2024-05-08 Notes | Antisemitism Awareness Act, U.S. Immigration Split
Michelle Goldberg | Ken Stern | Cass Sunstein | John Rawls | Elinor Ostrom | Megan Brenan
I am posting daily notes on stoweboyd.io, various materials that come my way through my research. Subscribe to have it appear in your email inbox. Paid subscription comes with no special privileges, but supports my work.
Michelle Goldberg on Stopping the Antisemitism Awareness Act
Goldberg wants to stop the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) from passage in Congress. I agree with her take: It's a bad law and a terrible precedent:
Since 2016, pro-Israel politicians have pushed versions of a bill called the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would codify, for the purpose of enforcing federal civil rights law in higher education, a definition of antisemitism that includes rejection of Israel as a Jewish state.
The bill relies on a definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016, which lists several examples that could, accounting for “overall context,” constitute antisemitism. Among them are “applying double standards to Israel,” claiming that the country’s existence “is a racist endeavor” or using “the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”
Goldberg cites Ken Stern, ‘who directs the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College, spent 25 years as the in-house expert on antisemitism at the American Jewish Committee, where he worked on what would become the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism’ which he says was meant as a research tool, not as the basis of legislation:
Once you start defining what speech is OK for teaching, for funding, for all sorts of things, how does that differ from what we were doing in the McCarthy era?
I am reminded of this quote by Cass Sunstein from Why I am a Liberal:
Liberals believe that freedom of speech is essential to self-government. They understand freedom of speech to encompass not only political speech, but also literature, music and the arts (including cinema). Liberals embrace the words of the Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials: “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”
Goldberg, again:
Even if you agree that all these things are signs of anti-Jewish animus, there are serious First Amendment problems with trying to classify them that way legally.
The Republican Party and the radical edge of the pro-Palestinian left both share an interest in discrediting the modern liberal university by making it look at once hypocritical and ineffectual. Liberals shouldn’t help them.
Is this Horseshoe Theory come back to haunt us? Are the Far Left and the ‘Disaffected’ (who question the institution of the ‘uniparty’ and ‘the system’ that supports it — both Rs and Ds collectively governing) so illiberal they wind up overlapping the Far Right?
And will Democrat moderates wind up being the sole standard bearers for liberal democracy, all alone, as Republicans become fully illiberal?
Are we losing — or have we lost — John Rawls’ ‘political liberalism’ predicated on accomodation between people with widely different views on fundamental matters? This is, perhaps, the case that proves the rule.
Maybe we are failing Elinor Ostrom’s insight on finding common ground:
When individuals are well informed about the problem they face and about who else is involved, and can build settings where trust and reciprocity can emerge, grow, and be sustained over time, costly and positive actions are frequently taken without waiting for an external authority to impose rules, monitor compliance, and assess penalties.
So, we are instead rushing to pass a dumb and impossible to enforce law.
Megan Brenan on the U.S. Split on Immigration
Megan Brenan of Gallup has shared new survey data and analysis on the U.S. electorate’s views on immigration. The biggest takeaway? The gap between Democrats and Republicans on how important is immigration as a U.S. problem is ‘greater than for any other issue in the past 25 years’. There’s more of a divide than there was for the war in Iraq, or terrorism after 9-11.
Only 8% of Ds rate immigration the most important problem facing the nation today, while 48% of Republicans do.
The Data: Immigration is not only a top public concern but also an increasingly partisan issue, with a significant 40-percentage-point gap in concern between Republicans' (48%) and Democrats' (8%) mentions of the issue in April.
Political Polarization: Immigration has become a uniquely polarizing issue on Gallup's monthly, open-ended “most important problem” measure. The 40- and 47-point gaps between Republicans and Democrats mentioning it as the top problem in recent months are greater than for any other issue in the past 25 years.
Brenan goes on to offer analysis that I think is flawed:
President Joe Biden’s approval rating for his handling of immigration has been persistently poor. With the presidential election about six months away and immigration top of mind, the issue remains a significant vulnerability for Biden as he seeks reelection.
Since Biden is principally seeking the votes of Ds — only 8% of which rate it the highest issue confronting us — I’d say that Biden should focus on the economy. Perhaps Biden will also appeal to Nikki Haley Rs, some of whom may fall into the 50% of Rs who don’t rate immigration as problem number 1.
So, yes, Biden should keep pushing on immigration, but the reality is that immigration is a worldwide issue, as residents of the global south are being uprooted by climate change, conflict at home, and economic disruption, and forced into emigration. No U.S. president can fix all that by themself. It will take the world to do that.