Chinese lobby, Israeli lobby

Remember how, during the later stages of the Clinton administration, a popular right-wing meme to attack the Clinton White House was to say that the Chinese lobby was too powerful? That the Clinton administration was in thrall to the Chinese, that there was too much Chinese money and influence within the administration and other elements of Democratic party leadership? It was a favorite talking point of Rush Limbaugh et al.

Now, do you remember a hew and cry about anti-Chinese racism following those accusations? Did anyone get pilloried for suggesting that the Chinese government's lobby was overly influential? Did merely asking the question mean that, ipso facto, the asker was an anti-Sino bigot? Was the rise of these questions seen as portending the rise of the "new anti-Chinese racism"? Were there articles full of stern warnings about the great danger to the average Chinese person posed by these questions of Chinese influence on American government affairs?

Of course not. Because there was and is a Chinese lobby, a lobby for Chinese interests, as there is for just about any country of a certain minimum level of power. And it was appropriate to ask whether that lobby's relative strength compared to other lobbies was a detriment to the overall interests of the United States. It wasn't racist to ask because the country of China is a political, governmental body, not a race or ethnicity, and the country of China has interests that (believe it or not) are not always 100% congruent with the interests of the United States. And asking whether or not what the lobby wanted was in the best interest of the USA was no insult to the people of China, or of Chinese descent. It made no statement whatsoever, as a matter of fact, about the merits of the Chinese people at all. Accusing Rush Limbaugh or anyone else of anti-Chinese racism would have been a non-sequitur.

Now, that doesn't mean that the accusations were fair or accurate. Personally, I didn't think they were at the time, though I was too young to really have a grasp on the issue at the time. And, yes, it is probable that some of the people, some small percentage, who were making these accusations were indeed motivated by anti-Chinese hatred. But it would be absurd and counterproductive and wrong to impugn everyone who questioned the relative power of Chinese influence in this way. The question wasn't made illegitimate by the motivations of some small number of the people asking it, and the fact that many were asking the question didn't mean that there was some new rise in anti-Chinese hatred for us to all worry about.

I think you know where I'm going with this.

Jeffrey Goldberg asserts again that the slope, in questions about Israeli, is absurdly slippery. Asking about the power of the Israeli lobby is ipso facto an act of Jew-baiting, according to Goldberg. In this, Goldberg is a moderate, as (I'm not joking) there are those who assert that mentioning the fact that there is such a thing as a lobby for the country of Israel is symbolic of anti-Semitism. Apparently, saying that a Congressman demonstrates too much deference to Israel in relation to other constituencies and responsibilities has to be Jew-baiting.

Look-- there are members of Congress, and then there are lobbies who try to influence them. Coca Cola has lobbyists. So does the NRA and NARAL. So does the corn lobby and the Catholic Church and civil libertarians and pharmaceutical companies and hosts of other interests. And so does France, and so does Georgia, and so does China. And so does Israel. Like the lobbies for various interest groups and industries, these lobbies attempt to leverage Senators and Representatives into certain actions that are beneficial for who the lobbies represent. Like these other lobbies, additionally, these foreign policy lobbies sometimes exert pressure on legislators to vote in a way that some consider detrimental to the rest of the nation. Sometimes, we have to criticize our legislators for being more beholden to their lobbies than to the country-- like Joe Biden, for being a tool of the credit card companies. And, perhaps, like Eric Cantor.

I don't know if Eric Cantor is too beholden to AIPAC and the rest of the pro-Israeli lobby. It's possible, just like there may be Congressmen who are too devoted to the French lobby or the corn lobby or the insurance industry. But whether or not Cantor is, criticizing him for being overly deferential to one lobby or another has to be on the table, like it is for any other member of Congress and for any other lobby.

The difference between the Chinese lobby and the Israeli lobby is twofold. The first is that, yes, there are unique concerns of anti-Jewish bigotry and oppression in this world, although I find the "who's more oppressed" line of argumentation unproductive (as well as kind of unconscionable. Certainly, the Chinese are no strangers to oppression or bigotry.) It's a sad statement on the level of debate here that I feel the need to make this clear: Anti-Semitism is a pernicious and persistent evil. Jewish hatred is horrific. There are indeed many anti-Semites in the world. This anti-Semitism has to be combatted with superior speech and loud condemnation. (Not censorship.)

But this is the other difference between the Chinese and Israeli lobbies: the Chinese are not protected by the blanket of accusations of anti-Semitism, the protective shield that blocks out criticism of the Israeli government's actions again and again. Accusing someone of anti-Semitism is the atomic bomb of American discourse; there is no harsher charge, short of rape or similar. This necessary and righteous condemnation of anti-Jewish bigotry has sadly morphed into something else, a catch-all insult designed to prevent legitimate criticism of the political body that is Israel. Any particularly prominent criticism of Israel or its lobby will at some point be met by an accusation of anti-Semitism, from someone, whether it's Abe Foxman or Marty Peretz or Alan Dershowitz or whoever. This rush to make this powerful accusation cheapens it, and makes it easier for legitimate accusations to be dismissed.

People of conscience have to be able to disagree about what choices are wise for their country to make, and that includes asking whether a particular legislator is too dedicated to the desires of a particular lobby. Even if that lobby represents a country filled with people who have every right to be cautious and fearful of bigotry.