Re the comment by MPC: I said that today’s Jewish leftism is perhaps noblesse oblige, and that Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights movement definitely was. I don’t see what the affirmative action policies disfavoring whites (including Jews) and Asians and favoring blacks and Hispanics has to do with that. Some, perhaps a minority, of Jews still think that as an ethnic group that has “made it”, Jews have a duty to help blacks and Hispanics as well. Some Jews (typically secular and Reform) see the Democratic Party platform as more or less an expression of Judaism itself, though I think that’s more the older generation’s view.

Jon Stewart is the beneficiary of his cultural sensibility, which just happens to be shared by a large number of people in the media likely to influence his career. Reporters and professors, for example, who say the Daily Show–an extended news skit written to appeal to callow young liberals–does a better job than the news media (not a high bar, but a ridiculous claim nonetheless). In short, Stewart (nee Leibowitz) gets to take advantage of a boys club effect that goes on in television comedy and the media in general.

Rick Sanchez does not. Rick Sanchez is a very liberal, ethnically chauvinist Cuban-American, so he is viewed by the people who run these channels more for the “color” he adds as a Latino newsreader. He’s not exactly dumb (I mean, not any dumber than Stewart, probably–read an unscripted interview with Stewart sometime), but he’s plainly not very bright. Were he white he would be telling you about the string of break-ins at Salvation Armies across town, but he’s Cuban-American so instead he has a show on CNN where he does…whatever.

The idea that Jewish multiculturalism is a form of noblesse oblige is risible, however. Jews advocate for quotas that limit “whites” and “Asians” and promote “blacks” and “Hispanics”. Notice what ethnicity is missing in that sentence? Sure you do.

Jews want multiculturalism because it benefits them. It plainly doesn’t benefit the country as a whole.

As for how Jews are talked about on the Left–which is of course dominated by Jewish intellectuals–that’s a more complicated story. You have the black far Left, you have the progressive Left, you have the closer to mainstream Left, you have the emerging Latino Left–which ones really complain about Jews as such? And how do they complain about them? The answers to these questions tell a more complicated story–they certainly do not support the view that Jews do not see themselves or promote themselves as victims.

Stewart himself, apparently, in other settings has suggested he was a victim of bullying and that Jews generally are victims.

Finally, I think the civil rights movement and the more general Jewish-black coalition was partly noblesse oblige but also partly coalition-building for a newer power structure based on common cause among all minorities, a power structure that depends on constantly and persistently criticizing and hurting majority Americans. Sanchez didn’t realize that within that grouping infighting can also be dangerous.

One disagreement: While it’s obvious that Jews have lots of power in the media, people get fired for saying stuff about relatively powerless minorities too. Sanchez went on the radio and called his bosses a bunch of privileged, Jewish, anti-Cuban bigots (or “prejudicial”). That’s a pretty good way to get fired, even if you leave out the “Jewish” part. The “Jewish” part gave CNN an excuse to fire him immediately and directly.

Sanchez said in the interview, in effect, “I am not stupid”. That’s a classic self-refuting statement. The fact that the statement is false explains why Stewart was making fun of him.

Also, regarding “either man’s claim to victimhood”, did Stewart ever make a claim to Jewish victimhood? I don’t think even Sanchez accused him of that. It was the interviewer raised the subject.

You talk about “the utter sanctity of Jews as a victim group”, but it’s more complicated than that. Yes, in the mainstream media Jews are a sacred victim group, and this is a story about the mainstream media. But in more left-wing or academic PC circles, Jews are not necessarily a victim group. It’s quite legitimate for a PC university administrator to tell someone complaining about a blatant act of anti-Semitism by a lecturer, “You people don’t have a monopoly on suffering.” In non-corporate, stricter PC environments, Jews are not, as Jews, part of the rainbow coalition of blacks, Latinos, and the rest of the wretched of the earth.

Regarding the lack of a self-conscious noblesse oblige: like it or not, that was a big part of Jewish involvement in the Civil Rights movement and is still perhaps an explanation of Jewish leftism today. Leviticus 19:34, which secular and Reform Jews took seriously as applying to African-Americans, can be viewed in terms of noblesse oblige. What I think you and I would like is a restoration of the sense of gratitude expressed by Jewish movie producers in the first half-century of Hollywood.

Again, in spite of these minor disagreements I totally agree with the main points of your article. One last comment. Always remember not to confuse professional Jews like Abe Foxman with Jewish-Americans as a whole, especially younger Jewish-Americans.

Minor quibble – US Senators are Members of Congress. We’ve got 30 Jewish US Representatives and 43 Jewish Members of Congress total.

I myself have always been a little underinformed on the bans on Jews in country clubs. I don’t know if they were bans on members of the Jewish ethnic group or bans on members of the Jewish religion.

If it’s the former, I wonder if it was accompanied by a whites-only policy. Sounds plausible. I wonder if Ashkenazi-descended converts to Christianity would really be rooted out of the club based on genealogy. I’m not so sure. All those Jews anglicized their names for a reason, presumably.

If it’s the latter, I would be willing to bet it was because of a Christians-only policy. I doubt these mean old country clubs would have admitted Gerald Gardner or Aleister Crowley (the only craggy old pagans I can think of are Britons, sorry).

Anyway, good thing maintaining the tradition of a Jewish seat on the Supreme Court created so much goodwill among Jews that they chose to preserve a Protestant seat on the bench. (Can’t resist poking a little fun, I guess.)