The more things change, the more they stay the same
Why are Jews taking cues from Father Coughlin,
the early 20th century’s Rush Limbaugh/Bill O’Reilly?
Why are Jews taking cues from Father Coughlin,
the early 20th century’s Rush Limbaugh/Bill O’Reilly?
Considering recent events, Horowitz has a point.
Just because two things are similar doesn’t mean they’re the same.
FormerMuslim, interesting name. Did you convert to another religion or become secular?
Pardon me? Haven’t there always been Jews in right wing movements. Roy Cohen and Walter Winchel come to mind. About 10 twenty percent are right wing and have always been that way.
“Why are Jews Taking cues…”
Don’t you mean *some* Jews? Of the 12-13 million Jews in the world (?) some are right-wing, many are left-wing, some racist, sexist, capitalist, communist… In addition to being Jews, we’re also individuals, so I kind of resent the question you posed because it implicitely suggests that we should all tow the “Jewish” party line – because we’re Jews. That’s a dangerous idea, and somewhat contradictory to the usual tenor of this site.
Yes, there have long been right-wing Jews, and there still are (though it was Roy Cohn, not Cohen). Still, I do find it sad when Jews play into the kind of redbaiting that has often targetted us. This is true of Roy Cohn, and it’s true of David Horowitz. I would quibble with the idea that Horowitz is “taking cues” from Father Coughlin, but he IS playing into some of the same strains of right-wing populism and scapegoating that Coughlin used.
“Still, I do find it sad when Jews play into the kind of redbaiting that has often targetted us.”
Funny, I find it sad that some Jews are in a position to be legitimately targeted.
“Why are Jews taking cues from Father Coughlin,
the early 20th century’s Rush Limbaugh/Bill O’Reilly?”
And this comparison is truly off the wall and disgusting.
To be in a position to be legitimately targeted?
Wow. A vague statement that could justify anything. Who is “legiitmately taargetted”? Targetted for what? Do you care to get specific enough to actually discuss it, or do you prefer to leave on that general, potentially threatening note?
And this comparison is truly off the wall and disgusting.
Again, care to actually say something to back this up? Or is it just that it’s harder for others to refute you when you don’t get into putting forward an actual argument?
“Who is “legiitmately taargettedâ€? Targetted for what?”
Targeted as in “Still, I do find it sad when Jews play into the kind of redbaiting that has often targetted us. ” Odd that your own statement needed no elaboration, but my use of the same word does. But, to state the obvious, I mean people being targeted as disloyal to their country, spreaders of harmful ideas, and (in some cases) actively working for foreign enemies. Shall I name names:)
And do I really have to explain why comparing a vile anti-Semite like Coughlin to Limbaugh and O’Reilly is wrong?
And do I really have to explain why comparing a vile anti-Semite like Coughlin to Limbaugh and O’Reilly is wrong?
do i need to explain why comparing them is right?
“But, to state the obvious, I mean people being targeted as disloyal to their country, spreaders of harmful ideas, and (in some cases) actively working for foreign enemies. Shall I name names:)”
No need. His name is George W. Bush.
Mobius, you do have some explaining to do. Jews in Boston were at pains because of Coughlin’s (he’s not my father) incitement to anti-Semitism. I don’t think anyone’s life has been put in danger because of anything said by O’Reilly or Limbaugh. I dislike both of them, I’ll definitely give you that, but to compare them to someone who publicly incited anti-Semitism and racism is just off the wall.
Horowitz is overreacting and may not enjoy views counter to his, but the views in his book are nowhere near the racist, inciteful paranoia of Coughlin.