Aaron Blake writes for the Washington Post:
The problem with the original tweet wasn’t that the use of a six-pointed star is inherently anti-Semitic. The problem was what else was contained in the tweet with the six-pointed star — the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” — and that the star was overlaid on top of a bunch of money. This brings to bear some of the most well-established stereotypes and racist beliefs about Jewish people and money.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, “One of the most damaging and lasting anti-Semitic myths involves the relationship between Jews and money. … Stereotypes about Jews hoarding money, rich media moguls exerting undue influence, and a disproportionate amount of wealth and control in the hands of the Jewish community are not only false, but are also dangerous.” The former head of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, even wrote a whole book about all this, called “Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype.”
Just how prevalent these stereotypes are can be hard to say with certainty, since people don’t like to admit their prejudices. But a 2011 poll conducted by the ADL showed 19 percent of Americans say it’s “probably true” that “Jews have too much control/influence on Wall Street.”
And the idea that Trump’s campaign is unfamiliar with this stereotype strains credulity. Even during the 2016 campaign, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has praised Trump for rejecting money from the “Jewish community” — citing its “control” of politics in America.
And then there’s the fact that the Clinton six-pointed-star image originated on a racist forum. There is a reason for that. The Trump campaign might not have plucked it from this forum — it says it found it on Twitter — or realized that the image might be deemed offensive, but it’s reasonable to assume it was created with some form of anti-Semitism in mind, given the content of the forum. It would be far too big a coincidence otherwise.
The “Frozen” defense is strawman politics, plain and simple. And it looks like it.
2) You would not jump into a delayed double-down
This story broke on a Saturday of a holiday weekend and just as easily could have petered out before people got back to work three days later, on the Tuesday after the Fourth of July. The campaign quickly deleted the tweet and replaced the star with a red circle — apparently acknowledging its fault. Reporters seeking comment on the flap, as usual, came up empty.
Then came the morning of the Fourth of July, and Trump decided to finally respond — on his Twitter feed, naturally.
Dishonest media is trying their absolute best to depict a star in a tweet as the Star of David rather than a Sheriff’s Star, or plain star!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 4, 2016
Suddenly, Trump’s campaign was no longer accepting that this was a mistake and moving on. It was doubling down. Conflicting Signal No. 1.
3) You would not dismiss the potential for offense (hey — they got one!)
At the center of this controversy is Trump’s social media director, Dan Scavino. After Trump re-ignited the controversy the morning of the Fourth, Scavino issued his own statement that night — which explained where it came from and appeared to acknowledge the potentially offensive nature of the image.
.@DanScavino, Trump’s director of social media, releases this statement saying that he lifted image from Twitter: pic.twitter.com/QHr90a5N3J
— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) July 5, 2016
Fair enough. The campaign maintained that the tweet wasn’t meant to offend — but basically suggested that it might offend and acknowledged that it was a poor choice. Hence the deletion.
4) You would not say that this thing your campaign deleted to avoid offending people should never have been deleted
Or not. Trump on Wednesday night basically threw his social media director under the bus.
“I said: ‘You shouldn’t have taken it down.’ You know, they took the star down,” Trump said in Cincinnati, according to The Post’s Jenna Johnson. “I said: ‘Too bad. You should have left it up.’ I would have rather defended it — just leave it up and say: No, that’s not a Star of David. That’s just a star.”
Aaron Blake complains that Trump’s original tweet “most well-established stereotypes and racist beliefs about Jewish people and money.”
Stereotypes are generally true. Jews are disproportionately successful with money and with wielding influence, including in politics. So in one sentence, Aaron Blake is saying that yes, stereotypes about Jews and money are generally true, but it is racist to believe the truth. Yeah, got it.
How is calling a belief “racist” a powerful argument? There are only two honorable forms of argument — to contest facts or logic. Name-calling is not honorable argument.
Aaron Blake quotes the ADL: “One of the most damaging and lasting anti-Semitic myths involves the relationship between Jews and money.”
So there is no out of the normal relationship between Jews and money? Jews are not more economically successful and influential than other groups? The ADL calls the facts of life a “myth” and “damaging.” How can truth be damaging? Only if it gets in the way of a con job. Then the truth is damaging to con artists.
ADL: “Stereotypes about Jews hoarding money, rich media moguls exerting undue influence, and a disproportionate amount of wealth and control in the hands of the Jewish community are not only false, but are also dangerous.”
So one man’s hoarding is another man’s saving. Jews do tend to be better than non-Jews at managing money. I don’t see why pointing out this fact of life is dangerous. Compared to their share of the population, Jews do have a disproportionate amount of wealth and power.
The ADL stands for lying to the goyim. Apparently, in the view of the ADL, only by lying to the goyim can Jews be safe.
