Fake Anti-Semitism Controversy Obscures Real Anti-Semitism

Living through a period when antisemitism is surging both around the globe, and especially in the United States, is bad enough. But perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of this experience is the way that the corporate media is consistently focusing on fake and largely partisan controversies, rather than ones that point to the genuine sources of rising Jew-hatred both on the left and the right.

The kerfuffle over the remarks made by former President Donald Trump when he addressed the Israel-American Council last week about the role Jewish voters may play in the 2024 election was a typical example of how a supposedly horrific Trumpian gaffe is covered. Which is to say, its significance was wildly overhyped by his opponents and interpreted very differently by his supporters.

Meanwhile, the stark evidence of the seemingly unassailable influence of Tucker Carlson—the former Fox News host who recently platformed an antisemitic conspiracy theorist and Holocaust denier on his X show—was dismissed as a nonstory or one from which they were willing to quickly move on. Coming from the same media outlets that were describing Trump’s comments with exaggerated and misleading rhetoric, that’s difficult to explain.

The upshot is that rather than enhance understanding of the question of antisemitism on the political right, the public—and most Jews—were, as usual, being diverted into a partisan dead-end instead of thinking seriously about a real problem. It also illustrated how little appetite the mainstream legacy media has for applying the same sort of scrutiny to their preferred party and candidate—Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris—that they apply to Trump.

Taking Trump literally but not seriously

To political observers, the reactions and coverage of Trump’s IAC speech should have had a familiar feel. It was much like every other controversy generated by a Trump remark since he came down the escalator at Trump Tower and onto the political scene in June 2015. Which is to say, the relationship between Trump and the liberal media is similar to that between the 19th-century Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov and his dogs. Trump rings a bell, and journalists and their liberal audiences—eager for more proof of the awfulness of the “bad orange man” and hungry for false hope that his doom is nigh— salivate.

What follows is not what those who are always in high dudgeon about Trump expect. Rather than finally realizing they are tying themselves to a terrible candidate and leader, Trump’s supporters ignore the outrage. Indeed, they find the controversy amusing since they not only believe that they understand what their hero tells them, but also know that, as often as not, Trump is deliberately trolling his opponents. As journalist Salena Zito summed it up in one of the most insightful pieces of political writing of the last generation, “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

What is so remarkable about all this is that after more than nine years, the same news outlets, as well as many of the same reporters and pundits, continue to repeat the pattern that emerged in the summer of 2015, rising to snap at the bait dangled in front of them every time.

In this case, Trump’s remarks were about why he believes his sterling record of support for Israel should impel Jewish voters to support him. Since he is now in the homestretch of his third presidential campaign, he realizes why the majority of Jews don’t agree.

Understanding the Jewish vote

Most of the liberal majority who are Democrats may care about the Jewish state to some degree. But theirs is a belief system that prioritizes the liberal “social justice” agenda and other standard Democratic Party positions, such as strong support for legal abortion, far more than those relating to Israel’s security. And, to the consternation of not just Trump but the approximately 25% to 33% of Jews who tend to vote for Republicans using Israel as a litmus test issue, that still holds even in a year like this one when the Jewish state is under attack and American Jewry assailed by a surge of raw hate fueled by left-wing anti-Zionists.

Trump’s remarks were more than just an attempt to rally Jews around the blue-and-white flag in which he has wrapped himself. His position on antisemitism on college campuses is similarly strong and one on which he has a better record than his opponents, considering his 2019 executive order when he formally extended Title VI protections of the U.S. Civil Rights Act to Jewish students. Trump got his biggest cheers from his Jewish supporters when he promised to deport “foreign jihad sympathizers,” as well as to strip universities of their accreditation and federal funding unless their administrators put a stop to “antisemitic propaganda.” Contrast that with Harris’s declarations of understanding the campus pro-Hamas mobs and the need for them “to be heard.”

Still, the only line from the speech that the liberal media was interested in was a typical example of Trumpian hyperbole in which, during the course of his exhortations about the importance of the Jewish vote in swing states, he said, “In my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss.”

That was immediately jumped on by publications like The New York Times and their generally anti-Israel politics writer Jonathan Weisman, who is often asked to cover Jewish issues. They saw it as proof of him scapegoating Jews and setting them up to be victims of violence by his supporters should Harris prevail in November, and therefore, an egregious example of antisemitic incitement.

Of course, no one in the crowd of Trump supporters at IAC saw it that way. For them, it was just “Trump being Trump,” engaging in exaggerations to make a point.

Misunderstanding the Trump base

In one sense, the Trump critics had a point. Anything that smacks of rhetoric that can be used to blame the Jews for anything could be interpreted by extremists as a reason for antisemitism and even violence.

But what liberals who imagine that most Trump supporters are either open or closeted Jews-haters don’t seem to understand is that the Republican base has shown itself to be overwhelming pro-Israel and philo-semitic over the years, even before Trump entered politics. Many are, after all, evangelicals with an ideological and religious commitment to support the Jewish state. They may share his frustration with Jews who don’t appreciate how much Trump did to help Israel during his presidency. However, that is not a demographic very likely to act out against the Jewish people. As we have learned in the last year, the same cannot be said for the Democrats’ activist left-wing base.

Thus, the focus on Trump’s alleged threat against Jews in a speech in which he reiterated his unwavering support for Israel and commitment to do something about the antisemitism crisis is at best disproportionate and at worst misleading.

Yet when faced with stark evidence of tolerance for actual antisemitism within the Trump camp, the same outlets crying “wolf” about his comments about the Jewish vote were either not particularly interested or swiftly moved on, even when offered a golden opportunity to follow up and roast the GOP ticket.

The Tucker Carlson conundrum

The issue was Carlson’s influence within the Trump inner circle. As I noted earlier this month, his animus towards Israel and tolerance for antisemites isn’t new. But his decision to have podcaster Daryl Cooper on his Internet show crossed a line that should have marked him as someone that mainstream politicians should avoid like the plague.

While Carlson claims that he is “just asking questions” about history and merely trying to shed light on an issue that has been ignored, that is entirely disingenuous. He endorsed Cooper, who has done no original research, interviews or any other work associated with actual historians, as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.” He then proceeded to nod along as Cooper claimed that among other things, Zionist Jews bribed Winston Churchill to start a war against Germany; Churchill and war-mongering Jews are responsible for World War II; Adolf Hitler wanted peace; the Nazi campaign of mass murder during the Holocaust was merely the result of a logistical snafu and is the fault of the Allies, not the Hitlerian regime. This was not merely all false but a reiteration of Nazi propaganda from the 1930s and ’40s.

By platforming a crackpot conspiracy theorist like Cooper, Carlson was essentially endorsing Holocaust denial and enabling classic fascism (a word often bandied about as an insult by the left but that has an actual meaning), in addition to antisemitism.

Carlson has become a regular member of the Trump family posse at sporting and social events in recent years. During the Trump presidency, that didn’t translate into influence over policy. Trump’s pro-Israel and extremely tough anti-Iran stands were the opposite of Carlson’s opinions. Reportedly, he played an outsized role in picking Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance to be Trump’s running mate this year.

Vance’s disgrace

Vance is despised by liberals, who have smeared him as “weird.” Still, he is an articulate intellectual voice of the national “common good” conservatism school at the heart of the current political realignment. And he has a good record of support for Israel and opposition to antisemitism.

But like Trump, his loyalty to Carlson seems to have overridden his principles. When asked to disavow him, the senator tried to change the subject to “cancel culture” and pledged his support for freedom of speech, even for views (like those of Cooper, with which he said he disagreed). Of course, that wasn’t the issue. Cooper has every right to spout whatever lies he wants on his own podcast or anywhere else that will have him. But it isn’t asking too much for Vance to stay away from someone giving endorsements and a platform to a fascist Holocaust denier and fabulist.

Yet that is what he refused to do. Vance was scheduled to appear on Carlson’s national tour in which he interviewed an array of marginal celebrities and extremists. Rather than opting out of the event, which was to be held in Hershey, Pa., he kept his commitment.

The program was, unlike some of the other Carlson live shows, an openly political event. How could it have been otherwise with a vice-presidential candidate appearing in the nation’s most important swing state? And, as I predicted, Vance never challenged his buddy for hosting Cooper. Instead, it was an hour-long partisan laugh fest as the two friends focused on boosting the Trump-Vance ticket.

For Carlson, it was more proof of how bulletproof he is among Trump’s inner circle. For Vance, it was a disgrace, which he ought not to be allowed to live down.

Curiously, the same outlets that are quick to cry antisemitism about Trump and label Vance as “weird” for espousing normative views about the importance of the family as the foundation of civilization were uninterested in following up on the story. His event with Carlson went unnoticed in the Times and most liberal publications. Nor were even those liberal Jewish groups, who are always ready to pile on Trump, drawn to holding Vance accountable for an event that put the GOP stamp of approval on Carlson.

Downplaying actual antisemitism

Most liberals seem too busy denying or minimizing antisemitism on the left while over-hyping marginal Trumpian gaffes into alleged proof of right-wing Jew-hatred to notice the real thing. It’s also possible that their concerns about the topic are entirely lacking in genuine conviction.

We don’t know what this will mean for a putative second Trump administration. Will Carlson have the president’s ear on the Middle East this time? I doubt it, but until we know who will serve as Trump’s foreign-policy team, we can’t be entirely sure. The one thing we do know is that tolerance for an antisemite like Carlson sends a terrible message to the country and undermines Trump’s efforts not just to win the Jewish vote but to also dismiss the false charges that he is a Jew-hater.

Those on both sides of the partisan divide are often quite skilled at sorting out the essential facts about candidates from the noise their campaigns and their opponents broadcast about them. That’s certainly true for Trump supporters. And it may be just as much the case for those who back Harris, who, as a recent insightful piece published in Slate observed, has been subtly signaling left-wing Democrats to ignore the pro-Israel boilerplate lines in her speeches and instead realize that she shares their animus for the Jewish state.

When push comes to shove, no matter which candidate or party you support, the obligation to call out tolerance for antisemitism should always be prioritized over partisan loyalties.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of Jewish News Syndicate.