Live from the Old New Republic: Alex Pareene, has, I think, gotten it right here...
Alex Pareene: You Are Jonathan Chait's Enemy: "New York’s Jonathan Chait writes today about the 'dangerous consequences' of the left’s use of the label 'white supremacist' to describe Donald Trump, the alt-right, and American conservatism in general... https://splinternews.com/you-are-jonathan-chaits-enemy-1818814301
...In the course of defending his piece on Twitter, he has effectively made it clear that he thinks it’s inappropriate to label any person or cause “white supremacist” unless the targets of the label have openly embraced it. He has suggested that a political tendency can’t be “white supremacist” without vocal anti-Semitism, which is silly in the American context—as Ali Gharib points out, Judah P. Benjamin, perhaps the most prominent Jewish politician in the country at that time, served in Confederate President Jefferson Davis’s cabinet. Chait has argued that Rep. Steve King, who has explicitly argued that “somebody else’s babies” pose a “demographic” threat to “our civilization,” is merely “edging closer” to white supremacy. But... other people can argue the ideas.... This specific piece... [is] just another paint-by-numbers “the greatest threat to free speech in the nation today is college students heckling an asshole” column.
I just want to explain what he’s doing, and why.... Chait... is saying: "Don’t call conservatives white supremacists"... mostly because he doesn’t like the idea of a politics in which Democrats and liberals, and not just a fringe left wing, condemn white supremacist tendencies by name. Chait is policing the way the left does politics because he does not want the left-wing style of doing politics to gain prominence.... Chait... is engaged in a pretty specific political project: Ensuring that you and people like you don’t gain control of his party. I say “you” because his conception of the left almost certainly includes you... not merely against Jill Stein voters and unreconstructed Trotskyites and Quaker pacifists. He means basically anyone to the left of Bill Clinton in 1996.... If you think Steve f---ing King is a white supremacist, Chait is opposed to you nearly as staunchly as he is opposed to Paul Ryan....
Here is a very instructive passage from a column he wrote in 2006.... [After] listing the many ways in which Joe Lieberman... was... terrible....
In the end, though, I can’t quite root for Lieberman to lose his primary. What’s holding me back is that the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman’s sins. It’s a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent. Moreover, since their anti-Lieberman jihad is seen as stemming from his pro-war stance, the practical effect of toppling Lieberman would be to intimidate other hawkish Democrats and encourage more primary challengers against them.
This is Chaitism distilled: They may be right—about Joe Lieberman, about the Iraq War, about the racism of the conservative movement—but they are right for the wrong reasons, and we cannot let them gain a foothold. That his disdain for the left would lead him to support Lieberman is basically all you need to know about his politics. It is overly simplistic to reduce the fight over the identity of the Democratic Party to Joe Lieberman on the one hand and Bernie Sanders on the other, but if... those were the only two futures on offer, it’s clear which one Jonathan Chait would pick. He would rather belong to the party of Joe Lieberman. If you wouldn’t, then you’re the sort of person he has spent his career fighting against...
