woolfe9998: If you voted for Lantos then you must live near me. He was my Congressman before he retired in 2008. Lantos was one of the most progressive members of Congress in spite of voting in favor of the war. I strongly disagreed with him on the war, but agreed with most of his other positions. I tend not to use single issues as a litmus test. Lantos also became a staunch critic of the war in later years. And if you look at his foreign policy positions, he was a strong supporter of human rights. On the whole, I think he was a good Congressman.
M: I met him personally and found him to have qualities I will just describe as 'impressive'. Despite that I felt that his vote for the war was too serious to overlook. I also knew that no matter how I vote, he would still win.
w: So far as why Clinton voted for the war, there are two theories. One is proposed by her biographer, Carl Bernstein, who says her work ethic failed her in this case. She didn't delve deeply enough into the voluminous intel she had access to, or she would have known that there was doubt about WMD's which the Bush admin was concealing.
M: That one I'd not heard and find not very persuasive.
w: The other theory - my theory - is that she voted for the war because it was polling well at the time and she knew her vote wasn't needed to pass it. The reason I support this theory is that it's consistent with a weakness with both of the Clinton, that they have a tendency to compromise their positions for what they perceive as political advantage. In this case, it was the worst political move of Clinton's career, almost certainly costing her the primary in 2008, and since she would have defeated McCain, the presidency as well. The whole truth might be some combination of these two theories.
M: This falls in line with what I suspect is the normal rationalization and I agree with it.. Also who I like Sanders.
w: I haven't the slightest idea why her representing the State of New York would have had anything to do with it. Do you?
M: I can't know for sure what people are thinking. I done think it's possible that people do things without themselves knowing the reasons. What I believe is that liberal Jews have a powerful influence in NY state politics and that they can make a difference in who gets elected. Cubans play a similar role in Florida. I think that's a fact one can see without a bias toward Cubans.
w: I thought it was rather jarring that you singled out these three among the hundreds voting for the war as traitors. It's an age old anti-semitic stereotype that Jews are disloyal to their home countries. Before Israel, it was an international Jewish conspiracy that they were said to be loyal to. Later, it was Israel. I think a lot of people on the left have an unhealthy obsession with Israel. Israel supported the war. There is zero evidence that anyone in our government favored the war because Israel supported it.
M: That Jews are singled out that way is actually news to me. I have, however, always seen Jews as the most inspired of observers of a culture, in part because of their minority status and over proportional representation in intellectually challenging professions. I would attribute that insight, more to a lack of bias toward their country than a bias against it.
w: While I'm unimpressed with the argument that supporting Sanders automatically makes you not anti-semitic, I'll take your word on it. I'm not going to assume you're anti-semitic based on one post. My reply was more a curiosity as to why you singled those three out. I'll accept your explanation.
M: Thanks for that. I constantly try to look at myself as best I can. I think a person can harbor racial prejudice and not be aware of it. My suspicion on Liberal Jewish money in NY state could be such a case. I have believed it was one of the reasons for her war vote. I had thought if you were honest you would agree but perhaps that also was wrong, that you can be honest and not see that as a factor.
Thanks again.
Facebook
Twitter