Gregg Easterbrook, Anti-Semitism, and the Question of Reputation. (A whistle Past The Cemetary)

The New Republic ^ | Post date 10.20.03 | by the Editors

[.cnI redruM]

To our readers:

We are sorry. Last week Gregg Easterbrook wrote an item in his blog for tnr.com about the moral culpability of Hollywood executives who profit handsomely from movies that glorify violence and depict it with pornographic vividness. In the course of his denunciation, Easterbrook referred to "Jewish executives [who] worship money above all else." Many readers found the remark offensive. They were right. The phrase was right out of the classical vocabulary of modern anti-Semitism. We make no defense of these words and we are mortified that they appeared under the auspices of a magazine that has for many decades been in the forefront of the campaign against anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds. Easterbrook's comment is false and ugly, and we do not wish in any way to make excuses for it. And neither does he, which is why he apologized for it, and made no extenuations for it. He candidly wrote on this Web site last Friday that "[w]hat I wrote here was simply wrong, and for being wrong, I apologize."

We associate ourselves with Easterbrook's contrition. We, too, failed our readers. This is not the time or the place to reflect on the new and uncharted editorial requirements of blogs and the other instantaneous publications and postings on the Internet. However fast the medium or however slow, on paper and online, the editors of The New Republic are responsible for the "content" that we put before the public; and in this instance we were delinquent in our responsibilities.

But, while we understand the outrage that Easterbrook's comment has caused, we are concerned also about the brutality of some of the criticism. There is another, important side to this story. We have known Easterbrook for many years, and we wish to say without doubt or hesitation that he is not an anti-Semite. Indeed, he is a person of high integrity. He has written prolifically and thoughtfully and with great erudition on many subjects, including science, the environment, politics, and religion; and the moral sensibility that appears in his writings is that of tolerance and open-mindedness. The many editors and writers who have worked with him over the decades of his career--at Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, and The Washington Monthly, to name but a few--can all attest not only to his talent, but to his character. A good individual said a bad thing. Sometimes this happens. (Sometimes a bad individual says a good thing.) When it happens, he must credibly express his regret, and his understanding of how he erred. This Easterbrook has done. We have seen too many reputations unjustly ruined by media inquisitions and the vituperative politics of ethnic insult in America. We hope that the firmness with which Easterbrook's awful remark has been judged will be attended by fairness in the consideration of his character and his career. What he wrote last week is the terrible exception, not the terrible rule.

These accusations have, of course, been enormously upsetting to The New Republic's staff, which has spent a generation writing about Jews, Israel, and the elimination of prejudice. On these issues we stand by our record. (The spectacle of this magazine defending itself against the charge of anti-Semitism would be funny if it were not so sad.) And we have many times in our pages insisted upon the moral importance of culture, and worried about the deleterious consequences of the romanticization of violence in American popular culture. We do not believe that our arguments and our anxieties have been vitiated by this incident.

But we know that reputations are, by their nature, fragile things. So, as we apologize to you today, we also rededicate ourselves to keeping the faith of our readers in our old and proven commitment to decency in American life, and in the critical discussion of it.

[.cnI redruM]

Easterbrook may give millions to The Red Cross and United Way, but his commentary veered into bigotry in a reflex and unconscious manner. His character completely aside, he said exactly what he said. His bigotry is engrained, reinforced and melded into his entire being by the company that he keeps on the elitist left. It's a part of the elite leftist's autonomic nervous system.

His fall from grace is notable and positive for two reasons.

1) Now that a liberal has actually suffered for espousing bigotry, we will begin having a rational discussion about the issue of bigotry and how it should be punished. When it was Trent Lott, and Rush Limbaugh, the media chorus was an uncritical "Off with their heads!!"

Now that one of the liberal, elitist media's own, an editor at The New Republic, got wailed on, the journalists may think twice before convening the lynch mob for future stupid and tasteless public remarks.

2) The left has had it's sordid underside revealed in all of it's hating putridity. Easterbrook could have called Eisner a bloated greed-bag, or a criminal exploiter of violence and near-pornography for filthy lucre. This would accurately encompass who Eisner is and hardly paint him a portrait he'd want hung at The Hirschorn.

Instead, when Easterbrook really wanted to load up and bring it with the ad hominem vituperation, he had to play the race card. He had to describe the aspect of Eisner's core that he truely found most loathesome. Instead of the greed, the corruption or the hideously tacky bling-bling, Easterbrook called him a hook-nose. That was the aspect of Eisner's being Easterbrook found most hateful. Easterbrook is a bigot, QED.

[OldFriend]

At his core, Easterbrook is an anti-semite.

[pogo101]

Easterbrook is a bigot, QED.

I haven't read the original Easterbrook piece. I read one PARTIAL defense of Easterbrook (and I stress it was only a partial defense, whose author still thought Easterbrook was right to apologize) indicating that Easterbrook had meant to criticize the executives for going against the tenets of their religion, just as one might criticize Ted Kennedy for going against the Catholic stance on abortion. But I'm ignorant of the underlying material, as I said.

[luckydevi]

I think we are too quick to call people anti-semite or racist.

[JohnGalt]

Easterbrook should have known better than to produce an ethnic slander against a group that does not tolerate such caricatures.

He should have just blamed drunk Irishmen like everyone else does.

Signed,
a drunk Irishman

[dts32041]

I thought Herr OsternderBach was actually admitting the liberal prejudices against the juden.

After all The two great socialist movements of Europe (19th and 20th century) have always hated the juden, but never admitted their hatred.

[.cnI redruM]

I can almost buy into that, except Easterbrook fits snugly into a pattern amongst the modern left. Easterbrook isn't going after Hollywood Jews and Howard Dean doesn't sing the praises of the soldiers of Hamas in a cultural vaccuum.

[laotzu]

"We hope that..Easterbrook's awful remark has been judged will be attended by fairness in the consideration of his character and his career."

Character doesn't matter. Especially that of a racist enciting others to join in his bigotry.

Unless, of course, your not a liberal.

[.cnI redruM]

I have no problem with drunk Irishmen. They play excellent rugby and if they are sensitive and caring, they tend to call for a cab.

[.cnI redruM]

His remark goes directly to his character. He had an infinite number of ways to describe Michael Eisner that wouldn't make Mickey Mouse happy.

[sinkspur]

He had an infinite number of ways to describe Michael Eisner that wouldn't make Mickey Mouse happy.

Yep. It's like Cruz Bustamante's "accidental" use of the "n" word.

Who "accidentally" uses the "n" word?

Nobody.

[.cnI redruM]

Exactly!!!

Bustamonte REFLEXIVELY used the n-word. It's a part of who liberals are, because they are constantly playing the race card every time an issue of the day goes before the public.

[DeFault User]

I can almost buy into that, except Easterbrook fits snugly into a pattern amongst the modern left. Easterbrook isn't going after Hollywood Jews and Howard Dean doesn't sing the praises of the soldiers of Hamas in a cultural vaccuum.

So right. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton wore their anti-Semitism on their sleeves and weren't called to task. Hillary's slurs went largely unreported. But the left has become so pro-PLO that the anti-Semitic leaks can virtually be predicted.

[Torie]

I previously believed that Easterbrook was a good, fair, thoughtful, erudite and hightly talented man, and still do. He just slipped up. The idea that he harbors anti-Jew views is ludicrous. He was simply furious that a couple of Jews were asleep at the switch on their watch for perhaps pecuniary reasons, and thus failed to live up to the standards they should per the religiouos values to which they subscribe. Of course, there was no need to bring up religion, and he should not have done so, particularly since the comment while offering up little of substance or value, generated so much heat and hurt.

As Peggy Noonan once said, be good to your troop to the extent one can in conscience.

[beckett]

Your purple prose attack on Easterbrook is way over the top. Easterbrook was trying to make the point that Jews should be extra-sensitive to violence in film because they have suffered so much violence in their own history. His phrasing was a bit clumsy, but not outrageously so. As he said in his apology, years ago he sought out and found a Christian denomination to worship in that shared its facilities and ceremonies with a Jewish Temple, specifically for the purpose of growing closer to and learning more about the "elder brother" of Christianity -- Judaism. He is not an anti-Semite.

The real outrage here is that Michael Eisner at Disney fired Easterbrook in a heavy-handed overreaction to a little heat. The fact that he can reach down from the top of Disney and swat little Easterbrook at ESPN should give pause to all of us who are worried that the tight consolidation of media outlets in this country is choking off freedom of expression.

Another thing to be aware of with Easterbrook is that, although he is considered left-of-center (barely), he has done lots of heavy lifting for conservatives through his excellent and learned polemics against radical environmentalists. The guy is a highly competent science writer who has flayed the tree-huggers alive on numerous occasions.