The apology wars have resurfaced, ensnaring—however briefly—Rahm and Rush.
Rahm’s use of the word “retarded” and Rush’ reference to “people on Wall Street [who] are Jewish” started their own respective brouhahas.
As an ex-special educator [MA, Teacher’s College, Columbia, 2002; eight years in the field] the Palin-Emanuel imbroglio struck a chord with me; however, it was not the way one might expect. I don’t particularly find the term “retarded” offensive, and apparently, neither do the fields of special education, psychology, medicine, or any other service oriented toward the betterment of individuals with developmental and related challenges. I found it particularly funny when one of my charges—a 20-year old fellow with Down’s syndrome—called me a “retard” in crowded room once years ago. [For reasons, I can’t explain, I was the only one in the room who seemed unafraid to laugh.]
I will admit through increasingly easing but still clenched teeth that Sarah Palin is remaking herself as a viable Presidential candidate—after all, this country put Dan Quayle and George W. Bush into high office—and, since I have nothing to lose this early in the cycle, I will predict that her VP choice will come down to Newt [as a Cheney foil] or Scott Brown [for ticket balance and the Obama mirror that Palin was supposed to be, but wasn’t, for John McCain]. However, she is going to have to learn to become more thick skinned as she undergoes her well-funded media training. She may understandably be sensitized to the indiscriminate use of the “retarded” owing to her toddler Trig’s condition [I’m still waiting for Daily Kos-types to say “We’re not talking about Trig. We’re talking about her.” I certainly won’t have been the first or last]; however, aside from the fact that she has been she also will have to learn to remain somewhat more socio-culturally. Her family foibles have become public fodder precisely because they present as contradistinct from her professed worldview, and when said worldview is grounded in fundamentally conservative—or conservatively fundamentalist—values, especially religious ones, the margin for error vis-à-vis inconsistency or hypocrisy is necessarily narrow.
Furthermore, her taking offense places her in a political “tradition” that is definitely not one her side of the political fence. One of the reasons [there are many] that I ended up leaving the special education was that there was an institutional leaning towards theories of individuals such as Thomas Szasz, who assert that all disability exists only in the minds of those who consider themselves “normal”, and therefore the problems experienced by individuals with “challenges” are truly ours, not theirs. This is certainly qualifies as a far-Left perspective; and, while assigning certain stigmas to anyone—especially those will “challenges”—is never appropriate, the denial of the existence of said “challenges” is equally inappropriate. Obviously, this is not what Palin intends—but again—her credibility, such as it is, will be inexorably tied to her ability to remain consistent. Unfair, perhaps, but if she aspires to the Presidency [and I might vote for her, as my interests align less and less with Obama administration policy, if they ever did in the first place] she will have to find a better way to deal with all this than to agitate for apologies and resignations when they are completely unwarranted.
The same applies, in a more limited sense, to Abraham Foxman. I appreciate, as an identifying Jew, that there is a professional watchdog keeping an eye out for any kind of antisemitic activity. No, we can’t be too careful. However, I think Foxman is off the mark here; Limbaugh seems to have gone out of his way to clearly distinguish between the fact that there are bankers who are Jews, as opposed to using a “Jewish banker[s]” stereotype. It really is no more offensive than him pointing out that Jews were overwhelmingly Obama voters. I don’t like that he implied the stereotype was being employed by the Obama administration; however, while the implication might be unfair, I wouldn’t go so far as to call it offensive.
To be sure, antisemitism does exist on the right and I have written extensively here and elsewhere about how any firm alliances with the religious, if not political Right, will not work as much in Jews’ favor as Jewish conservatives wish. However, one must note that the variety of antisemitism prevalent on today’s Right [with the possible exception of individuals like Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos] is generally eschatological, so it deals with far-off future events that may never happen. The Left’s antisemites are more pernicious because a] they deny their bias, and mostly get away with the denial; b] they lend aid and comfort to movements that are openly eliminationist [I would include the PLO in this category], whether directly or indirectly. Rush’s statements don’t come close to fitting any of the above categories.
