Judaism as unconcerned about its ethnic cohesion, and for its denial
      of the biological reality of race. In general, neoconservatives have
      been staunch promoters of the racial zeitgeist of post-WWII liberal
      America. Indeed, as typical Cold War liberals up to the end of the
      1960s, many of the older neocons were in the forefront of the racial
      revolution in the United States. It is also noteworthy that Moynihan's
      UN speech is typical of the large apologetic literature by Jewish
      activists and intellectuals in response to the "Zionism is racism"
      resolution, of which The Myth of the Jewish Race by Raphael Patai and
      Jennifer Patai is perhaps the best-known example.84

      The flagship neoconservative magazine Commentary, under the editorship
      of Norman Podhoretz, has published many articles defending Israel.
      Ruth Wisse's 1981 Commentary article "The Delegitimation of Israel" is
      described by Mark Gerson as "perhaps the best _expression" of the
      neoconservative view that Israel "was a just, democratic state
      constantly threatened by vicious and aggressive neighbors."85 Wisse
      views hostility toward Israel as another example of the long history
      of anti-Jewish rhetoric that seeks to delegitimize Judaism.86 This
      tradition is said to have begun with the Christian beliefs that Jews
      ought to be relegated to an inferior position because they had
      rejected Christ. This tradition culminated in twentieth century Europe
      in hatred directed at secular Jews because of their failure to
      assimilate completely to European culture. The result was the
      Holocaust, which was "from the standpoint of its perpetrators and
      collaborators successful beyond belief."87 Israel, then, is an attempt
      at normalization in which Jews would be just another country fending
      for itself and seeking stability; it "should [also] have been the end
      of anti-Semitism, and the Jews may in any case be pardoned for feeling
      that they had earned a moment of rest in history."88 But the Arab
      countries never accepted the legitimacy of Israel, not only with their
      wars against the Jewish state, but also by the "Zionism as racism" UN
      resolution, which "institutionalized anti-Semitism in international
      politics."89 Wisse criticizes New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis
      for criticizing Israeli policies while failing to similarly criticize
      Arab states that fail to embody Western ideals of freedom of
      _expression and respect for minority rights. Wisse also faults certain
      American Jewish organizations and liberal Jews for criticizing the
      policies of the government of Menachem Begin.90

      The article stands out for its cartoonish view that the history of
      anti-Jewish attitudes can be explained with broad generalizations
      according to which the behavior and attitudes of Jews are completely
      irrelevant for understanding the history of anti-Semitism. The message
      of the article is that Jews as innocent victims of the irrational
      hatred of Europeans have a claim for "a respite" from history that
      Arabs are bound to honor by allowing the dispossession of the
      Palestinians. The article is also a testimony to the sea change among
      American Jews in their support for the Likud Party and its
      expansionist policies in Israel. Since Wisse's article appeared in
      1981, the positive attitudes toward the Likud Party characteristic of
      the neoconservatives have become the mainstream view of the organized
      American Jewish community, and the liberal Jewish critics attacked by
      Wisse have been relegated to the fringe of the American Jewish
      community.91

      In the area of domestic policy, Jewish neoconservatives were motivated
      by concerns that the radicalism of the New Left (many of whom were
      Jews) compromised Jewish interests as a highly intelligent, upwardly
      mobile group. Although Jews were major allies of blacks in the civil
      rights movement, by the late 1960s many Jews bitterly opposed black
      efforts at community control of schools in New York, because they
      threatened Jewish hegemony in the educational system, including the
      teachers' union.92 Black-Jewish interests also diverged when
      affirmative action and quotas for black college admission became a
      divisive issue in the 1970s.93 It was not only neoconservatives who
      worried about affirmative action: The main Jewish activist groups—the
      AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL—sided with Bakke in a
      landmark case on racial quota systems in the University of
      California–Davis medical school, thereby promoting their own interests
      as a highly intelligent minority living in a meritocracy.94

      Indeed, some neoconservatives, despite their record of youthful
      radicalism and support for the civil rights movement, began to see
      Jewish interests as bound up with those of the middle class. As Nathan
      Glazer noted in 1969, commenting on black anti-Semitism and the
      murderous urges of the New Left toward the middle class:

      Anti-Semitism is only part of this whole syndrome, for if the members
      of the middle class do not deserve to hold on to their property, their
      positions, or even their lives, then certainly the Jews, the most
      middle-class of all, are going to be placed at the head of the column
      marked for liquidation.95
      The New Left also tended to have negative attitudes toward Israel,
      with the result that many Jewish radicals eventually abandoned the
      left. In the late 1960s, the black Student Non-Violent Coordinating
      Committee described Zionism as "racist colonialism"96 which massacred
      and oppressed Arabs. In Jewish eyes, a great many black leaders,
      including Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Touré), Jesse Jackson, Louis
      Farrakhan, and Andrew Young, were seen as entirely too
      pro-Palestinian. (Young lost his position as UN ambassador because he
      engaged in secret negotiations with the Palestinians.) During the
      1960s, expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians by radical
      blacks, some of whom had adopted the Muslim religion, became a focus
      of neoconservative ire and resulted in many Jewish New Leftists
      leaving the movement.97 Besides radical blacks, other New Left
      figures, such as I. F. Stone and Noam Chomsky (both Jews), also
      criticized Israel and were perceived by neocons as taking a pro-Soviet
      line.98 The origins of neoconservatism as a Jewish movement are thus
      linked to the fact that the left, including the Soviet Union and
      leftist radicals in the United States, had become anti-Zionist.

      In 1970 Podhoretz transformed Commentary into a weapon against the New
      Left.99 In December of that year National Review began, warily at
      first, to welcome neocons into the conservative tent, stating in 1971,
      "We will be delighted when the new realism manifested in these
      articles is applied by Commentary to the full range of national and
      international issues."100 Irving Kristol supported Nixon in 1972 and
      became a Republican about ten years before most neocons made the
      switch. Nevertheless, even in the 1990s the neocons "continued to be
      distinct from traditional Midwestern and southern conservatives for
      their northeastern roots, combative style, and secularism"101—all ways
      of saying that neoconservatism retained its fundamentally Jewish milieu.

      The fault lines between neoconservatives and paleoconservatives were
      apparent during the Reagan administration in the battle over the
      appointment of the head of the National Endowment for the Humanities,
      eventually won by the neoconservative Bill Bennett. The campaign
      featured smear tactics and innuendo aimed at M. E. Bradford, an
      academic literary critic and defender of Southern agrarian culture who
      was favored by traditional conservatives. After neocons accused him of
      being a "virulent racist" and an admirer of Hitler, Bradford was
      eventually rejected as a potential liability to the administration.102

      The entry of the neoconservatives into the conservative mainstream did
      not, therefore, proceed without a struggle. Samuel Francis witnessed
      much of the early infighting among conservatives, won eventually by
      the neocons. Francis recounts the "catalog of neoconservative efforts
      not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional
      conservatism but to denounce, vilify, and harm the careers of those
      Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted."103

      There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in
      entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting
      traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy
      of such institutions in neoconservative directions…. Writers like M.
      E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and
      institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia
      Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the
      most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The
      dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the
      movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and
      dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear
      evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism
      to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original
      purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes…. What
      neoconservatives really dislike about their "allies" among traditional
      conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are
      conservatives at all—that they support "this notion of a Christian
      civilization," as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass
      immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the
      racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or
      approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong
      disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that
      they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign
      entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the
      United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the
      belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.104
      Most notably, neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of
      arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the
      twentieth century—massive non-European immigration. Support for
      massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political
      spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present. A principal
      motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such
      immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and
      culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965—"this
      notion of a Christian civilization."105 As neoconservative Ben
      Wattenberg has famously written, "The non-Europeanization of America
      is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality."106 The only
      exception—thus far without any influence—is that since 9/11 some
      Jewish activists, including neoconservative Daniel Pipes, head of the
      MEF, and Stephen Steinlight, senior fellow of the American Jewish
      Committee, have opposed Muslim—and only Muslim—immigration because of
      possible effects on pro-Israel sentiment in the U.S.107

      In general, neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish
      interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other
      identifiable interest. It is revealing that as the war in Iraq has
      become an expensive quagmire in both lives and money, Bill Kristol has
      become willing to abandon the neoconservatives' alliance with
      traditional conservatives by allying with John Kerry and the
      Democratic Party. This is because Kerry has promised to increase troop
      strength and retain the commitment to Iraq, and because Kerry has
      declared that he has "a 100 percent record—not a 99, a 100 percent
      record—of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we
      have with Israel."108 As Pat Buchanan notes, the fact that John Kerry
      "backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual
      unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the
      left of Teddy Kennedy" is less important than his stand on the
      fundamental issue of a foreign policy that is in the interest of
      Israel.109

      The Fall of Henry Jackson and the Rise
      of Neoconservatism in the Republican Party
      The neoconservative takeover of the Republican Party and of American
      conservatism in general would have been unnecessary had not the
      Democratic Party shifted markedly to the left in the late 1960s. Henry
      Jackson is the pivotal figure in the defection of the neocons from the
      Democratic Party to the Republican Party—the person whose political
      fortunes most determined the later trajectory of neoconservatism.
      Jackson embodied the political attitudes and ambitions of a Jewish
      political network that saw Jewish interests as combining traditionally
      liberal social policies of the civil rights and Great Society era (but
      stopping short of advocating quota-type affirmative action policies or
      minority ethnic nationalism) with a Cold War posture that was at once
      aggressively pro-Israel and anticommunist at a time when the Soviet
      Union was perceived as the most powerful enemy of Israel. This "Cold
      War liberal" faction was dominant in the Democratic Party unt<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.