Posted on 09/22/2002 11:32:49 AM PDT by RCW2001
BRADENTON - Some Jewish leaders are bristling at comments made by U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey on Friday night.
Armey, R-Texas, discussed Middle Eastern issues at a roundtable forum organized by U.S. District 13 congressional candidate Katherine Harris, with 15 leaders from Manatee and Sarasota counties' Jewish community. Though the discussion focused on a possible war with Iraq, Armey's support of Israel and the Sept. 11 attacks, one audience member asked why the Jewish-American community is so divided between liberals and conservatives.
"I always see two Jewish communities in America," Armey replied. "One of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect."
Armey said conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend to have "occupations of the brain" in fields like economics, engineering and science. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to flock to "occupations of the heart," which he defined as people with jobs in the arts.
"They're going to be liberals . . . because they want to feel good," he said.
Splitting the groups between liberal "artsy intellectuals" and conservative "deep intellectuals," Armey said as people grow they become more conservative because they gain a better sense of "reality." Liberals have a "romanticized" notion of a world they pretend exists, he said.
Many in the Jewish community disagree.
Allan Fedder, president of the Sarasota-Manatee Jewish Federation, attended the meeting but was hesitant to comment on Armey's statements. Fedder said his organization is strictly non-political.
"I think his remarks were more political than sociological," Fedder said. "I don't think necessarily that people interested in cultural issues are not as smart, and he basically inferred that. I was shocked."
Rabbi Betsy Torop of Congregation Shir Shalom didn't attend the meeting but said she was angered by Armey's "reprehensible" comments.
"It's a shallow intellectual comment in and of itself, which is so ironic about it," Torop said. "It's such a shallow understanding of the liberal community."
Torop said Armey's comments are "insulting" to liberal Jews in the community and called on Katherine Harris to distance herself from Armey.
"I think that unless she takes steps to publicly disavow what Armey said, that it's certainly possible . . . that she could be associated with those remarks," she said.
Richard Greene, a Bradenton investor, founding president of Shir Shalom and a self-professed moderate, called Armey a "shallow, superficial conservative who clearly doesn't understand what is going on . . . among Jews in this country."
"To try to classify or categorize Jews is a mistake that unfortunately was made in the 1940s in Germany," Greene said. "We start labeling because it's a convenience."
Greene also called on Harris to disavow herself from Armey's comments, saying they would "dramatically hurt her cause."
Gordon Baum, the president of Shir Shalom, said he found Armey's comments insulting.
"If nothing else, I guess the Jewish vote is being stirred up," Baum said.
Jan Schneider, Harris' opponent for House District 13, said she was flabbergasted at Armey's statements.
"Good lord," she said. "It would never have occurred to me in a million years to peg people in boxes like that. He has absolutely rendered me speechless!"
Schneider, who considers herself generally conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues, wondered which of Armey's groups she would belong to.
"I can't imagine the context in which such a gross and meaningless level of distinction would come up," she said.
But not everyone took offense to Armey's comments. Ruth Young, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, West Coast Florida Chapter, said Armey was complimenting the Jewish community when she heard him speak Friday.
"Really, in a way, in my opinion, he was saying the Jewish Community in America has matured and represents diversity like all of America," Young said. "I think he felt he could speak honestly and openly and be very mature about it, and what he was really trying to say is that the Jewish-American community is not one-sided - is in flux - like any other group of Americans."
A statement released by Rori Patrise Smith, Katherine Harris' press secretary, did not respond directly to questions about Armey's comments on his "two Jewish communities."
The statement read: "The most important aspect and the intent of the Israel Roundtable was that a powerful sitting congressman and our local congressional candidate had the opportunity to listen first hand about issues concerning Israel directly from the leaders of the Jewish community. The congressman has helped lead the charge to protect the freedom of Israel in the Middle East. What makes our country great is our diversity. And with that diversity comes different points of view with which we can agree or disagree."
Harris did not respond personally to requests for comment.
Messages left at several of Armey's offices in Washington, and Irving, Texas, were not immediately returned Saturday.
Brian Haas, Herald staff writer, can be reached at 782-1207 or at bhaas@bradentonherald.com.
I couldn't hav said it better.
Liberal, of all religions and all races, like to feel good and think with their hearts. Conservatives, of all races and religions, think with their heads.
It WAS a compliment to the Jewish community. All they have to do is think it through, but then, the liberals are reacting with their "feelings" and "feel" insulted.
No, you inferred it. He implied it.
"Cultural issue" types...
Newspaper stories which purport to be about the opinions of "some" of this group or that group are really, really starting to make me suspicious. Of course "some" Jewish leaders are bristling at comments made by Armey. "Some Jewish leaders" are drinking tea, "some Jewish leaders" like to listen to punk rock, "some Jewish leaders" are over six foot 3 inches tall, "some Jewish leaders" dislike cats, etc. The sentence "Some Jewish leaders are _____" is almost always going to be a true statement, no matter how you fill in the blank (within reason of course).
In fact the sentence "Some _____ are _____" is true for almost any choice of (1) group of people filled into the first blank and (2) activity or opinion filled into the second blank, unless that activity is something ridiculous or absurd or violates the laws of physics or such-like.
For a phrase like this to show up as a valid news item, it must therefore be true that this opinion/activity being held by "some" of whatever group is somehow either:
-representative of that group (but then the word "most" would be used instead of "some"),
-or more likely, a possible interesting trend within that group (for example, "some Gore voters support Bush" would be an interesting trend within a group).
The observation that "Some Jewish 'leaders' disagree with a Dick Armey statement" is neither. Use of this construction "Some ____ are ____" is sloppy news-writing at best and stealth bias at worst.
Here's how it can be used as bias. Say I'm a news reporter, and of course I'm a conservative. I write the story: "Some blacks are now becoming staunchly conservative." Interesting, huh? The first sentence of the story: "Some American blacks are starting to become disgusted with their fellow blacks' longstanding allegiance to the Democratic party, and are embracing conservative principles..." I fill the story with fluff, quote three blacks on the subject, and send it off to the printer.
The effect? I took my opinion about stuff and made it seem like Such-and-such Group Is Coming Around To My Way Of Thinking, or Such-and-such Group Has The Same Reactions I Did. Further, I didn't lie: the story as I outlined and explained it above is completely true. I do know of at least three black conservatives who I could quote, after all. That's "some"!
Again, the phrase "Some _____ are ____" is almost never false.
So this newspaper chose to insert "Jewish leaders" and "disagree with Dick Armey". That means nothing more and nothing less than that the author of the article had problems with Armey's statements, or wants to make them seem shocking or controversial, and tried to disguise his opinion as that of "Jewish leaders" (a dubious category which may be biased in itself...who are these self-appointed "leaders", and do these Jewish groups really represent all Jews?). Of course, to not make this a complete fraud he had to use the word "some". He quoted, what, five people (including Harris' opponent!!) disapproving of Armey? Then with the sleight of hand "but not everyone took offense", he quotes one who had no real problem with him. Another trick which marginalizes that opinion, of course, and makes it seem like an oddity.
Is that representative of how all those folks felt? How Jews feel in general? Maybe, maybe not. And why are the "some" which the reporter quoted more important than a different "some" (which almost certainly exist) which would have no problem with Armey's statement?
Could an author with a conservative bias have equally found five pro-Armey "Jewish leaders" to quote against only one anti-Armey "Jewish leader", and then written a story "Some Jewish leaders embrace observations by Armey"?
In fact, the answer of course is yes. And that's the problem. Sloppy news-writing at best, bias at worst.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.