Jews Join Hands with Republicans

No Evangelicals Allowed

It'll take a few more months until the fallout from Martin Peretz's sale of two-thirds of his New Republic?to conservative Roger Hertog and liberal Michael Steinhardt (also investors in The New York Sun)?is felt at the D.C.-based weekly. Which means editor Peter Beinart, who after a shaky start has overseen a quite readable magazine, including a schizophrenic mix of pure left-wing dogma with pieces that are reminiscent of former chief Michael Kelly's brief anti-Clinton/Gore tenure under Peretz, must lie awake at night.

After slogging through Beinart's jaw-dropping May 20 "TRB" column, however, I say the guy deserves an extended bout of insomnia.

With the exception of any number of anti-Israeli articles published in Europe (sicko Robert Fisk, a correspondent for London's Independent, comes to mind), I haven't read such a vile, bigoted take on the Mideast crisis as Beinart's in several months. He begins the column, ruefully, by quoting a friend's letter expressing the common sentiment that a sizable number of American Jews are, perhaps temporarily, switching allegiance to the Republican Party. Beinart's buddy said: "I think we are seeing the beginning of a great shift in Jewish politics?at the very least, I think we'll see a new respect for men like Tom DeLay and Dick Armey and President Bush."

That prospect bothers Beinart, who writes: "Today culture-war issues like school prayer and abortion are dwarfed by the threat to Israel. In such an environment, even many liberal Jews are willing to join forces with ardently Zionist evangelicals." Apparently, the overwhelming number of Christian conservatives who support Israel?so vehemently that they berate George W. Bush for not giving Ariel Sharon a no-questions-asked green light in his justified battle against mass-murderer Yasir Arafat?are ignorant crackers who are for now a necessary evil.

The sign that hangs on Beinart's treehouse reads "Restricted."

He continues: "American Jews should shun the Christian Right because Zionism is not only a national tradition; it's also a moral one. And Christian conservatives like Armey and [former spokeswoman for the Family Research Council Janet] Parshall don't merely misunderstand that moral tradition; they disfigure it beyond recognition."

Beinart's reasoning: Armey, appearing on Chris Matthews' strange-and-getting-stranger Hardball, advocated a Palestinian state in another Arab nation.

Which led to a lecture from TNR's editor: "Among mainstream Israeli and American Jewish leaders, such views are considered monstrous. The overwhelming majority of Israeli politicians and intellectuals oppose deporting the Palestinians because they speak in the shadow of the Holocaust... Christian conservatives dress up their support for Israel in the language of anti-terrorism and democracy. But they pay scant attention to the fight against terrorism in biblically insignificant countries like Sri Lanka, India and the Philippines... And it raises a question that Jewish allies of the Christian Right should ponder: What will people like Armey and Parshall do when Israel takes actions?such as leaving much of the West Bank?that undermine the biblical justification for its existence? Ultimately, if you don't love Israel for what it is, you can't be trusted to love it at all."

I'm not a Jew or an evangelical Christian, but it hardly takes a theologian to translate Beinart's hate-filled message. As a committed Democrat who's appalled at the prospect that Bush might double his Jewish support in the 2004 presidential election (from 19-40 percent), Beinart is looking beyond the current turmoil to crass politics. Never mind that the steadfast support for Israel in the United States affirms our citizens' reverence for democracy, in stark contrast to the rampant anti-Semitism in Europe.

Fortunately, bigots like Beinart are in the minority. Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, for example, a persistent critic of what he considers Bush's semi-appeasement of Arab nations, told The Washington Times' Bill Sammon: "Bush has been a little wobbly in terms of sticking to the Bush doctrine and not being quite tough enough on Arafat, but on the other hand, he's been better than the Democrats. For all the people like me, who have been somewhat critical of him on the Middle East, there are no Democrats running to his right. So Bush certainly holds all the conservatives and picks up some Jewish votes."

And Daily News owner Mort Zuckerman, a former (and perhaps future) dinner companion of Bill Clinton, added: "The Republicans have become just as intense and strong in their support of Israel, if not more so, than the Democrats. It's really quite a remarkable change, and quite broad."

Even Frank Rich, the thought-challenged New York Times columnist, while sharing some of Beinart's paranoia about the Christian right, was more evenhanded on the subject. His May 11 essay?serious enough that it didn't contain even one Broadway or Hollywood analogy?at least said he was "grateful" for the "ardent and sincere" defense of Israel from evangelicals. And, incredibly enough, Rich doesn't differentiate between Democrats and Republicans.

He writes: "Our press is not being muzzled, of course, but the dictates of what constitutes politically correct conversation about the Middle East are being tightened to the point that American leaders of all stripes increasingly seem to be in a contest to see who can pander most to American Jews." Like Beinart, Rich questions Armey's motives. But also: "Among liberal Democrats there is John Edwards, the presidential candidate, who on 'Meet the Press' last Sunday seemed so fearful of losing a single Jewish vote or contributor [emphasis mine] that he answered straightforward questions about the Middle East with self-contradictory gobbledygook."

As for Israeli politicians, Benjamin Netanyahu, who, after orchestrating a resolution on May 12 never to allow a Palestinian state, appears close to replacing Sharon as Prime Minister, praises Bush as the U.S.'s most pro-Israel president. In a May 13 Weekly Standard article, Fred Barnes, while acknowledging that the President's current popularity with Jewish voters is "fragile," and in any case isn't likely to affect the 2004 election save Florida (I'd add New Jersey as well), nevertheless includes comments from Jews who, unlike Beinart, aren't spooked by Christian support for Israel. Pollster Frank Luntz told Barnes: "This is the first time in my lifetime that it's okay to be a Republican in the synagogue." And Richard D. Heideman, head of B'nai B'rith International, told The Washington Post's Thomas Edsall that while he's always been a Democrat he expects to vote for Bush two years from now.

Finally, if you feel grubby after reading Beinart's demagoguery, take a look at David Gelernter's fine article "Why Americans stand with Israel" in the current Weekly Standard. He writes: "Today it is no accident that America and Israel tend to understand each other?even to empathize with one another?not invariably, but on the whole. To see why, you don't have be Bishop [Desmond] Tutu or some eminent Frenchman resurrecting tired but ever-popular Nazi theories about the satanically persuasive Jew. There is an easier explanation. The founding settlers of America and of modern Israel were offered victimhood on easy terms, and turned it down cold. They chose to create new nations out of nothing instead."

Worth the Headache

Almost every New York resident has experienced the outrageous behavior of film crews in their neighborhoods or apartment buildings. It's the same drill: When dawn comes, a battalion of 50-100 people commandeer a block-long sidewalk, drinking coffee and eating pastries before their arduous day begins. God forbid a commoner intrudes upon the creation of art?like an episode of Law & Order?and walks through the mass of idling gofers to mail a letter or pick up a newspaper at the bodega. "Use the other side of the street," some pimply kid will inevitably admonish the offender, to which the only response is an aggressive flipping of the bird, perhaps complemented by a salty, "I live here, asshole."

Now, take that frequent annoyance, magnify it by a factor of 100, and you'll have an idea of the havoc the Tribeca Film Festival wrought in this generally quiet neighborhood last week. One specific incident stands out in my mind: I was having a cup of coffee on Reade St. one afternoon, transfixed by the majestic view of the Woolworth Bldg., when a middle-aged Hollywood agent/actor/director/nobody was pacing back and forth, talking loudly to a cellphone attached to his belt. "Look, I don't care if it is Cannes," the blubbermouth yelled to some underling, "they'll have to play by our rules." Every 90 seconds or so, he'd glance at the passersby to make sure they were aware of his conversation.

That said, despite the rudeness of the festival's hired hands, and the traffic congestion, the five-day event was a tonic to the area, drawing visitors from other parts of the city who probably thought Tribeca, in the wake of Sept. 11, was a desolate war-zone not unlike Harlem in the 1970s. In fact, life in this vibrant neighborhood is almost back to normal, but the influx of star-seekers was a welcome bonanza for local restaurants, shops and boutiques. Robert De Niro is vilified by some snooty Tribecans for his entrepreneurial influence here, but he and partner Jane Rosenthal deserve enormous gratitude for not only staging the film festival but doing so at such a swift pace.

I've long lost any interest in the ubiquitous street fairs that take place in the city from April till October, and truth be told, the carnival on Greenwich St. last Saturday was grating as well. It seemed like every other person wore an I.D. badge around their neck like it was a priceless pearl necklace, and the sheer mass of tourists provoked instant claustrophobia. So our family, after buying two inflatable Spider-Men and some chow, hightailed it back to the apartment.

Nevertheless, it was terrific to see the packed restaurants?many of which donated food to the Ground Zero workers last fall?and small businesses like St. Mark's Comics and Balloon Saloon with long lines at their booths. And our boys were delighted to watch the premiere of Hey Arnold! The Movie later that afternoon, bringing home a party bag that included a football, can of chalk and a few pieces of candy.

Typically, a May 3 New York Times festival preview was hard to stomach. I don't mean to be a grinch, since the piece undoubtedly enticed thousands to the neighborhood, but I know many Times reporters live in Tribeca?I see them at Downtown Little League games?so why assign an alien to the story?

Jesse McKinley, writing as if it were an article for Time Out New York, must be from Pluto or the Upper West Side, so trite was his take on downtown.

One choice excerpt: "In anticipation of the film festival, I recently embarked on a weeklong survey of Lower Manhattan, taking in the pleasures of $30 entrees as well as the simpler joys of sunset at the tip of Manhattan. Along the way, I also engaged in one of the age-old parlor games of TriBeCa natives and visitors, and one likely to be all the rage during next week's festival: Searching for Bobby DeNiro. It was a journey that would take me from one swank lounge to another. There were also some nice restaurants and a few attractive people dancing. And of course those carafes of cocktails. It was hard work, but somebody had to do it."

Blast Away!

Let's face facts: Internet spam, in addition to campaign advertisements by both liberal and conservative advocacy organizations, should be protected by the First Amendment. That's not the view of Adam Cohen, who wrote an article for the Times on May 12, titled "The Constitution Does Not Protect Spamming." The author's troubled by the admittedly annoying proliferation of worthless e-mails he receives every day.

Cohen's camouflage is an April five-to-four Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of pharmacies to advertise products that may or may not be helpful to consumers. Echoing the dissent of Justice Stephen Breyer, Cohen not incorrectly pointed out that some medication that's marketed on the Internet and tv could potentially cause serious side effects, infection or even death.

A staple of the cable political shows I watch is the ads for various drugs that, after gooey scenes of happy couples praising a product, spend 10 seconds describing numerous reasons why the drug might be dangerous for prospective patients with any number of pre-existing ailments. Frankly, you'd think the pitch would scare people off, but I don't pretend to understand the strategy of mega-bucks advertising.

Cohen writes: "Lately, however, corporations and their supporters, on the Supreme Court and off, have taken to calling the commercial speech doctrine [of the First Amendment] a 'contrived distinction,' and they have been urging that advertising be accorded the same protection as political speech. [A hopeful sign, perhaps, that certain segments of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation will be struck down.] At the same time, judges sympathetic to that point of view have been applying the current test in an increasingly aggressive manner to strike down worthy government regulations. Last month, for example, a court struck down a federal law banning junk faxes and affirmed the right of a company called American Blast Fax to continue to blast away.

"If other courts push corporate free speech to this illogical limit, laws against spam e-mail may suffer the same fate, as judges elevate the right to send e-mail ads for get-rich-schemes and Internet pornography sites to a constitutional imperative."

As far as I'm concerned, it's just as easy to press the delete button on your computer as it is, say, to click the remote away from Peter Jennings' ABC World News Tonight. One person's spam is another's caviar: I delete all the come-ons for sex with goats, noxious propaganda from left-wing websites and lower-your-mortgage messages. But make them illegal? I don't think so.

Besides, some e-mail is extraordinarily entertaining.

Consider this current plea from The Nation: "Looking for a good graduation gift?

"Why not acknowledge the achievements of a new graduate with a gift of The Nation? America's oldest weekly magazine provides the perspective a graduating senior needs to understand and navigate an increasingly complicated world. It's a great gift for those graduates in your life interested in politics, culture or the arts. And, if they're not currently engaged with the critical issues of the day, then they really need The Nation!"

Yes, indeed. Why not exacerbate a student's sub-literacy with a publication that reduces "critical issues" to slogans like "Bush stole the election!," "Sharon is a war criminal!," "Seals are people too!," and "Tom DeLay has three heads!"?

My favorite part of Nation president Teresa Stack's hat-in-hand message is the following. "And, as you know, The Nation can't rely on the corporate advertising largesse and glitzy distribution displays that sustain most mainstream publications. For us, subscriptions are our lifeblood. So purchasing a gift sub is also a meaningful way of showing support for The Nation and the independent brand of journalism that we practice."

True, when perusing a newsstand (where almost all magazines are suffering a decline of single-copy sales) I get dizzy by the "glitzy" displays for publications like Commentary, The New Criterion and Chronicles. The Nation isn't alone in browbeating its subscribers for donations?The National Review also puts out the tin cup?but that doesn't excuse its wealthy owners, with their access to leftist multi-millionaires who share the magazine's peculiar politics, from soliciting small donations from middle-class readers when just one grant from Barbra Streisand or David Geffen would keep the weekly in the black for years to come.

But I never miss an issue of The Nation. If any further evidence is needed that the single most important issue to the Democratic base is abortion, take a peek at Katha Pollitt's May 27 column.

This time around, dark-cloud Pollitt spanks Rep. Dennis Kucinich. She writes: "As chairman of the fifty-nine-member Congressional Progressive Caucus and potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination [sure, along with Alger Hiss, I.F. Stone and Adlai Stevenson], Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has been quite visible lately. At a time when few Democrats are daring to question the war aims of the Bush Administration?or even to ask what they are?Kucinich has spoken eloquently against the Patriot Act, the ongoing military buildup and the vague and apparently horizonless 'war on terrorism.' From tax cuts for the rich and the death penalty (against) to national health insurance and the environment (for), Kucinich has the right liberal positions. Michael Moore, who likes to rib progressives for favoring white wine and brie over hot dogs and beer, would surely approve of Kucinich's man-of-the-people persona?he's actually a New Age-ish vegan, but his website has a page devoted to 'Polka, Bowling and Kielbasa.'"

Rep. Cynthia McKinney might be the only person alive who can decipher Pollitt's writing, but be that as it may, this Nation columnist is a perfect example of why the left-wing hotdog eaters can't get it together.

Kucinich, it turns out, is pro-life.

And so Pollitt concludes, still on this daffy riff that Kucinich has even a prayer of winning the Democratic presidential nomination, that the Congressman must walk the plank.

She writes: "That a solidly anti-choice politician could become a standard-bearer for progressivism, the subject of hagiographic profiles in The Nation and elsewhere, speaks volumes about the low priority of women's rights to the self-described economic left, forever chasing the white male working-class vote. Supporting an anti-choice Congressman may have seemed pragmatic; trying to make him President would be political suicide. Pregnant prisoners may not vote, but millions of pro-choice women do."

Let me try to understand: When given the (obviously implausible) choice between two pro-life candidates, President Bush and Kucinich, Pollitt actually believes that women will stay home on Election Day in 2004? That women are interested in just one issue, even though Kucinich passes the litmus test on almost everything else The Nation?and let's not forget Michael Moore?endorses? And, from reading everyone from Noam Chomsky to Barbara Ehrenreich to Molly Ivins, I thought it was only Republicans who thought of women as politically-naive citizens?

Leave it to The New York Times' editorial page to ruminate on the meaning of Mother's Day. Not that the paper is against the popular Hallmark holiday; in fact, its May 12 edit not only endorses a big wet one for Mom, but doesn't even work in a line about the cruelty of President Bush's timid tax cut of 2001.

But the writer's struggle for a profound statement escapes me, as he or she concludes: "You have to wonder what the women who gave birth to us make of us all, so worldly, so serious, so far down the road from the children we once were. They receive our cards, our calls, our flowers and kisses, they thank us for thanking them on this day, and then they watch us march off into the coming week, full of the separateness of our busy lives."

This is an example of Times elitism, albeit on a rather benign topic. Not everyone is "worldly," "serious" or "busy," at least not to the degree of an important journalist. Some Americans, even in Manhattan (such as the Sulzberger family), reside in close proximity to their parents, and integrate them in their lives.

The May holiday was my own mother's favorite day of the year, and she delighted in receiving modest gifts from her five sons, usually a bouquet of daffodils from our rocky garden and a box of candy. Mrs. M is of a similar mind, and was speechless when Junior and MUGGER III presented her with paintings, cartoons and poems that they labored over last Saturday night.

I'm like my father, who appreciated the recognition, but then went off to work at his car wash, just like every other Sunday of the year. Fortunately, my own financial constraints aren't as pressing as they were for Dad, but while Father's Day is also an occasion in our household?the family might make a trip to Yankee Stadium?it's not as big a deal. Fine by me: The glow in my wife's eyes on the second Sunday of May each year is a sight I wouldn't trade for the moon.

May 13

Send comments to [MUG1988@aol.com](mailto:mug1988@aol.com) or fax to 244-9864.