Matt Yglesias doesn’t like Leon Wieseltier’s evisceration of Andrew Sullivan.
Which is fine — although, I think the reason Wieseltier does not accuse Sullivan straight out of anti-Semitism is because he’s not accusing him of anti-Semitism, he’s accusing Sullivan of a creepy objectification of the Jews, of a thirst for "edifying Jews," as Wieseltier puts it. Anti-Semitism is one form of creepy objectification of Jews, but it is not the only one.
What irks me, though, is this attempt at I’m rubber, you’re glue jiu-jitsu:
It’s worth noting the bonus smear on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer:
"These days the self-congratulatory motto above his blog is “Of No Party or Clique,” but in fact Sullivan belongs to the party of Mearsheimer and the clique of Walt (whom he cites frequently and deferentially), to the herd of fearless dissidents who proclaim in all seriousness, without in any way being haunted by the history of such an idea, that Jews control Washington."
This is just a lie. Niether Walt nor Mearsheimer nor Sullivan has said anything remotely resembling “Jews control Washington.” I know there seem to be special rules for Walt and Mearsheimer where it’s not required that characterization of their work bear any particular resemblance to what they’ve written, but this is really shameful stuff.
Wieseltier’s claim is arguable, although not necessarily untrue: Claiming that the pro-Israel lobby was critical to the launching of Iraq war when the overwhelming evidence suggests it had nothing to do with the planning of the war, and nothing to do with its promotion beyond the pathetic deference every other estate paid the war lobby at the time, does add up to both "fantasy" and "conspiracy." Patch those notions into "pro-Israel" — and let me make clear, I do not think Mearsheimer did so with a biased intent, although Walt has said some weird things about attachments — and it’s not unreasonable to raise "haunting histories."
No, even more irksome is Yglesias’ claim that "there seem to be special rules for Walt and Mearsheimer where it’s not required that characterization of their work bear any particular resemblance to what they’ve written."
Au contraire: I’ve fashioned myself what is becoming a crazy-making industry of picking apart their fallacies. Not that they’ve ever bothered to rebut any of my deconstructions, but still, they’re out there. Start here, Matt, and continue up to here. And God knows, I’m not the only one.
This is the meta smear: I’m not going to address my opponent’s critical thinking by thinking uncritically, and accusing him of not thinking critically.
And casting Wieseltier’s essay as so much old bad blood is just cheap. And geez, I’m with Kaus on this one, make the listserve public. We’re journalists.
