I am familiar with the author's name, but this may be the first of his works that I've read. And a single statement put me off consideration of him as a serious political analyst:
"The trend on the majority of contentious issues is towards polarization, with Republican administrations and politicians moving right on most things and Democrats going in the opposite direction."
Considering Rs, with the possible exception of abortion (the Rs remaining in the position they have always occupied on the matter), the issues in which they have NOT moved leftward are few and far between. Rs have, arguably, surrendered ground on nearly every major issue. The only reason Rs and Ds have drifted further apart is because the Ds have moved leftward at a far higher rate than the Rs.
This conceit that Rs and Ds are mutually moving apart is a fabrication to maintain the idea that both are responsible for making our divisions worse.
Considering a bellwether issue as a single example, if one listens to Bill Clinton's second inaugural address where he talks of immigration and border security, he sounds like Trump. Even if insincere, Clinton understood where mainstream America was on the issue, and was giving lip service to that extensive constituency. Since then, Rs have done little to oppose the Ds' purposeful erosion of our borders and immigration enforcement (their inaction not being indicative of "moving to the right"). When someone (like Trump) suggests we actually enforce our laws, he's labeled an "extremist," because naturally a suggestion that laws be enforced looks extreme compared to a policy that refuses to do so. This is commonly cited as an example "how conservatives and liberals are tearing the country apart", but the country can be torn apart by one side pulling against the middle, and the other side just standing firm. Although this is not exactly what is happening (Rs are slowly sliding leftward) the speed at which Ds are moving leftward is doing the tearing. It might be argued that both sides are doing the tearing because, although moving in the same direction, they aren't moving at the same speed. But even this view would debunk the idea that "Republicans have become more conservative."
The author's sort of analysis may fly with Millennials (having limited perspective), but us Boomers have been around long enough to know that it's simply untrue. We know that Rs are LESS conservative than they were 40 or 50 years ago. And even the "extremism" of MAGA* generally insists on nothing more than enforcement of existing laws, lower taxes, and energy independence. There is probably nothing in the MAGA platform that represents anything more conservative than the policies of Ds in the 1960s.
Another possible example of "rightward movement" among conservatives (if that's what MAGA is), is non-interventionism, usually called "isolationism" in order to make it appear more extreme. But being anti-war had been for decades a D position, so non-interventionism is not strictly "more conservative," even if more aligned with early American political thought.
*I'm referencing MAGA because the movement's critics and the media often cite its "extreme right-wing views." Obviously, I believe this characterization is inaccurate, but still MAGA's agenda serves as an example of what is commonly blamed for "moving the country to the right", when "returning to the right" is more accurate, but still a "right" less conservative than it was a few decades ago.
You took pains to avoid heretical statements by noting that Jews aren't "working together" to exercise power; said power is merely the mathematical outcome of their intelligence and political involvement.
Except they do work together, through an entire universe of explicitly pro-Jewish groups - which in recent years have drifted off-mission.
My guess? Hopes for a right-wing awakening are bunkum. Jewish billionaires will launch a speech crackdown on the one hand, and on the other they'll refocus Leftist hatred on (gentile) white men while trying to carve out an exception for Jews.
More salient IMO for the future of America's elites is how the relationship evolves between Jews and Indians.
American Jews are an anomaly. French Jews have been right wing for 30 years and overwhelmingly for 20. UK Jews also vote conservative. Israelis are right wing. Russian Jews are right wing. Only American Jews are so left wing.
Ackman is also a positive case study for many other rich and influential people - Jewish and gentile - that are having a conservative political awakening. It does not appear that that he will be shunned by elite and polite society for calling a black woman an incompetent diversity hire that should be fired.
Has anybody so aggressively done so before him and kept their reputation in tact? This creates a new confidence and paradigm that you can fight back against wokeness on honest terms.
The same elites who have been actively funding institutional anti white hatred and the demographic replacement of Europeans in all of our homelands, will now be focusing SOME of their attention on funding more Dennis Prager videos in my YouTube algorithm. Yay! I love jews now! Conservatives FTW 😎
Great piece that lots on the dissident right don’t want to hear. But as to whether “more Jews” is good for the right, there’s a critical factor that can’t be overlooked: noticing.
If Jewish influence on the right, and Jewish influence on society, can be noticed, discussed, and called out for counter-Semitic action when necessary, then more Jews on our side is a great thing.
However, if “more Jews on the right” is just a rehash of 80s-90s neocon subversion where Jews hide behind “muh antisemitism” and do everything they can to help their own narrow interests while simultaneously stabbing the rest of the right and of whites in general in the back, censoring everyone in order to maintain a selfish grip on power-- then no, “more Jews” would be a terrible thing.
In the era of Elon however, I think it’s quite likely that “noticing” can’t be stopped, and “The Jews” can be accepted as an open and honest partner, with individual Jews rising to run things if they demonstrate integrity and good faith.
An essay only you could write, and I mean that in a good way.
You've raised an important point about the possible effect of current trends that is being overlooked, if not outright ignored. You also synthesized and crystallized certain aspects of those trends I'd noticed but not put together in this way before; it gives me the feeling of seeing a clear photograph of an event I'd only glimpsed before, or of reading a philosopher who stood smiling, waiting patiently for me, at the end of a certain road of inquiry I'd struggled and grappled with for ages.
In any case, you have your flaws, some quite grave that I wish you'd not indulge for all our sakes. Nonetheless, I have a thick skin and skull, the ability to read those I don't agree with generously and with nuance, and an allergy to reading essays which simply present my own views - I already know them, after all, and invariably analyze and write about most topics better than my fellow travelers anyway.
Alors, ultimately I read thinkers who make me think. I appreciate insights and perspectives I'd not considered before that can supplement and clarify my own thoughts on a topic. You fit that mold without a doubt.
YGLESIAS-HANANIA DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with the author on multiple issues, including many/most of those dealing with race.
You're right, there will be a migration of pro-Israel Jews into the Right which is something we saw with the IDW that was majority Jewish and their biggest motivation was Wokeness especially when it came to Israel. This at least on the surface is the logical course of action for pro-Israel Jews, but is it sustainable to align oneself with the low-status loser party (GOP) if you want to make the moral case for Israel? That's not to mention the level of doublethink and hypocrisy required to justify an identitarian state in Israel but support multicultural states in the West. That's already too much for more principled anti-woke Jews and Gentiles to get behind, especially if they're secular.
I can see Israel support will become more low-status and generally more grubby and unhinged, especially as Israel moves rightward and American Israel supporters will have to lean harder on both Christian fundamentalism, anti-Muslim bigotry and white nationalism-lite to justify continued support of the Jewish state.
If we are to assume that a large majority of the top political donors are Jewish then we cannot expect anything different from their political dealings given recent events.
It does not matter which party is dominant in congress, the Jews will always get what they want. Money talks, and it always will.
You think Israel/Gaza conflict, DEI, ESG, LGBTQ and the climate agenda was an accident? Give me a break!
You have basically pointed out that our country is not being represented in the way that the founding fathers intended and it is obvious to anyone paying attention but you're trying to convince us that all their financial & political power is a good thing for conservatives and Republicans? That is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, all of this is counteracted by Qatar billions being funneled toward universities to ensure a steady presence pro-Palestinian professors and students, and, more importantly, a lack of pro-Israel faculty.
> Aside from Jews moving right, I think we’ll see Jewish influence within the Democratic coalition blunt the impact of liberals becoming more sympathetic towards the Palestinians
I think that's the bulk of the story. Neither Ackman nor Altman have indicated they're joining the political right, they're just coming out against the anti-Israel segment of the left.
How is your hypothesis re: Jewish political involvement not perfectly compatible with MacDonald's thesis that Jewish involvement in political/radical movements is an adapted behavior? If you are a small diaspora minority you survive by being obsessed with what everyone around you is thinking. You also survive with a strong ethnocentric tendency. You are restating his thesis in a slightly different way. Maybe that's the Schtick here? To present antisemitic premises in a way that suggests you are opposing antisemitism so it gets digested more easily? Am I just saying the quiet part out loud? Let me know and I'll Delet Dis.
Richard, you also avoid the other side of the equation, which is not just the *composition* of the elite but the *output* of the elite. Wouldn't you agree that the output of the Jewish elite has been biased heavily in an anti-white and pro-Jewish direction? Do you expect closer alignment here if the Jewish elite becomes more right-wing, whereas the white right-wing ingratiating itself with Israel historically has not moderated anti-white ideology from the Jewish elite? Hasn't the damage been done already?
Neoconservatism was born when the international left started favoring the Palestinians over the Israelis. Recent events therefore would predict another round of elite Jewish opinion to move from the left, ala Irvine Kristol, etc. in first move. See his op-ed in WSJ back in the day.
I am familiar with the author's name, but this may be the first of his works that I've read. And a single statement put me off consideration of him as a serious political analyst:
"The trend on the majority of contentious issues is towards polarization, with Republican administrations and politicians moving right on most things and Democrats going in the opposite direction."
Considering Rs, with the possible exception of abortion (the Rs remaining in the position they have always occupied on the matter), the issues in which they have NOT moved leftward are few and far between. Rs have, arguably, surrendered ground on nearly every major issue. The only reason Rs and Ds have drifted further apart is because the Ds have moved leftward at a far higher rate than the Rs.
This conceit that Rs and Ds are mutually moving apart is a fabrication to maintain the idea that both are responsible for making our divisions worse.
Considering a bellwether issue as a single example, if one listens to Bill Clinton's second inaugural address where he talks of immigration and border security, he sounds like Trump. Even if insincere, Clinton understood where mainstream America was on the issue, and was giving lip service to that extensive constituency. Since then, Rs have done little to oppose the Ds' purposeful erosion of our borders and immigration enforcement (their inaction not being indicative of "moving to the right"). When someone (like Trump) suggests we actually enforce our laws, he's labeled an "extremist," because naturally a suggestion that laws be enforced looks extreme compared to a policy that refuses to do so. This is commonly cited as an example "how conservatives and liberals are tearing the country apart", but the country can be torn apart by one side pulling against the middle, and the other side just standing firm. Although this is not exactly what is happening (Rs are slowly sliding leftward) the speed at which Ds are moving leftward is doing the tearing. It might be argued that both sides are doing the tearing because, although moving in the same direction, they aren't moving at the same speed. But even this view would debunk the idea that "Republicans have become more conservative."
The author's sort of analysis may fly with Millennials (having limited perspective), but us Boomers have been around long enough to know that it's simply untrue. We know that Rs are LESS conservative than they were 40 or 50 years ago. And even the "extremism" of MAGA* generally insists on nothing more than enforcement of existing laws, lower taxes, and energy independence. There is probably nothing in the MAGA platform that represents anything more conservative than the policies of Ds in the 1960s.
Another possible example of "rightward movement" among conservatives (if that's what MAGA is), is non-interventionism, usually called "isolationism" in order to make it appear more extreme. But being anti-war had been for decades a D position, so non-interventionism is not strictly "more conservative," even if more aligned with early American political thought.
*I'm referencing MAGA because the movement's critics and the media often cite its "extreme right-wing views." Obviously, I believe this characterization is inaccurate, but still MAGA's agenda serves as an example of what is commonly blamed for "moving the country to the right", when "returning to the right" is more accurate, but still a "right" less conservative than it was a few decades ago.
You took pains to avoid heretical statements by noting that Jews aren't "working together" to exercise power; said power is merely the mathematical outcome of their intelligence and political involvement.
Except they do work together, through an entire universe of explicitly pro-Jewish groups - which in recent years have drifted off-mission.
My guess? Hopes for a right-wing awakening are bunkum. Jewish billionaires will launch a speech crackdown on the one hand, and on the other they'll refocus Leftist hatred on (gentile) white men while trying to carve out an exception for Jews.
More salient IMO for the future of America's elites is how the relationship evolves between Jews and Indians.
The word lumpenintelligensia alone made it worth reading this article.
American Jews are an anomaly. French Jews have been right wing for 30 years and overwhelmingly for 20. UK Jews also vote conservative. Israelis are right wing. Russian Jews are right wing. Only American Jews are so left wing.
Ackman is also a positive case study for many other rich and influential people - Jewish and gentile - that are having a conservative political awakening. It does not appear that that he will be shunned by elite and polite society for calling a black woman an incompetent diversity hire that should be fired.
Has anybody so aggressively done so before him and kept their reputation in tact? This creates a new confidence and paradigm that you can fight back against wokeness on honest terms.
The same elites who have been actively funding institutional anti white hatred and the demographic replacement of Europeans in all of our homelands, will now be focusing SOME of their attention on funding more Dennis Prager videos in my YouTube algorithm. Yay! I love jews now! Conservatives FTW 😎
Great piece that lots on the dissident right don’t want to hear. But as to whether “more Jews” is good for the right, there’s a critical factor that can’t be overlooked: noticing.
If Jewish influence on the right, and Jewish influence on society, can be noticed, discussed, and called out for counter-Semitic action when necessary, then more Jews on our side is a great thing.
However, if “more Jews on the right” is just a rehash of 80s-90s neocon subversion where Jews hide behind “muh antisemitism” and do everything they can to help their own narrow interests while simultaneously stabbing the rest of the right and of whites in general in the back, censoring everyone in order to maintain a selfish grip on power-- then no, “more Jews” would be a terrible thing.
In the era of Elon however, I think it’s quite likely that “noticing” can’t be stopped, and “The Jews” can be accepted as an open and honest partner, with individual Jews rising to run things if they demonstrate integrity and good faith.
🇺🇲 Jew here. I got red-pilled in ~2021, and as Hanania described, have since moved rightward on a number of issues. 3 main events turned me:
- Jewish organizers excluded from 2017 Women's March because "intersectionality".
- Obama / Biden's disastrous Iran appeasement, vs. Trump's historic Abraham Accords.
- Trying to translate woke/progressive ideas into another language and realizing how ridiculous it sounds.
An essay only you could write, and I mean that in a good way.
You've raised an important point about the possible effect of current trends that is being overlooked, if not outright ignored. You also synthesized and crystallized certain aspects of those trends I'd noticed but not put together in this way before; it gives me the feeling of seeing a clear photograph of an event I'd only glimpsed before, or of reading a philosopher who stood smiling, waiting patiently for me, at the end of a certain road of inquiry I'd struggled and grappled with for ages.
In any case, you have your flaws, some quite grave that I wish you'd not indulge for all our sakes. Nonetheless, I have a thick skin and skull, the ability to read those I don't agree with generously and with nuance, and an allergy to reading essays which simply present my own views - I already know them, after all, and invariably analyze and write about most topics better than my fellow travelers anyway.
Alors, ultimately I read thinkers who make me think. I appreciate insights and perspectives I'd not considered before that can supplement and clarify my own thoughts on a topic. You fit that mold without a doubt.
YGLESIAS-HANANIA DISCLAIMER: I don't agree with the author on multiple issues, including many/most of those dealing with race.
You're right, there will be a migration of pro-Israel Jews into the Right which is something we saw with the IDW that was majority Jewish and their biggest motivation was Wokeness especially when it came to Israel. This at least on the surface is the logical course of action for pro-Israel Jews, but is it sustainable to align oneself with the low-status loser party (GOP) if you want to make the moral case for Israel? That's not to mention the level of doublethink and hypocrisy required to justify an identitarian state in Israel but support multicultural states in the West. That's already too much for more principled anti-woke Jews and Gentiles to get behind, especially if they're secular.
I can see Israel support will become more low-status and generally more grubby and unhinged, especially as Israel moves rightward and American Israel supporters will have to lean harder on both Christian fundamentalism, anti-Muslim bigotry and white nationalism-lite to justify continued support of the Jewish state.
If we are to assume that a large majority of the top political donors are Jewish then we cannot expect anything different from their political dealings given recent events.
It does not matter which party is dominant in congress, the Jews will always get what they want. Money talks, and it always will.
You think Israel/Gaza conflict, DEI, ESG, LGBTQ and the climate agenda was an accident? Give me a break!
You have basically pointed out that our country is not being represented in the way that the founding fathers intended and it is obvious to anyone paying attention but you're trying to convince us that all their financial & political power is a good thing for conservatives and Republicans? That is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, all of this is counteracted by Qatar billions being funneled toward universities to ensure a steady presence pro-Palestinian professors and students, and, more importantly, a lack of pro-Israel faculty.
> Aside from Jews moving right, I think we’ll see Jewish influence within the Democratic coalition blunt the impact of liberals becoming more sympathetic towards the Palestinians
I think that's the bulk of the story. Neither Ackman nor Altman have indicated they're joining the political right, they're just coming out against the anti-Israel segment of the left.
How is your hypothesis re: Jewish political involvement not perfectly compatible with MacDonald's thesis that Jewish involvement in political/radical movements is an adapted behavior? If you are a small diaspora minority you survive by being obsessed with what everyone around you is thinking. You also survive with a strong ethnocentric tendency. You are restating his thesis in a slightly different way. Maybe that's the Schtick here? To present antisemitic premises in a way that suggests you are opposing antisemitism so it gets digested more easily? Am I just saying the quiet part out loud? Let me know and I'll Delet Dis.
Richard, you also avoid the other side of the equation, which is not just the *composition* of the elite but the *output* of the elite. Wouldn't you agree that the output of the Jewish elite has been biased heavily in an anti-white and pro-Jewish direction? Do you expect closer alignment here if the Jewish elite becomes more right-wing, whereas the white right-wing ingratiating itself with Israel historically has not moderated anti-white ideology from the Jewish elite? Hasn't the damage been done already?
Neoconservatism was born when the international left started favoring the Palestinians over the Israelis. Recent events therefore would predict another round of elite Jewish opinion to move from the left, ala Irvine Kristol, etc. in first move. See his op-ed in WSJ back in the day.
Good post. Nathan Cofnas beat you to this: https://thecritic.co.uk/twilight-of-the-liberal-jew/
Surprisingly, he called it even before the 10/7 attacks, for slightly different reasons.