The AJC, MoveOn, and me

MoveOn.org recently had an open competition for the best 30-second ad, suitable for television, criticizing Bush. The intention was (and is) that the winning ad will be run. They got around 1500 submissions, which were voted on by the membership to narrow the field to 15 finalists with the winner to be chosen by a panel of judges. (The announcement will be made Monday at a press conference.)

As you may well have heard, the right wing, lead by RNC Chair Ed Gillespie, is desperately trying to discredit both the process and MoveOn as a group by exploiting the fact that two of the original group of ads compared Bush to Hitler. Joining the chorus of denunciation were three leading Jewish organizations: the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Congress.

Around the same time as this was happening, the New York Post ran an amazingly scummy column about Howard Dean by a former intelligence officer named Ralph Peters. (A link to the column is below.) Among other calumnies, it referred to "Howard the Coward" and his "Internet Gestapo" and "brownshirts." Progressives began to prod the three groups as to why they were not as vociferous in assailing the Post as they were MoveOn. The Wiesenthal Center and the ADL responded promptly but the AJC was slower to react.

At the suggestion of Counterspin, I (and undoubtedly others) wrote to the AJC, leading to the following exchange, posted in full.

--

January 9
American Jewish Congress (via email)

Your denunciation of MoveOn.org's supposed Bush-to-Hitler ad was a striking example of either appalling ignorance (if you didn't know the facts) or shameless demagoguery (if you did).

MoveOn.org did not create, did not sponsor, did not promote, did not approve, and will not show the ad in question. It was, as you yourselves admit, submitted as part of a contest. It was one of roughly 1500 such ads and it slipped through an initial screening during which, as MoveOn.org staff have admitted, they were focused on legal issues and paid little attention to content.

When the group's supporters voted on the ads, the Hitler one sank quickly to the bottom - so not only did MoveOn.org not support the ad, neither did its members. To in any way imply otherwise is a disgrace and a distortion in the pursuit of cheap political points against an organization you actually oppose for its politics, not for any ad.

Have you expressed anger over the now-infamous New York Post op-ed by Ralph Peters? (Here's the link, so there's no excuse: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/4965.htm)

Did you issue furious statements when Bill Clinton was compared to Hitler? (If you claim he wasn't, a websearch on "Clinton AND Hitler" will quickly prove you wrong.)

Or is your outrage as selective as it appears?

Pending an answer, I look forward to your passionate denunciation of the "source close to Ariel Sharon" who said of proposals by Likud activists "This is exactly how the Nazis came to power in Germany." (Ha'aretz, January 6)

--

January 9, 2004
Dear,

Thanks for your note.

1. We have sent the following letter to the New York Post denouncing the Peter's column.

January 8, 2004
To the Editor:

I am writing to share an objection to Ralph Peters' January 5 column, "Howard the Coward." Mr. Peters' characterization of Howard Dean and his allies as enemies of freedom crosses an important line essential to the proper functioning of our democratic life.

As we spoke out against MoveOn.org for allowing ads that compared President Bush and Hitler to compete in a web contest, so too we must oppose any attempt to paint Gov. Dean as a closet totalitarian. Mr. Peter's argues that, "no public figure embodies the left's contempt for basic freedoms more perfectly than Howard Dean." He describes the Democratic frontrunner's political camp as being filled with "teacup Trotskys," and Dean's "Internet Gestapo," employing "the techniques employed by Hitler's Brownshirts."

Using the Holocaust as a cheap political prop is reprehensible and diminishes the reality of a horrific crime. For either major political stream in this country to portray the other in Nazi terms is unacceptable. The New York Post owes its readers an apology for running such an intemperate column.

Jack Rosen, President
American Jewish Congress

2. The remark form within the Likud has nothing to do with this. Arguing that criminal elements and extremists are conspiring within the mainstream conservative movement to essentially seize power in a putsch is either fair or not, depending on one's view of Feiglin and Misha Alperin etc. Calling Bush a Hitler would be analogous to other stupid things Israeli politicians say as when the hard right denounces the dovish left as "traitors" and worse and when the dovish left denounces the right as "fascists."

3. The fact is that MoveOn contest judges Michael Moore and Jeanine Garafallo (did I spell that correctly?) have referred to the patriot act (a complex bill about which honest people can disagree) as "Mein Kampf" and as emanating from the "43rd reich." Cheap references to Bush as Hitler flood the rhetoric of the anti-Bush left. There are no doubt many valid arguments against the Bush presidency - but his being like Hitler is self evidently not one of them. Moreover, such talk poses a danger to American democracy.

Sincerely,
David Twersky
American Jewish Congress

--

Mr. Twersky:

Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply to my somewhat intemperate letter. I have a few comments, the first being that nowhere did you dispute my contention that, contrary to the clear meaning of AJC's original statement, it was wrong to make MoveOn.org or its members responsible for the Bush-to-Hitler ad. Beyond that, let me say this:

We have sent the following letter to the New York Post denouncing the Peter's column.

I am gratified that you did so. I would have been a little more gratified if the AJC hadn't found it necessary to again bring in MoveOn.org, which hardly seemed necessary to the issue of Peters' column, and without noting that "allowing ads...to compete" is a rather significant softening of your previous statements. Be that as it may, it was good to see the consistency, something all too often lacking in political debate.

The remark form within the Likud has nothing to do with this.

Of course it does, since the issue is claiming that "comparing [fill in the blank] with Hitler or the Nazis cheapens the Holocaust." That's especially true here, which wasn't a case of "criminal elements ... conspiring ... to essentially seize power in a putsch" but of "proposals made by Likud convention activists for changes to the party constitution," as Ha'aretz described it.

Calling Bush a Hitler would be analogous to other stupid things Israeli politicians say as when the hard right denounces the dovish left as "traitors" and worse and when the dovish left denounces the right as "fascists."

I'm not sure that "fascist" is necessarily a worse epithet than "traitor," but that may be simply a matter of perspective. Even so, is "calling Bush a Hitler" merely "stupid?" The words of the AJC statement seemed a good deal stronger than that.

The fact is that MoveOn contest judges Michael Moore and Jeanine Garafallo ... have referred to the patriot act ... as "Mein Kampf" and as emanating from the "43rd reich." Cheap references to Bush as Hitler flood the rhetoric of the anti-Bush left.

First off, no they don't - which is why those who wish to condemn the left have had to work so hard to find single phrases taken out of context in the attempt to show otherwise. Recall that in the very situation that raised this - MoveOn.org's ad competition - the comparison arose in only two out of roughly 1500 submissions and those two were roundly rejected by the group's membership. That hardly seems a flood or even a trickle.

Of the two quotes you cite, I only know the context of one, that by Michael Moore, so I'll only comment on that one. He specifically said that his idea was that Mein Kampf could have functioned as sort of early-warning system, an alert as to what could follow, only people didn't pay attention. The Patriot Act, he argued, was the same: an indication of what may follow if we don't pay attention. Since it has already been expanded to allow the FBI to obtain almost any financial records it wants on almost any individual, without the need for even suspicion the person is involved in anything illegal (and it's a crime for the business which surrendered the information to let the person targeted know it happened), there is indeed reason to be concerned. You may consider the equation overdrawn but that does not make it per se invalid.

Moreover, such talk poses a danger to American democracy.

Democracy is not endangered by speech. It is endangered by silence.

Thank you again for your quick response and your letter regarding the Peters column.

[Embedded links were not in my letter; they are for reference for the folks here.]