fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Israel and the “Jacksonians”

In this case many so-called "Jacksonians" will make excuses for another government's shoddy behavior, which is exactly what "Jacksonians" aren't supposed to do.

Peter Beinart reminds us why the term “Jacksonian” is misleading when talking about foreign policy attitudes:

To hear Netanyahu criticized so bluntly on Fox, the conservative bastion where Israel is usually above reproach, is remarkable. Even more intriguing is the nature of that criticism. Wallace and Smith aren’t angry at Bibi for being hawkish; Wallace flatly agrees that Iran represents an “existential threat.” They’re angry at him for being insolent. For decades now, Netanyahu has alienated American progressives. With this incident, he’s alienated some American “Jacksonians” too.

Beinart is exaggerating the significance of the criticism of Netanyahu on Fox News. Netanyahu’s behavior may genuinely offend some of the people there, but it isn’t going to change the way they present the relevant issues and it isn’t going to make the network any less reflexively “pro-Israel.” If their hosts are still repeating the nonsensical claim that Iran is an “existential” threat, that does more to bolster Netanyahu’s position in the Iran debate than any criticism of his tactics. In exchange for having his crazy policy views regularly validated on American television, I suspect Netanyahu would be happy to take a few shots from his friends.

As for alienating “Jacksonians,” I don’t really see it. I wouldn’t assume that all Fox News hosts are necessarily “Jacksonian” in their attitudes, but then it’s difficult to determine who qualifies for this label because it is such a vague and arbitrary one. The label has never made much sense to me, not least since Jackson himself would have belonged to the same tradition of Jeffersonian/Democratic foreign policy that existed more or less without significant alteration until the early 20th century. It is supposed to refer to a specific strain of combative American nationalism, but beyond this there isn’t much content to the idea of “Jacksonianism.” It is the label applied to Americans that don’t care much about foreign policy most of the time, and as such it becomes the catch-all term to classify whoever is left over from the other three “traditions.”

As it relates to support for Israel, the label is close to being useless. People labeled as “Jacksonians” may be “pro-Israel” for any number of reasons, some of which may be religious in nature, and some of those will even trump nationalism. “Pro-Israel” hawkish voters are more likely to blame bad relations between the U.S. and Israel on our government. To the extent that they support Israel’s hard-line policies, they will likely take Netanyahu’s side in a quarrel with Obama because they perceive him as a fellow hard-liner. If Netanyahu is behaving badly, they will say, it is because Obama has “forced” him to behave this way. Hard-liners are among the first to fault the U.S. for failing to manage relations with allies and clients, especially when someone from the other party is in power, and they will view all of this in terms of their opposition to Obama’s diplomacy with Iran. The funny thing here is that in this case many so-called “Jacksonians” will blame their own government and make excuses for another government’s shoddy behavior, which is exactly what “Jacksonians” aren’t supposed to do.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here