It is no secret that neutral words often gain import from being freighted with all sorts of acquired meanings. At one time, to call someone "gay" meant that he was a happy, light hearted character. Such usage now seems jarringly archaic. Other terms have longer histories and are more problematic.
Yesterday, President Obama, in response to the electoral disaster that Massachusetts meant for him and his agenda, took a populist tack, and focused his ire on the banks and the bankers who have failed us: [Emphasis mine-SW]
But credit has stopped flowing the way it should. Too many bad loans from the housing crisis have made their way onto the books of too many banks. With so much debt and so little confidence, these banks are now fearful of lending out any more money to households, to businesses, or to each other. When there is no lending, families can't afford to buy homes or cars. So businesses are forced to make layoffs. Our economy suffers even more, and credit dries up even further.
That is why this administration is moving swiftly and aggressively to break this destructive cycle, restore confidence, and re-start lending.
We will do so in several ways. First, we are creating a new lending fund that represents the largest effort ever to help provide auto loans, college loans, and small business loans to the consumers and entrepreneurs who keep this economy running.
Second, we have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and re-finance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values - Americans who will now be able to take advantage of the lower interest rates that this plan has already helped bring about. In fact, the average family who re-finances today can save nearly $2000 per year on their mortgage.
Third, we will act with the full force of the federal government to ensure that the major banks that Americans depend on have enough confidence and enough money to lend even in more difficult times. And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets, and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy.
I understand that on any given day, Wall Street may be more comforted by an approach that gives banks bailouts with no strings attached, and that holds nobody accountable for their reckless decisions. But such an approach won't solve the problem. And our goal is to quicken the day when we re-start lending to the American people and American business and end this crisis once and for all.
I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won't be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.
...
I understand that when the last administration asked this Congress to provide assistance for struggling banks, Democrats and Republicans alike were infuriated by the mismanagement and results that followed. So were the American taxpayers. So was I.
A mini-furor has erupted over some comments Rush Limbaugh made in regard to this speech.
Another Day, Another Slander [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Rush Limbaugh is getting smeared with the accusation of anti-Semitism by people who should know better. A generous gentleman who knows of what he speaks, Norman Podhoretz defends our radio friend, who Norman calls a "loyal" "friend of Israel" in a statement passed along to me:
In my new book, "Why Are Jews Liberals?", I argue that it no longer makes any sense for so many of my fellow Jews to go on aligning themselves with the forces of the Left. I also try to show that our interests and our ideals, both as Americans and as Jews, have come in recent decades to be better served by the forces of the Right. In the course of describing and agreeing with the book the other day, Rush Limbaugh cited a few of the numerous reasons for the widespread puzzlement over the persistence of liberalism within the American Jewish community. And while discussing those reasons, he pointed to the undeniable fact that for “a lot of people”—prejudiced people, as he called them twice—the words “banker” and “Wall Street” are code words for "Jewish." Was it possible, he wondered, that Obama’s attacks on bankers and Wall Street were triggering a certain amount of buyer’s remorse within the American Jewish community, which gave him 78% of its vote?
Jeffrey Goldberg approvingly quotes from a Media Matters release on Rush and suggests he is being disingenuous:
Rush Limbaugh on What "Some People" Think
Of course, Rush Limbaugh doesn't think this; he's just reporting:
I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh but on the few occasions I have heard him, I have heard very little to suggest he is a racist or anti-Semite. Further, I believe that Rush is smart enough and wise enough, and uses language eloquently enough, that he would not say anything anti-Semitic (or racist) on the air; he is simply too smart to do so, even if he believed it (which I doubt is the case.) I understand that those on the left side of the political divide are more willing to offer understanding for those who express ideas that are noxious; those on the right offer the same succor for "their side", too. Jeffrey Goldberg wrote recently that he does not see J Street as being anti-Semitic, and I am willing to take his word for it, despite that J Street opposes the positions of more than 90% of the Israeli public and to my mind put Israel in danger by their advocacy. It is possible to disagree with Israel so profoundly and not be anti-Semitic, though I would suggest the burden of proof should be rather substantial. Nonetheless, such an empathic response is singularly lacking in Jeffrey's response to Rush. This is not a surprise but I would caution that there is a certain overly disaffected aspect to the accusations against Rush in contrast to the apparent insouciance with which the President's speech attacking the bankers has been received.
[As an aside, yesterday I had a private correspondence with a former Wall Street denizen who agreed that Wall Street needed to be better controlled and that their behavior was execrable, and expressed some concern about the ability of the Obama administration, with their very close ties to Wall Street, to "get it right." He then volunteered the unsolicited opinion that the identification of Wall Street Bankers and Jewish bankers was "obvious" to most people who heard of the speech.]
"Wall Street Bankers", just as "neocon" more recently, has long been associated with the unspoken "Jewish" bankers. For those who are extraordinarily sensitive to racist penumbras in common speech to deny the past associations of Jewish and Bankers is troubling. Further, to deny that there is far more anti-Semitism (some of it quite overt) on the left (and insinuating itself into the heart of the Democratic party and the Obama administration) than on the right is far more troubling. Anti-Semitism and its efflorescence in populist political campaigns has been a dangerous ploy which has repeatedly led to disaster. I do not think there is adequate kindling in America for such a conflagration to start here, yet if/when the Obama administration finds its most important plans impeded by popular distaste, their current tendency to identify scapegoats may make the disguised and/or unintended anti-Semitic meme more appealing.
Recent Comments