Jewish Commentary,” Introducing “Jewish by John Mcwhorter
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
WIIS DC Think Tank Gender Scorecard – DATASET 2018 Index/Appendix: American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Foreign and Defense
• Nonresident Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for the WIIS DC Think Tank Gender Scorecard – Middle East: Mona Alami (F) DATASET 2018 Index/Appendix: • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center: Laura Albornoz Pollmann (F) • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center for American Enterprise Institute (AEI) the Middle East: Ali Alfoneh (M) Foreign and Defense Policy Scholars in AEI: • Associate Director for Programs, Rafik Hariri Center • Visiting Scholar: Samuel J. Abrams (M) for the Middle East: Stefanie Hausheer Ali (F) • Wilson H. Taylor Scholar in Health Care and • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Retirement Policy: Joseph Antos (M) Initiative: Dmitri Alperovitch (M) • Resident Scholar and Director of Russian Studies: • Nonresident Fellow, Rafik Hariri Center: Dr. Hussein Leon Aron (M) Amach (M) • Visiting Fellow: John P. Bailey (M) • Nonresident Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on • Resident Scholar: Claude Barfield (M) International Security: Dave Anthony (M) • Resident Fellow: Michael Barone (M) • Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Energy Center: • Visiting Scholar: Robert J. Barro (M) Ragnheiður Elín Árnadóttir (F) • Visiting Scholar: Roger Bate (M) • Visiting Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on • Visiting Scholar: Eric J. Belasco (M) International Security/RUSI: Lisa Aronsson (F) • Resident Scholar: Andrew G. Biggs (M) • Executive Vice Chair, Atlantic Council Board of • Visiting Fellow: Edward Blum (M) Directors and International Advisory Board; Chair, • Director of Asian Studies and Resident Fellow: Dan Atlantic Council Business Development and New Blumenthal (M) Ventures Committee; Chairman Emerita, TotalBank • Senior Fellow: Karlyn Bowman (F) (no photo) • Resident Fellow: Alex Brill (M) • Atlantic Council Representative; Director, Atlantic • President; Beth and Ravenel Curry Scholar in Free Council IN TURKEY and Istanbul Summit: Defne Enterprise: Arthur C. -
The Evolution of Neo-Conservative Foreign Policy Agenda - from the Cold War to the New Millennium Selected Issues
AD AMERICAM Journal of American Studies Vol. 8, 2008 ISSN 1896-9461 ISBN 978-83-233-2533-8 Grzegorz Nycz THE EVOLUTION OF NEO-CONSERVATIVE FOREIGN POLICY AGENDA - FROM THE COLD WAR TO THE NEW MILLENNIUM SELECTED ISSUES I. THE ORIGINS 1. The history of American neo-conservatism begins in the 1960s with a group of in tellectuals from the liberal camp, who rejected the Cultural Revolution and the radi calism of the New Left. The intellectual leaders of the new movement, Norman Pod- horetz and Irving Kristol, as well as their allies and associates Nathan Glazer, Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, among others, were later named “neo-conservatives” or “neocons” to emphasize the difference between “converted” leftist liberals and “regular” republican conservatives (Ehrman 2000: 50- -70). Notably, neo-conservatives formed their intellectual credo from the elements of many doctrines - including the thought of Hannah Arendt, Reinhold Niebuhr, Walter Lippman, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Leo Strauss. In general, they shared the view of the whole conservative camp, that the social crisis of the 1960s and 1970s was deep ened by the counterculture, which undermined the Judeo-Christian tradition in America and infected the roots of American society. The “regular” and “neo” conser vatives commonly believed that American society had been weakened by the effects of industrialization and suffered from the erosion of social relations, caused by the leftist-liberal campaign against religion and family. In matters of foreign policy the early neo-conservatives defended containment and anticommunism, strongly sup ported the alliance between America and Israel and raised the significance of moral issues in international policy (Podhoretz 1986, Kristol 1999, Ehrman 2000, Friedman 2005, Tokarski 2006). -
Contemporary Conservative Constructions of American Exceptionalism
Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, Vol. 1, No.2, 2011, pp. 40-54. Contemporary Conservative Constructions of American Exceptionalism Jason A. Edwards Ever since President Obama took office in 2009, there has been an underlying debate amongst politicians, pundits, and policymakers over America’s exceptionalist nature. American exceptionalism is one of the foundational myths of U.S. identity. While analyses of Barack Obama’s views on American exceptionalism are quite prominent, there has been little discussion of conservative rhetorical constructions of this impor- tant myth. In this essay, I seek to fill this gap by mapping prominent American conservatives’ rhetorical voice on American exceptionalism. Keywords: American exceptionalism, conservative rhetoric, jeremiad In April 2009, President Obama travelled to Europe to meet with European leaders in coordinating a strategy to deal with the global financial crisis and to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the NATO alliance. At a news conference in Strasbourg, France, Ed Luce of the Financial Times asked the president whether or not he believed in American ex- ceptionalism. Obama answered by stating, I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British ex- ceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I am enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world . we have a core set of values that are en- shrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality that, though imperfect, are exceptional. Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we‟ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries or recogniz- ing that we‟re not always going to be right, or that people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties, have to compromise, and that includes us. -
Combating Russian Disinformation in Ukraine: Case Studies in a Market for Loyalties
COMBATING RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION IN UKRAINE: CASE STUDIES IN A MARKET FOR LOYALTIES Monroe E. Price* & Adam P. Barry** I. INTRODUCTION This essay takes an oblique approach to the discussion of “fake news.” The approach is oblique geographically because it is not a discourse about fake news that emerges from the more frequently invoked cases centered on the United States and Western Europe, but instead relates primarily to Ukraine. It concerns the geopolitics of propaganda and associated practices of manipulation, heightened persuasion, deception, and the use of available techniques. This essay is also oblique in its approach because it deviates from the largely definitional approach – what is and what is not fake news – to the structural approach. Here, we take a leaf from the work of the (not-so) “new institutionalists,” particularly those who have studied what might be called the sociology of decision-making concerning regulations.1 This essay hypothesizes that studying modes of organizing social policy discourse ultimately can reveal or predict a great deal about the resulting policy outcomes, certainly supplementing a legal or similar analysis. Developing this form of analysis may be particularly important as societies seek to come to grips with the phenomena lumped together under the broad rubric of fake news. The process by which stakeholders assemble to determine a collective position will likely have major consequences for the * Monroe E. Price is an Adjunct Full Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication and the Joseph and Sadie Danciger Professor of Law at Cardozo School of Law. He directs the Stanhope Centre for Communications Policy Research in London, and is the Chair of the Center for Media and Communication Studies of the Central European University in Budapest.” ** Adam P. -
How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss
The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss A Special Report presented by The Interpreter, a project of the Institute of Modern Russia imrussia.org interpretermag.com The Institute of Modern Russia (IMR) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy organization—a think tank based in New York. IMR’s mission is to foster democratic and economic development in Russia through research, advocacy, public events, and grant-making. We are committed to strengthening respect for human rights, the rule of law, and civil society in Russia. Our goal is to promote a principles- based approach to US-Russia relations and Russia’s integration into the community of democracies. The Interpreter is a daily online journal dedicated primarily to translating media from the Russian press and blogosphere into English and reporting on events inside Russia and in countries directly impacted by Russia’s foreign policy. Conceived as a kind of “Inopressa in reverse,” The Interpreter aspires to dismantle the language barrier that separates journalists, Russia analysts, policymakers, diplomats and interested laymen in the English-speaking world from the debates, scandals, intrigues and political developments taking place in the Russian Federation. CONTENTS Introductions ...................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ........................................................... 6 Background ........................................................................ -
John Podhoretz
CommentaryJUNE 2019 ARE WE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE? EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE MAY BE FAR MORE UNLIKELY THAN WE THINK by Ethan Siegel MARVEL AND THE JEWS John Podhoretz THE BONES Commentary OF BRISK Meir Y. Soloveichik THE GILDED JUNE 2019 : VOLUME 147 NUMBER 6 147 : VOLUME JUNE 2019 SWEATSHOP Rob Long $5.95 US : $7.00 CANADA $7.00 : US $5.95 JUNE 2019 COVER.indd 1 5/13/19 3:58 PM Acts of terror injure hundreds of Israelis. One act from you can save thousands. In Israel, only one agency is the official ambulance, disaster-response, and blood-services agency for the nation’s 9 million people. Yet, it’s not funded by the government. When you support Magen David Adom, you get the satisfaction of knowing your gift has impact. If you value life and want to make Israel a stronger, safer place, there’s no greater way than by supporting Magen David Adom. Save a life in Israel. Support Magen David Adom at afmda.org/one-act or call 866.632.2763. JUNE 2019 COVER.indd 2 5/13/19 3:57 PM EDITOR’S COMMENTARY The Human Miracle JOHN PODHORETZ UR EARTH WOULD BE so much better if it I think this notion has something to do with the didn’t have people, wouldn’t it? That notion— environmentalist downgrade of humanity over the past Owhat you might call a view of original sin ab- half century. Some of us can believe humanity is beyond sent possibility of redemption—is the hidden backbone salvation and the world would be better without it be- of radical environmentalism. -
The Deadly Price of Pursuing Peace by Evelyn Gordon
JANUARY 2010 ggggggggg The Deadly Price of Pursuing Peace by evelyn gordon WHEN the Oslo process began in 1993, one benefi t its adherents promised was a signifi cant improvement in Israel’s international standing. Now, 16 years later, Israel’s has fallen to an unprecedented low. Yet even today, conventional wisdom, including OBAMA’S NEXT THREE YEARS in Israel, continues to assert that Israel’s JOHN R. BOLTON #3 Commentary international standing depends on its A NEVER-ENDING willingness to advance the “peace pro- ECONOMIC CRISIS? DAVID M. SMICK cess.” So why has Israel’s standing fallen #3 WHY JEWS JANUARY 2010 : VOLUME 129 NUMBER 1 : VOLUME 2010 JANUARY so precipitously despite its numerous HATE PALIN JENNIFER RUBIN concessions for peace since 1993? The #3 PHILIP ROTH mounting evidence makes it inescapable: COMES TO THE END Israel’s standing has declined so precipi- SAM SACKS tously not despite Oslo but because of Oslo. $5.95 US : $7.00 CANADA $7.00 : US $5.95 JCC Maccabi Games 2009 Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life KORET FOUNDATION AND TAUBE PHILANTHROPIES Collaborating to support Jewish life in the San Francisco Bay Area: Bay Area Jewish Community Centers Contemporary Jewish Museum, San Francisco Hillel at Stanford JCC Maccabi Games 2009 Jewish Chaplaincy at Stanford University Medical Center Jewish Family & Children’s Services of San Francisco Jewish Home of San Francisco Koret-Taube Initiative on Jewish Peoplehood Taube Center for Jewish Studies at Stanford Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life, Palo Alto Koret-Taube Grand Lobby, www.koretfoundation.org -
The Weekly Standard…Don’T Settle for Less
“THE ORACLE OF AMERICAN POLITICS” — Wolf Blitzer, CNN …don’t settle for less. POSITIONING STATEMENT The Weekly Standard…don’t settle for less. Through original reporting and prose known for its boldness and wit, The Weekly Standard and weeklystandard.com serve an audience of more than 3.2 million readers each month. First-rate writers compose timely articles and features on politics and elections, defense and foreign policy, domestic policy and the courts, books, art and culture. Readers whose primary common interests are the political developments of the day value the critical thinking, rigorous thought, challenging ideas and compelling solutions presented in The Weekly Standard print and online. …don’t settle for less. EDITORIAL: CONTENT PROFILE The Weekly Standard: an informed perspective on news and issues. 18% Defense and 24% Foreign Policy Books and Arts 30% Politics and 28% Elections Domestic Policy and the Courts The value to The Weekly Standard reader is the sum of the parts, the interesting mix of content, the variety of topics, type of writers and topics covered. There is such a breadth of content from topical pieces to cultural commentary. Bill Kristol, Editor …don’t settle for less. EDITORIAL: WRITERS Who writes matters: outstanding political writers with a compelling point of view. William Kristol, Editor Supreme Court and the White House for the Star before moving to the Baltimore Sun, where he was the national In 1995, together with Fred Barnes and political correspondent. From 1985 to 1995, he was John Podhoretz, William Kristol founded a senior editor and White House correspondent for The new magazine of politics and culture New Republic. -
The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009
PHILANTHROPY / EVENT TRANSCRIPT The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009 By Irving Kristol Edited by Gertrude Himmelfarb February 2, 2011 Panel Discussion of The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays, 1942-2009 By Irving Kristol Edited by Gertrude Himmelfarb Wednesday, February 2, 2011 Table of Contents Ken Weinstein 1 Amy Kass 1 Charles Krauthammer 3 Irwin Stelzer 7 Leon Kass 11 William Kristol 15 Q&A 23 Gertrude Himmelfarb (“Bea Kristol”) 30 Speaker Biographies 31 © 2011 Hudson Institute Hudson Institute is a nonpartisan, independent policy research organization. Founded in 1961, Hudson is celebrating a half century of forging ideas that promote security, prosperity, and freedom. www.hudson.org Ken Weinstein Good afternoon. I’m Ken Weinstein, CEO of Hudson Institute. I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s Book Forum on the newly published The Neoconservative Persuasion: Selected Essays 1942- 2009, by Irving Kristol, which has been edited by the redoubtable Gertrude Himmelfarb. The book is available for sale in the back at the discounted price of $20, and I urge all of you to get one before you leave. This is a truly remarkable book, one that shows the breadth and the depth of Irving Kristol’s thought over some 67 years, which you’ll be hearing about shortly. My colleagues and I frankly feel privileged that Hudson Institute is the venue for today’s book forum, and I should thank the book’s editor, Gertrude Himmelfarb, for giving us this auspicious honor. (Applause.) We have a truly distinguished panel, who will offer their reflections shortly, but before we get underway I should note that this is Hudson Institute’s 50th anniversary year, and to mark this occasion, the Institute has begun a 50th anniversary seminar series, and today’s exceptional Book Forum is the second event in this series. -
Neoconservatism: Origins and Evolution, 1945 – 1980
Neoconservatism: Origins and Evolution, 1945 – 1980 Robert L. Richardson, Jr. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2009 Approved by, Michael H. Hunt, Chair Richard Kohn Timothy McKeown Nancy Mitchell Roger Lotchin Abstract Robert L. Richardson, Jr. Neoconservatism: Origins and Evolution, 1945 – 1985 (Under the direction of Michael H. Hunt) This dissertation examines the origins and evolution of neoconservatism as a philosophical and political movement in America from 1945 to 1980. I maintain that as the exigencies and anxieties of the Cold War fostered new intellectual and professional connections between academia, government and business, three disparate intellectual currents were brought into contact: the German philosophical tradition of anti-modernism, the strategic-analytical tradition associated with the RAND Corporation, and the early Cold War anti-Communist tradition identified with figures such as Reinhold Niebuhr. Driven by similar aims and concerns, these three intellectual currents eventually coalesced into neoconservatism. As a political movement, neoconservatism sought, from the 1950s on, to re-orient American policy away from containment and coexistence and toward confrontation and rollback through activism in academia, bureaucratic and electoral politics. Although the neoconservatives were only partially successful in promoting their transformative project, their accomplishments are historically significant. More specifically, they managed to interject their views and ideas into American political and strategic thought, discredit détente and arms control, and shift U.S. foreign policy toward a more confrontational stance vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. -
Is Nationalism the Most Serious Challenge to Human Rights? Warnings from BREXIT and Lessons from History
ARTICLE: Is Nationalism the Most Serious Challenge to Human Rights? Warnings from BREXIT and Lessons from History Spring, 2018 Reporter 53 Tex. Int'l L.J. 212 * Length: 17781 words Author: Lauren Fielder* * Professor Fielder is Assistant Dean of Graduate and International Programs and Director of the Institute for Transnational Law at the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Fielder would like to thank Andreas Hallbeck, Tori Clark, and Rio Okawa for their valuable research assistance. Text [*212] Introduction The United Kingdom's decision to exit the European Union is arguably the most momentous event in the European Union's history, and the human rights implications of the exit will be staggering. This Article is part of the important discussion organized around these emerging human rights issues. The decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union reflects a pattern of regression of human rights protection that has been happening around the world in recent years. This decision has given rise to a wave of xenophobia and racism, including a sharp increase in hate crimes in the UK since the exit vote. 1 The decision to leave the EU is also causing a tremendous amount of anxiety for individuals and families who are uncertain about their fate post-Brexit. 2 Furthermore, the United Kingdom's exit may hasten the weakening or breakup of the EU, destabilizing not just the region, but the entire world. This Article does not discuss how Brexit changes the UK's internal framework of human rights protections or how it will impact the UK's relationship with the European Court of Human Rights; rather, the discussion in this Article focuses on the broader human rights implications of a radically altered or non-existent European Union. -
U.C.L.A. Law Review
U.C.L.A. Law Review Unsettling the Border Sherally Munshi ABSTRACT When scholars and lawmakers ask who should be allowed to cross borders, under what circumstances, on what ground, they often leave unexamined the historical formation of the border itself. National borders are taken for granted as the backdrop against which normative debates unfold. This Article intervenes in contemporary debates about border crossing by bringing the border itself into the frame of normative consideration. It does so by exploring the colonial dimensions of the national border and calling attention to the ways in which national borders circumscribe and constrain the political imaginary. Focusing on the United States in particular, this Article seeks to defamiliarize the southern border by resituating it within a widened context of settler colonialism and hemispheric domination. Rather than offer a normative case for building a wall or opening borders, this Article asserts that meaningful engagement with the border question requires that we unsettle the border by critically examining the colonial processes and epistemic formations that naturalize and legitimate it. AUTHOR Sherally Munshi, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. I am indebted to many friends and colleagues who offered helpful feedback at various stages, especially Allegra McLeod, Tendayi Achiume, Aslı Bâli, Sheryll Cashin, Joshua Cohen, Laura Cahier, Seth Davis, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Kaaryn Gustafson, Erica Hashimoto, Leila Kawar, Betsy Kuhn, Stephen Lee, Itamar Mann, Naomi Mezey, Jaya Ramji-Nogales, Carrie Rosenbaum, Louis Seidman, Phil Schrag, and Madhavi Sunder. I am grateful to organizers of the Georgetown Law Faculty workshop, CLEAR Perspectives Series at UC Irvine School of Law, the Berkeley Refugee and Migration Law Workshop, and the UCLA Law Review’s January 2020 Symposium, Transnational Legal Discourse on Race and Empire, for giving me the opportunity to share versions of this Article.