|
August 30, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Last week, I interviewed James Loeffler about his new book, Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight Over Free Speech, on how best to balance the damage caused by hate speech against the importance, especially to minorities, of protecting free speech. That's the body of today's newsletter.
- Not only are few DSA candidates winning Democratic primaries, but those who do win do not necessarily share the elements of the DSA program that many of us find most concerning.
- If you think Jews and Zionists don't have a home in the Democratic Party, you might want to ask yourself why so many Jews and Zionists are in Democratic leadership and why, of the 35 Jewish members of Congress, only four are Republicans.
- Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is a strong friend of Israel; don't fall for misrepresentations of his record to the contrary.
You're on this list because you are smart, good-looking, and generous. Please support my work by chipping in via credit card (you do not need a PayPal account), Zelle (contact me for info), Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or check.
Friends,
Why not ban antisemitic speech? Why not ban all hate speech? Or are Jews in particular and minorities in general better off in societies that protect free speech even at the cost of permitting hate speech?
In his outstanding new book, Exceptional Hatred: Antisemitism and the Fight Over Free Speech, James Loeffler describes how, as antisemitism has waxed and waned in America since World War II, different opinions within the Jewish community have gained or lost support.
Loeffler is the Felix Posen Professor of Modern Jewish History at Johns Hopkins University and a Kogod Senior Research Fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute.
Exceptional Hatred demonstrates that today's controversies about how to fight antisemitism, including striking the right balance between restrictions on hate speech and the value of free speech, are not new. All of us can better understand these issues with the benefit of history.
Loeffler, himself a historian, writes lucidly about the history of these controversies, and regardless of your views, you'll recognize yourself and those with whom you disagree in past landmark disputes.
Loeffler focuses on three key moments: Anti-Jewish riots in late 1940s Chicago, the planned neo-Nazi march in 1970s Skokie, and 2017's white supremacist fiasco in Charlottesville, noting that after October 7, 2023, "antisemitism became an ideological obsession, challenging First Amendment principles and inflaming national debates over the boundaries of free expression."
Loeffler also explores the Right's strategy of ignoring right-wing antisemitism while weaponizing accusations of left-wing antisemitism, writing that Trump is targeting universities and that in "the Trumpian inversion that deemed antisemitism racist, civil rights law unlawful, and diversity a radical plot, fighting antisemitism became a potent tool for dismantling liberalism while shielding his own supporters from scrutiny."
The book is so tightly written that it is difficult to summarize. Many of today's non-fiction books read like what could have been an interesting long-form essay padded and expanded for book length. Not Exceptional Hatred. No fluff in its 368 pages.
On Sunday evening, I spoke with Loeffler by phone. He explained that the purpose of his book is not to provide any definitive solutions, but to provide a framework for thinking about how to balance legitimate concerns about hate speech against legitimate free speech concerns. His goal is to provide the historical background needed for sophisticated, principled debate about how best to regulate hate speech, which he believes must be regulated; "free speech will not solve all our problems."
Part of that history is that, as Loeffler recently wrote in The Atlantic, "depending on the audience, Jews are dismissed as beneficiaries of white privilege or treated as not quite white at all—too assimilated and not assimilated enough, too powerful and too marginal. That ambiguity has placed them, again and again, at the center of America’s battles over free speech and equal protection. When hatred does not fit existing categories, we tend either to ignore it or to overcorrect—both responses that distort the boundaries of free expression."
Banning or restricting antisemitic speech seems appealing for obvious reasons, yet Jews and other minorities fare better in societies that protect speech. One day, the same restrictions that protect us from hate speech might be used by others who deem what we say to be hateful (for example, by those who think that Zionism is racism).
"When developing standards and laws," Loeffler told me, we should "consider what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. What if someone else were enforcing these standards?"
Hate speech does cause harm. No serious person disputes that. The question is whether we do greater harm by restricting hate speech. Loeffler believes that we went from not enough attention to Jewish civil rights into overdrive following October 7.
Wherever we strike the balance, the solution, Loeffler said, must be clearly defined "uniform standards that apply to all groups." Much of the problem on campus, for example, stems from the perception (and often the reality) that hate speech against one group, and who defines hate speech against one group, is treated differently from hate speech against another group.
Context matters. Republicans like to make fun of it, but it's true. The same words uttered in one context might be acceptable and in another time and place, unacceptable.
Ironically, many of those who mock the concept of context are supporters of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which does not contain any definitive statements of what is and is not antisemitic. Rather, the IHRA definition states that all of its examples of antisemitism "could, taking into account the overall context," be antisemitic. In other words, without knowing the context of any act of alleged antisemitism, by its own terms, the IHRA definition is inapplicable. Context matters.
Loeffler said that on campus, we should draw a distinction between speech in the context of the classroom or research and speech in the context of the campus as a living space.
The problem at the university level, he said, is a lack of consistent standards: "After October 7, students and universities did not seem to know what the policies were, which leads to mistrust. It seemed like there was an exception for Israel. Standards must be clear and consistent on how to share campus space."
As Loeffler wrote in his article (which you should read, but which is no substitute for reading his book), "Building a way forward requires de-exceptionalizing anti-Semitism—not erasing its distinct features, but treating it as one hatred among others, deserving the same protections, no more and no less." The rest is commentary.
In Case You Missed It:
- Not all DSA candidates are the same. Just as one can join the Democratic Party or the Republican Party without agreeing with everything those parties stand for, so too one can join DSA. Watch DSA candidate Angie Nixon, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Florida, explain why she joined DSA. Nothing about Israel, abolishing prisons, or open borders: just common sense. If you know anyone who is obsessed with DSA, force them to watch her video on continuous loop Clockwork Orange style until they are cured.
- 44 U.S Senators, all Democrats, urged Netanyahu to put an end to increasing violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Gershon Baskin urged the international community to stop treating the settlers, their businesses, and their products as though they were located inside sovereign Israel. Republicans care as little about Israel's democracy as they do about American democracy, and have said nothing.
- If you think Jews and Zionists are not welcome in the Democratic Party, ask yourself this: Why did the Senate Democratic caucus elect Chuck Schumer, who is Jewish and an avowed Zionist and supporter of Israel, to lead them? Why did the House Democratic caucus elect Hakeem Jeffries, a strong supporter of Israel, to lead them? Why did Jeffries and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) appoint Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), who is Jewish, a Zionist, and a supporter of Israel, to lead Democrats on the Foreign Affairs subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes Israel last week? Why did Jeffries and Meeks also appoint Rep. Debbie Wasserman (D-FL), also Jewish, also a Zionist, also a supporter of Israel, as well as Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO), also a strong supporter of Israel, to the Foreign Affairs Committee last week? Do you think they forgot to check with DSA? Finally, if we're talking about which party welcomes Jews, of the 35 Jewish members of Congress, why are only four Republicans? Why have Republicans thrice nominated a man with a long record of antisemitism to run against three Democratic presidential candidates without a whiff of antisemitism in their political careers? If you think Jews don't have a home in the Democratic Party, look at the Democratic Party, not the distraction ju jour.
- Ben Lorber: Specters of Balfour. The Piker balagan, of which we need not speak again, illustrates more fundamental and more important issues. You don't have to agree with everything Lorber says (I don't) to appreciate the points he makes about Israel, Zionism, and antisemitism.
Jewish Insider Fail of the Week. On Tuesday, JI wrote, "aside from an X post titled, 'My statement on Hasan Piker’s comments regarding Jeremy Moss,' El-Sayed didn’t name either man."
This is self-parody. Aside from mentioning both men by name, El-Sayed didn't mention either man by name? What was he supposed to do? Put their names in every sentence in case someone forgets who he was talking about? Maybe you didn't think El-Sayed went far enough (if he punched Piker in the mouth it wouldn't be enough for some people; they'd say he should have thrown him out of a window) but c'mon--can't we at least acknowledge that the statement was clear about who it was in reference to?
We should treat Jewish Insider with the level of trust that we would Fox News.
Social Media of the Week. JB Pritzker, Sundae Girl, Super 70s Sports, and Montana Classical College.
Video Clip of the Week. Dolly Parton's Top Ten Peeves.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. We also lost Tim Curry last week.
The Fine Print. Read the fine print before you reply or send me anything.
This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read. If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, your luck continues. You can subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday for free. Just click here.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. You are on this list because you are smart, good-looking, and generous. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can use Zelle, (contact me for info), Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (last four digits, 9479), or send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
|
