Soccer Dad

Having it both ways - walt and mearsheimer style

Earlier I wrote about the pre-emptive book tour staged Profs. Walt and Mearsheimer using the good offices of the New York Times. I've had a little time to reflect on their complaints and find it astonishing that they are taken seriously. But now I'd like to collect my thoughts in a more orderly fashion.

I've read their paper. What was remarkable is how familiar I was with the events they described and how they selectively quoted from news sources to back their position. What they wrote was not an academic exercise, but an extended blog entry - on paper - with no ability for the reader to click on a link and read their complete sources.

Think back for a moment for the reason that Walt and Mearsheimer claimed that they couldn't be published in America. The Forward reported last year

“I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States,” Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America’s leading magazines, “but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States.”

Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that “the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue,” he said. “Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems.”

"All sorts of problems?" In an interview with the sympathetic Mother Jones magazine, though we learn,

MJ: Have either of you experienced consequences at Harvard or the University of Chicago for publishing this report?

SW: Nothing substantial. There have been a few things I know about—invitations that were cancelled and things like that. But one of the reasons we wrote this is that John and I were both in a position where we could do this without losing our jobs.

JM: There is no evidence that I've suffered at the University of Chicago as a consequence of the article. What the actual long-term consequences will be for my professional career are hard to say. My sense is that Steve and I will pay a significant price, but it's hard at this early date to point to evidence that supports that conclusion, and hopefully I will be proven wrong.

MJ: In what sense do you imagine paying a price?

JM: I think that in the wake of the piece it would be almost impossible for either of us to ever be appointed to a policy-making position in Washington. It's also difficult to imagine Steve becoming a high-level academic administrator, despite the fact that he just completed a distinguished tour of service as the academic dean at the Kennedy School.

So despite the fact that they claimed (with no basis) that publishing their paper would have severe consequences for any publisher who assumed that risk, they acknowledged three months later that they, themselves had suffered no consequences. (Though they claimed to anticipate that they'd suffer some.)

Two more points are worth noting. Walt and Mearsheimer are having the book published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux effectively refuting their claim that no American publisher would handle their work. Secondly, now in their recent appearance in the NY Times they're claiming

American Jews who lobby on Israel’s behalf are not all that different from the National Rifle Association, the anti-tax movement, AARP or the American Petroleum Institute, he said, “They just happen to be really good at it.”

“It’s the way American politics work,” he continued. “Sometimes powerful interest groups get what they want, and it’s not good for the country as a whole. I would say that about the farm lobby and about the Cuba lobby.”

To the authors, dual loyalty is as American as Presidents’ Day sales and “Law & Order” reruns. As Mr. Mearsheimer explained: “People are allowed to have multiple loyalties. They have religious loyalties, loyalty to family, to an organization and you can have loyalty to other countries. Someone who is Irish can have a loyalty to Ireland.”

Well if everyone lobbies and everyone has dual loyalties what's so explosive about the book?

Either they're argument is so explosive (as they claimed) that people wish to stifle them, or there's nothing particularly remarkable about their argument (as they're claiming now), in which case what's so important about their book? Clearly they're being disingenuous now. They understand the gravity of the charge of dual loyalty, so now they're saying that the charge is no big deal. And they can't have that and still attach the importance to their paper.

Last year when David Duke expressed his approval of the paper, Walt was quick to repudiate that support

Mr. Walt said last night, "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world."

But of course what Walt (and Mearsheimer) won't acknowledge is that, of course, in this case Duke was right. Their paper is perfectly aligned with the believers in ZoG. But if they rejected Duke's support, why'd they run off and do an interview with Robert Fisk? And consider the artwork that accompanied that interview. (Scroll about halfway down and read the accompanying commentary.)

Blogger David T. notes that the Independent's cover art--shown nearby--depicts an American flag with the stars replaced by Stars of David. The same image, he notes, appeared on a flyer, also shown nearby, from International Third Position, "a neo-nazi group founded by Nick Griffin."

My guess is that they object to Duke's support because his views are too well known in America. There's no way they can co-opt him and retain any level of credibility. But they'll accept Fisk's embrace even if it means accepting an ideology remarkably similar to Duke's. There's no cost in that. Fisk isn't the pariah like Duke.

Walt and Mearsheimer have been playing a double game since their paper appeared. They claimed that it was too controversial, now they're saying (effectively) it's not too controversial. They reject David Duke's but accept Robert Fisk's.

They want to be recognized for taking on a taboo subject but don't want to accept the consequences because the way they approached the topic was unacceptable.

Previously at Soccer Dad.

Walt Mearsheimer.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 17, 2007 2:41 AM | TrackBack