Tonight was Mitt Romney’s last stand. He blew it. The conservative antipathy towards McCain involves real issues: his indefensible support of campaign finance reform, his opposition to Bush tax cuts, his throwaway lines attacking corporations, and so on. Romney should have been on attack mode from the first moment, stirring up every conservative trepidation about McCain, stressing his unreliability as a consistent voice for the cause. “We don’t need a maverick, Senator, we need a steadfast, principled and predictable conservative leader,” was the line I was waiting for. Instead, Romney dove head-first into McCain’s alleged smear about who supported the surge — a minor kerfuffle given all the other heat McCain has taken these last few months.
Why, for example, didn’t Romney simply quote George Will,Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any other of the pantheon of conservative pundits who don’t trust McCain?
Romney’s most credible claim is that he understands the real economy and can speak about it eloquently. California is Proposition 13 territory, after all. His entire campaign was premised on his free-market bona fides. Tonight, when he needed them most, he barely displayed them. In New Hampshire, McCain made Iraq the touchstone of campaign. He did it again tonight and Romney let him get away with it. This contest seems very over.
So why does the United States support Israel, no matter what?
It is disappointing to see the America First Committee, and Lindbergh personally, maligned and disfigured that way. They were not “pro-Nazi Americans” and do not deserve to be slurred like that.
I am not familiar with Cole but what is wrong with the idea of “America first”? Seems to me Israel does a good job pursuing an “Israel First” agenda. France does France First and Russia does Russia First. And who cares if someone else used the phrase before? I submit that your objection is to the America First idea, not to the Lindberg association. You are really reaching here… Must be a slow day in the Trager mind.
America First was a very broad coalition, and reflected the thinking of a majority of Americans.
Hmm, what’s an appropriate analogy to the German-American Bund, the real pro-Nazi lobby in those days, Couild it be . . . . AIPAC?
Thanks for the hat tip, Eric. And just listen to these bigots already posting on this thread….they prove your point, ten-fold.
wow, who knew neo cons were such PC weasels?
Does AIPAC sponsor paramilitary organizations and tolerate physical attacks on other Americans? LOL. That said, the America Firsters were not so much pro-Nazi as awed by what they perceived as an unstoppable Nazi surge. Like the Communists (who also opposed entry into the war until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union) most believed Western democracy was in terminal decline. And some, like the architect Phillip Johnson, liked the Wehrmacht’s pretty gray-green uniforms.
#3 — Trager can speak for himself, but I assure you that many people would, indeed, object to the Lindbergh association in and of itself, aside from whatever objection they may have to the “idea” of America First.
From a perspective of nearly 70 years, I consider the America First Committee of 1940-41 to have been completely pro-American in its motives, and very courageous in its willingness to point out FDR’s essential dishonesty about his true policies toward other countries (and not just Germany). Ultimately, of course, the neutrality wished for by Lindbergh, the AFC, and the majority of Americans overall, had to be abandoned in the face of the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declarations of war. With the benefit of hindsight, I think the AFC-types were naive about America’s ability to remain neutral in those turbulent times. But they should never be impugned for having desired that neutrality in the first place, nor for pointing out that FDR’s policies undermined that desire and in fact were intended to do so.
america first fell apart after pearl harbour from what I’ve read. isolationism fell out of favor. in reality, pearl harbuor was roosevelts fault
Isn’t AIPAC for “Israel First” ? When it comes down to it…
I thought America fell apart after Ft. Sumter. Colonel Grumpy, it sounds like lester has gone Yankee on nullification.
Aren’t some of you Israel-haters/Israel Lobby conspiracists late for your daily “USS Liberty” message board posting tutorial?
(Responding to #9)
The details of how/why America was asleep at the switch on 12/7/41 are complex. I certainly think FDR — who was, after all, in the 9th year of his presidency — should come in for a lot of blame. As Herbert Hoover wrote in a letter not long after Pearl Harbor, FDR’s policy of picking up rattle-snakes by the tail led to a predictable result. But to say, simply, “Pearl Harbor was FDR’s fault,” and leave it at that is equally unjust as saying Lindbergh and the AFC were “pro-Nazi Americans”.
Defending Lindbergh, eh? His speech in Des Moines at the time was rather damning, no?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh#America_First_involvement
Even if we agree that Lindbergh’s speech in Des Moines “was rather damning”, that would still not mark him or his AFC-supporters as “pro-Nazi Americans.”
“that would still not mark him or his AFC-supporters as “pro-Nazi Americans”
maybe to you….not to me
FDR sure thought so:
FDR said to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau in May 1940, “if I should die tomorrow, I want you to know this, I am absolutely convinced Lindbergh is a Nazi.”[68]
Lots more damning stuff here too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lindbergh#Political_allegations_against_Lindbergh
“Remember: Cole is a professor of history at the University of Michigan, and surely knows the details of Charles Lindbergh’s political interests.”
Mr. Trager, I believe it’s a risky proposition to presume that Juan Cole knows the details of ANY historical event. The professor’s readiness to share his opinions and prejudices seems to exceed by far his command of facts.
Regarding America First, while many of its members were not anti-Semitic, by September 1941 Lindbergh was its most prominent spokesman, and his Des Moines speech was a shameless appeal to, and manifestation of, anti-Semitic prejudice. Although FDR played fast and loose with the facts on a few occasions in 1940-41, on the essential questions he was right and AF was wrong.
Yeah, just a nice, unassuming fellow, that Charles Lindbergh….well, unless the subject was Jews:
“Lindbergh developed a long-term friendship with the automobile pioneer Henry Ford, who was well-known for his anti-Jewish newspaper “The Dearborn Independent.” In a famous comment about Lindbergh to Detroit’s former FBI bureau chief in July 1940, Ford said: “When Charles comes out here, we only talk about the Jews.”[77][78]“
Joe, since you mentioned the subject: If even Hamas knows the IAF won’t shoot at Arabs on rooftops, what are the odds it knowingly strafed a friendly-flag vessel? Obviously the target was shrouded in smoke or otherwise not clearly identified or identifiable. Rules of engagement haven’t tightened that much in 40 years.
Seth, agreed.
But I’m a little sorry I brought it up – do we really want to go there with some of these fire-breathing yahoos?
seth halpern- I said isolationism fell apart after pearl harbour not america.
this is another case of the leftist academics trying to rewrite hsitory and say FDR was great and America first were evil. reject the state view of history, read the revisionists
“Russia a more balanced view” I am sure that all the military supplies Russia provides to every terrorist state/group it can find really marks a more balanced view from when the USSR supplied military equipment to every terrorist state/group it could find.
Juan Cole is a complete idiot.
Maybe Mr. Cole likes being an infidel, but around here, we say, “NEVER AGAIN”!
Exit question: why would anyone want to find balance instead of victory over fascism… German, Islamic, “liberal” or otherwise?
(Responding to #s 16-20, etc.)
For people who are truly interested in the life of Charles Lindbergh, and/or in the role and legacy of racism and anti-Semitism both in his life and in American society in general in the 1930s and 40s, there are of course numerous books and other sources that explore those topics. Some of them are sympathetic to Lindbergh and some are not. Most of them include the famous observation by Norman Thomas (who, among Christians, was probably the most staunchly pro-Jewish figure in American public life of that era) to the effect that Lindbergh was not nearly as anti-Semitic as many of the people who attacked him for his AFC-speeches and activities. And who knows, perhaps some of those books and authors might even match the intellectual authority of that wikipedia article Joe is so fond of. But I will leave all that for another time and another place.
For now, I will simply repeat my denial of Eric Trager’s original accusation: Lindbergh and his AFC-supporters were not “pro-Nazi Americans,” and they do not deserve to be slurred as such (nor to be slurred by comparison with Juan Cole). An embittered comment from Lindbergh’s sworn enemy, offered in private conversation and unpublished until after his (FDR’s) death, does nothing to change that.
I hate to rely on Wikipedia so much in an argument, but I’m reasonably sure that those particular facts on Wikipedia that I cited were 100% accurate. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove with that line of reasoning, other than the fact that you’ve read a lot of books. Well, so have I, my friend, so have I.
I will grant you that Lindbergh was a complicated man, and that simply labeling him as an “anti-Semite” perhaps doesn’t do justice to the vast, broad spectrum of his character as a human being. But little that I’ve read (yes, in books) or seen (on the Web, in various periodicals, in documentaries of the era) leads me to believe that Lindbergh did NOT hold some serious animosity towards Jews – and furthermore, the evidence that he had some strong sympathies in the Nazi direction is rather overwhelming.
Was he objectively “pro-Nazi”? Open to debate. But I guess I’d be reluctant to spend a lot of time defending a guy like Lindbergh who, regardless of the FULL EXTENT of his bigotry, still clearly had bigoted leanings.
But hey, that’s your call….if defending garden variety anti-Semites against the accusation of being fully “pro-Nazi” is important to you, go for it. I mean, George Wallace wasn’t as bad as David Duke, but I still wouldn’t waste any ink, digital or otherwise, trying to defend his “maligned reputation.”
Joe: Instead of calling me a bigot, why don’t you answer my original question. Why does the US support Israel no matter what?
#27 — The US does not give Israel “no matter what” support. America does consider Israel a reliable ally and a beacon of democratic/parliamentary light in a region of the world where strong-man dynasties and hyper-tribalism are the usual order of the day, and so we give Israel our support in a war initiated by terrorists who seek to destroy it (and, ultimately, us).
#28 – Alrighty then, why do we support a state because they are a “democracy” when they won’t let half their population participate in government because they are not of the right religion? How is that a democratic?
Didn’t Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford receive honorary medals from The Fuhrer? I think they did. If they obligingly accepted these awards wouldn’t that make them complicit in The Fuhrer’s actions? I think they would.
#-29- I am going to send your complaints to the Arab members of Israel’s Knesset. They should be informed that they are not allowed to participate in the Israeli government.
#29, um, there are Arab politicians serving in Israel.
The fact that Israel allows its Arab citizens to vote and its Arab politicians to serve in the Knesset is obviously something that the Israel-haters of the world conveniently choose to ignore. Because, of course, why let the facts get in the way of a good hateful narrative?
#33 – Yes Joe, why let facts get in the way of the fact that nobody in the Occupied Territories is able to participate in the Knesset, even though Israel rules over them?
Let’s not mention this recent development, either.
Oh, BTW, how has my narrative been hateful? I’m asking pretty reasonable questions here. I know you’ll think it’s trolling since my questions don’t fit your ardent pro-Israeli at-all-costs narratives, but hey — if you don’t want to think critical, then I can’t force you to.
Tas-
remind me again of all the rights Jews who live in Arab countries have. Oh, right, there are no Jews left in Arab countries. They were all expelled or killed. Those mean Israelis, huh?
#34, perhaps you should read articles and not scan headlines.
TWO (not all) Arab parties were banned for racism. Unlike the surrounding states, the banned parties have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. The election commission admits the parties will probably win.
Meanwhile, are you advocating voting rights for Gaza and the West Bank? Those are autonomous territories. If their citizens vote, I guess they’ll be part of Israel, with everyone recognizing those borders, eh?
#29 —
I did not claim Israel is purely democratic, in the sense of every decision being made according to a national plebiscite. But the idea that “half their population” is barred from participation in government is beyond weird. Muslims — I am guessing that is who you had in mind — run for and serve in the Knesset, the armed forces, the civilian government, and basically every facet of national life in Israel. But maybe you were talking about some other group of people. Whatever.
#30 —
In October 1938, Lindbergh was invited to a social gathering at the home of Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador to Germany. A high-ranking Nazi named Hermann Goring had also been invited by the American authorities. There in the Ambassador’s home (indeed, with Hugh Wilson standing right next to Lindbergh), in a gesture that caught the Americans completely by surprise, Goring said some words in German (Lindbergh did not speak German) and then spontaneously presented him with a medal. Wilson, Lindbergh, and all the other Americans were a bit stunned.
I do not consider that sequence of events to have made Lindbergh (anymore than Hugh Wilson) “complicit in The Fuhrer’s actions”. In the following years, Lindbergh’s enemies have rather successfully spread the notions that Lindbergh received the medal from Hitler personally, that he knew in advance that he was going to receive the medal, and/or that he traveled to Germany specifically for that purpose. False, false, and false.
There is a related argument that at some point subsequent, Lindbergh should have returned the medal as a symbolic rebuke to Hitler. I can see something in that view, although I am more inclined to Lindbergh’s view that such an act would have served no practical purpose. In any event, I firmly believe that even if Lindbergh *had* returned the medal, the campaign to smear him as a Nazi would have proceeded just the same, with the same cast of characters leading the charge.
Post #26 notwithstanding, I consider my comments on this thread to be more in defense of historical clarity/accuracy than in defense of Lindbergh, personally. I make no secret that I consider him to have been a wise and admirable man in many ways, even as I admit that he was foolish and contemptible in other ways. Much like his nemesis FDR, come to that.
On the Right, Lindbergh could’ve easily not taken the medal, but he didn’t do that, did he? That makes him complicit with the Fuhrer’s actions.
Entertaining as this thread has been, I am done with it. Everyone play nice.
#37 – Perhaps you should read books instead of scanning articles.
I’m done with this thread. It’s clear to any objective observer that you’re all prejudiced, and there’s really nothing to be learned from discussing Israel/Palestine with you. Have fun playing with yourselves in your echo chamber.
Perhaps if you and Martin Kramer stopped publicizing Juan Cole so much, he’d go away. Instead you are emboldening him. I never heard of Juan Cole before I started reading these blogs and I have never, ever had someone quote Juan Cole to me. He is completely irrelevant, or at least he was until you and Martin Kramer resuscitated him
A not-too-bad summary of Charles Lindbergh’s involvement with America First, and “white racial idealism,” can be found in the following piece:
http://libraryautomation.com/nymas/americafirst.html#_edn43
If you don’t want to read all of it, a “Find” search (Edit, Find) on the word “troubling” will take you directly to the first paragraph on Lindbergh’s association with America First.
It is, of course, unfair to Lindbergh to make one-dimensional assessments of him, or of his objections to America entering WWII. On the Right has validly observed that opponents of America’s entry into the war had very just concerns about FDR’s motives, actions, and truthfulness, in HIS campaign to promote that end. It was also the case that very few people in America, in 1940, had the perspective we have gained with hindsight on national socialism or fascism FDR’s own administration was replete with admirers of both.
Germany reemerging as a predator was a complex issue for many Americans, both “Progressives” and political moderates, whose concept of Western cultural history at the time was very much tethered in the heritage of Enlightenment thought, philososphy, science, and theory of Germany in the 19th century.
It was ironic that so much of that cultural package had involved the thought and writing of Jews: because concern about precisely the representation of Jews in the academy, sciences, news, entertainment, and political punditry has been a persistent theme of America First, in all its incarnations.
On the Right is correct that people who harbored no special anti-Semitic ideas could find a political home with the America First of 1940. The priority of such people was an older idea of America as a unique nation of independent yeomen, unmotivated by the corrupt and predatory interventionism of Europe. Many of these people had no serious concept of “the Jews” as nefarious agents of European-style geopolitics.
But there is simply no question that some of the names prominently associated with America First did. There is also no question that “white racial idealism” routinely finds political sympathy with anti-Semitism. The markers are there in both 1940, and in the “revived” America First Committee (revived 1980), which claims Lindbergh as a heritage figure, and the opposition to entering WWII as the premise for its original existence.
In both periods, it has been characteristic of America First to attribute evil consequences to the (over)representation of “the Jewish race” in media, entertainment, punditry, and the academy. (Simple web searches, including the revived America First Committee’s current website, provide verification of this.) And in both periods, America Firsters have advocated a concept of the “white race” as superior, priviliged, and worthy of being “preserved” against the depredations of “lesser” races.
We can say with factual truth, and some significance, that the America First of 1940 did not emphasize or make a priority issue of either suspicion about Jewish cultural influence, or the preservation of the “white race” and its culture. In that sense, I think On the Right makes a valid point. The concept of American uniqueness promoted by America Firsters NEED not go hand-in-hand with anti-Semitism or white supremacy.
But we are justified in observing that it too often does. A number of the trollish posters right here at contentions bear that out, at least in terms of the anti-Semitism.
Juan Cole, The People’s Oracle?:…
Juan Cole thinks the following is clever enough to
post twice:The Israel lobbies take their cue on what is ……