No sooner do I call attention to the ridiculous pretense to intellectualism by Ron Radosh than he doubles down on the conceit with a lament for the old “New York Intellectuals”. The occasion for this latest chest-beating is that David Remnick of The New Yorker has seen fit to come in behind the curve in embracing the Peter Beinart-J Street panic about Israel and future generations of American Jews. Radosh does his Popular Front patrimony proud with his untrammeled moral outrage that Remnick’s timid protestations put him in the camp of the objectively pro-fascist pro-Islamist London Review of Books.
Never mind that many if not most of the New York Intellectuals in their day were decidedly non-Zionist if not anti-Zionist. Nathan Glazer, a partisan of Judah Magnes in college who once emphatically assured me in a phone conversation was absolutely not a neocon in the contemporary sense of the word, was an outspoken member of the board of Americans for Peace Now in the 70s. Dwight MacDonald was a steadfast friend of the stalwart anti-Zionist William Zukerman. And is Radosh really so ignorant as to not be aware of the infamous herem issued by Norman Podhoretz against Hannah Arendt?
Whether Radosh is just deeply ignorant, or craven, or both, what we do know is that his emotional fortitude removes whatever doubt I ever had in naming him the saddest case in the whole history of American public intellectuals. His declaring David Remnick a social fascist followed a blog demanding that Joe Scarborough be forced to apologize that a guest on his show called Victor Davis Hanson a warmonger. One can only hope that so famous an admirer of the Spartan virtues as Hanson is not so thin skinned, but for Radosh, the unregulated moral outrage is proof that the Stalinoid leopard has in no way changed his spots.
Pat reminds us of his brilliance yet again in taking on the ever-dreary national greatness conceit about the decline of our science and math test scores. He cites a study by the great Steve Sailer showing that White and Asian test scores still beat all but a very few European and East Asian countries and that it is Black and Hispanic scores keeping the numbers down. Per the above link to Lew Rockwell, I have always detested the science and math score conceit as just so much hand-wringing from the NBC school of national greatness liberalism (and to be sure, often enough, the national greatness conservatives). But this revelation from going behind the numbers reveals something far more pernicious.
I trust it is hardly an original observation with me that all of our righteous NGO trendiness toward Africa is but so much window-dressing for keeping the white man master in Africa while China, India, and Dubai are scrambling for their respective pieces of the pie. But the fundamental racism, pathologically determined to deny itself, of enlightened white liberalism seems most evident in the science-and-math conceit. The pathologies of our national greatness religion cannot allow for an acknowledgment that the majority-minority America of 2050, if indeed the Union is even still in tact, will not be the harbinger of an inter-racial global millennium as they would like to believe.
This is the new white man’s burden – to uplift that chosen segment of the brown people that will yet one day lead the American empire. It has failed before it has even begun.
I can only wholeheartedly agree with Paul Gottfried’s post on @TAC about all the recent chest-beating about Nixon saying he would not go to war with Russia over Soviet Jewry, as well as about Nixon generally. Has anyone actually taken the time to think about the madness of any contrary view?
Since about the fall of 2009 I have been stubborn in the view that Obama is Nixon, not Carter (and of course, as an ardent Simpsons fan I cannot but find the title of this blog irresistible). For instance, one reason I have been more dubious than even many conservatives about Obama’s liberal critics is because they are so very analogous to Nixon’s critics on the right. But the following line of Gottfried’s piece could not have captured the fundamental similarity better:
He did stupid things domestically, but he thought like a rightist.
Replace rightist with leftist, and that is Obama to a T. So here’s to the hope for the new year that Obama will be a mensch and be Nixon, not Carter, with Iran.
MINT-AND-CORN COUNTRY, INDIANA — It’s rare when Mr. Scallon writes something wherewith I find myself to be in disagreement, but the time has come. At @TAC, Sean writes,
For Paul supporters, if he does not run, there are two potential candidates they would probably feel comfortable supporting: former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and current Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. However, neither Johnson or Daniels on their own could win the GOP nomination. So why not team up and win it together?
Of course they would have to figure out who would run for President and who would run as Vice-President, but announcing such a campaign pairing would not only be a big news splash for its uniqueness, it would also join together two wings of the party which need each other in order to hold back the neocons and the ideological flunkies of Conservative INC.: ordinary Main St. Republicans and the Paul-wing of the party which includes everyone and everything from paleos to libertarians to Greens and other independent sorts.
Daniels may not be popular with Right activists but that’s okay because they’ll splitting their votes into itsy-bitsy pieces anyway depending on how many candidates are in the field. The decisive votes in a Republican primary come your basic, Main St. Republican whether it be a businessman, a farmer, politically active housewife, the kinds of middle class persons who have been the backbone of the party for a long, long time. They are the kind of Republicans you find in a state like Indiana and Daniels popularity as governor is a sign he can be very strong with this group of voters, perhaps even rip them away from their standby candidate Mitt Romney.
Undoubtedly, Sean’s depiction of “the kind of Republicans you find in a state like Indiana” is accurate. But that should not so easily be translated into “Mitch is good for America”. His popularity is, itself, undeniable, but a few things ought to be considered.
In his first race, though he was the challenger, he entered the race with a slight advantage (notwithstanding his having been escorted from his OMB position): the incumbent entered the campaign fray late, having not intended to run for the governorship until he, then the lieutenant governor, assumed the governorship mid-term upon the death of Gov. Frank O’Bannon. Relatedly, Kernan took over the job amidst serious budget issues; Daniels had earned the nickname “‘the Blade,’ for the gleam in his budget-cutting eye”. He won handily, by nearly eight points, but one must ponder how he may have fared under different circumstances — or if the president’s popularity had fallen enough that he lost Indiana, as McCain did in 2008.
In 2008, while Indiana was turning blue, she became an even darker shade of red gubernatorially. Alas, this itself tells us little. At a level of boneheadedness comparable to that displayed by Bart when he sold his soul — for a mere five bucks! —, the Indiana Democratic Party nominated this banshee to challenge Daniels, leading to an absolute trouncing. In J.L.T., we Hoosiers found a candidate so loathsome, so reprobate, so reprehensible that in 2002 the fine voters of north-central Indiana (my district, including heavily Democratic South Bend) chose current president of the Club for Growth Chris Chocola, who two years earlier lost handily to incumbent Blue Dog (in practice, if not in name) Tim Roemer, over her. How out-of-touch must even a Democrat be in most of Indiana to run when endorsed by Emily’s List? So, he’s been successful electorally, but that suffices not to have impressed me.
Mr. Daniels has pushed passionately for local-government reform in the state. In some respects, the
results of the Kernan-Shepard Report offer positive guidance. “Streamlining” local government is certainly not bad per se, and anywhere where we can responsibly cut costs is to be sought. But the governor’s vision of replacing the three-commissioner board with a one-person county-executive with the power to appoint numerous officers presently elected and his desire to do away with township government both trouble me.
Local politics can be just as ugly as state-level and federal shenanigans — sometimes, because of propinquity, with the effects more deeply felt. In just the last two years, I have seen two county commissioners arrested on felony charges in an eight-county region. Under the current system, the majority of the board remains intact; the ships may have been without captains had such instances occurred under a Daniels-esque scenario. More important, even within less-populous counties, community “rivalries” and the like run deep. Under the current system, each third of the county has someone on the board, instead of having, say, the largest community dominate. The current system, cost-ineffective as it may be, enhances the local-level system of checks and balance and guarantees that more people are heard — that more people feel as if their voices matter. I have often wondered how this perspective would translate into a presidency, if states’ rights would take a backseat to “efficiency” — under this Republican, no less!
The power to appoint officials currently elected is, at best, a dual-edged sword. Sure, on the bright side, the possibility exists that someone well-qualified, who likely would not win the election, is named to the position. But you don’t have to be an appointee to be qualified, and when ten, fifteen, or fifty thousand people are voting for you, rather than one person, that the people of the community have their voices heard is a lot likelier.
Although the reduction of township government presents itself as a more reasonable suggestion from the Report, it, too, diminishes the degree of subsidiarity in action. It may be, in practice, a minor change to transfer trustee responsibilities to the county government, but, nonetheless, it is yet another form of consolidation — and the erasing of this legacy of the Northwest Territory, this manifestation (however impotent) of the Jeffersonian ward republic. No thanks!
What really troubles me most about Mr. Daniels, though, is a great deal of why his popularity has re-surged of late. In November, we pennywise and dollar-foolish Hoosier, by more than a two-to-one margin, voted to amend our Constitution TO CAP PROPERTY TAXES. Mr. Daniels pushed for this.
No-one particularly likes taxes, and tax-rate predictability and stability are necessary for economic recovery. However, a Constitutional amendment was the wrong way to go about this, and our local-government services are going to suffer even more that they already have in austere Indiana. (He didn’t make this state so “business-friendly” with the swish of his magic wand, you know.)
Taxation should, perhaps counterintuitively, focus more on real property (the fruit of a Creation in which we played no role) than on income (the fruit of our own labor!) (I’ll save a lengthier disquisition on the land-value tax for later.), and we’re eventually just going to see a shift from property taxes to LOIT or increased sales taxes, anyway: We don’t get a visit from the Magic Lower-taxes Fairy, just from the Tax-Burden-Shift Fairy.
If, three, five, or ten years from now, this tax cap proves to be bad news, inertia is going to make repealing it hellaciously difficult. Instead of a bill passed by the state legislature with a certain timeframe attached to it, we went all-out, balls-to-the-wall, and changed our Constitution. And Mitch “the Blade” Daniels does not seem to mind.
Plenty of Hoosiers fell for it hook, line, and sinker; here’s hoping that Americans don’t fall for Mr. Daniels likewise.
P.S.: In the Nineteen Eighties, he was the CEO here.
Perhaps the silliest narrative to spring up during Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was the fantasy that his presidency would bring forth the end of racial America. Pundits, mostly on the left, nearly wet themselves with glee entertaining this delusional idea. Obviously post-racial America has yet to emerge. The fiction of race retains a strong grasp on humanity as a whole and it will continue to do so for the foreseeable future — and America is no exception. Tea Party Republicans bristled at the notion that race was a prime motivator for the disdain many in the movement express towards the president. Scores of Tea Party leaders cried foul when the NAACP issued a report that labeled the movement as racially motivated. But if conservatives and opponents of the President’s agenda think the racist critique was deafening in 2010, it will be increase by a magnitude of a thousand if Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour gains the Republican nomination.
Barbour has not publicly announced whether he’s running for president, but his name is one of the many being floated as a Republican hopeful. The Weekly Standard has a spotlight piece on the good ol’ boy for Yazoo City. The profile gives unfamiliar readers a look into Barbour’s conservative credentials and introduces a bit of his back story. Tucked away in the third page of the article is a dozy of a quote that will haunt, and potential destroy, any presidential campaign Barbour may or may not be planning. When asked about growing up in Jim Crow Mississippi, the Governor offers up this gem, “I just don’t remember it being that bad.” Yikes. I cannot think of anything worse for conservatives trying to dispel the aura of racism than to nominate a man that recalled Jim Crow Mississippi as not being that bad. (I will not get into the Governor’s tepid praise of the Citizens Council, an organization formed to protect segregation.)
A Barbour nomination will cause the toxicity level of politics to skyrocket. America does not handle race conversations well, especially in the political realm. When Rand Paul floated the notion that he might not have supported one provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to how it violates private property rights, the talking heads threw themselves into fits. Can you imagine how those same heads might react to Barbour’s comments if he gains the nomination? Does anyone realistically think the conversation will retain any semblance of civil discourse?
Ads from politically active non-profit groups will almost certainly make matters worse. The famous images and footage of the Jim Crow era will be plastered across millions of television screens. An ominous voice over will provide the message’s punch: “Does Haley Barbour really think Jim Crow wasn’t all that bad?”
Vestiges of the Confederacy hang on the walls of Barbour’s office. A portrait of the University Greys is accompanied by a Confederate flag signed by Jefferson Davis. In reality these details matter little, but it is not hard to imagine how these idiosyncratic details do not help lessen the sting of Barbour’s “not bad” comments.
Barbour has since clarified the comments he made in The Weekly Standard, but it is unlikely that his clarification will be enough to overcome the accusation of racism — especially since Barbour would be running in a highly partisan environment and against the first African-American President.
In many ways, it doesn’t matter if Barbour harbors racist views. If his political opponents can craft the perception that he does, it will be enough to ensure that the campaign of 2012 will be worse, in terms of racial overtones, than 2010. Though I don’t think America, or the world for that matter, will ever look past race as a identifying aspect of society, it would be nice if our political campaigns refrained from using race issues to cudgel opponents. Regardless of the content of his character and the wisdom of his policies, it appears, to me, that a Barbour nomination would engender a bitter and vitriolic race-related political discourse. Hopefully I am wrong.
MINT-AND-CORN COUNTRY, INDIANA — … but is not today’s FCC decision on “net neutrality” a good thing, notwithstanding teeth-gnashing from various members of the sycophantic “right”? From the Wall Street Journal:
The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.
The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from “unreasonably discriminating” against rivals’ Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.
Given the relatively limited access to Internet-service providers in many parts of the country —as well as this notion that the Internet is supposed to open communications and to “invigorate democracy” , I’m not sure that anyone can intellectually honestly equate this decision with, e.g., health-care or auto-industry takeovers, or various other government intervention where it belongs not (as I have, in fact, seen today on Facebook).
The new rules seem to prevent, per the Journal‘s description, Company A — which happens to be the only high-speed Internet-service provider available to Population X —, from blocking access to Company B, which directly competes with Subset Q of Company A.
Sounds like a win for competition to me. But I am very happy to be corrected on this if my understanding of the facts and the ramifications is incorrect. But not because my understanding doesn’t fit some rose-lensed “free-market” ideological view.
Update: One aspect of this decision that I had not considered, but that does trouble me — again, if my understanding is correct — is the potential for creating “fast lanes”:
That is a huge deal. It means we are entering an age in which we will have two Internets—the fast one, with great content, that costs more (maybe a lot more) to use, and then the MuggleNet, which is free but slow and crappy. Cable TV vs. rabbit ears.
Is this just going to enable Google to PWN teh Intarwebz even more than it already does? That is, while at the same time encouraging competition with one hand (See infra.), is the FCC encouraging centralization with the other? If so, how ought Congress to react in a way that makes sense, keeps the “information superhighway” buzzing along smoothly, and does more than simply further the government’s role as Smithers to big business’ C.M.B.?
Lisa: I’ll show you how to order pizza over the Internet. Homer: The Internet? Is that thing still around?
Richard Silverstein blogs about the most recent newspaper column of Martin van Creveld, the brilliant Israeli military historian and author of the monumental work The Rise and Decline of The State. The column is just the conventional argument that it is necessary for Israel to retreat to the 1967 borders in order to survive as a Jewish state. It is argued with the bluntness one would expect of a hard-headed realist, or at least that which we should have expected five years ago when there was still a prayer for the two-state solution.
The Rise and Decline of The State is probably the greatest and most profound work of sociology since the time of Weber and Marx. Its thesis is that the modern state was created at the dawn of modernity for the purpose of sustaining large standing armies to wage war, that this enterprise peaked in the first half of the 20th century with the two world wars, but has been on a slow but sure decline since the end of the Second World War, meaning, ultimately, the decline and fall of the state itself.
The importance of the work has been widely recognized by libertarians as well as by such other interested theorists as William Lind, and even they probably have yet to do it justice. For van Creveld might also be read as nothing less than the vindication of Marxism, since it is in fact under social democracy (that is, under European welfare states that have all but abolished their militaries) that the state has begun to whither away. Indeed, as I have noted in the past in such places as the above link, the early discovery of this phenomenon was crucial to the spawn of neoconservatism. And for that matter, one could even describe the present crisis of the European welfare states, to be in equal measure gratuitously and ironically Marxist, as the exposure of the system’s contradictions.
The tragedy of van Creveld is that this (possibly inadvertent) giant has devoted a considerable degree of his energies to try and rescue the state in which he lives – which is, at that, the last state on Earth committed to preserving the original precepts of the modern state in its first principles. (America is a somewhat more complex case, a topic for another day). In his past writings on the Israeli dilemma he has proposed the most conventional Laborite program of forging an alliance with Syria and Saudi Arabia against Iran, which raises the question of how the author of The Rise and Decline of The State could in all seriousness make such an ossified Metternichian proposal.
For surely van Creveld must also recognize the great revolutionary moment represented by the 2006 Lebanon War, in which for the first time since no later than Westphalia, the state (Lebanon) was unable to commit its essential function of defending its people against the war of aggression being waged against them by Israel, and therefore this function fell to the non-state actor of Hezbollah. In our actually existing world, if one is to go by the Marxist template the better part of wisdom counsels that the case of Lebanon is closer to the Muenster Rebellion than the Paris Commune, meaning the world after the state is still a few centuries off. Yet revolutions do come into this world like bastard children.
History will judge whether Martin van Creveld was merely the Hegel whom the libertarian Marx had to turn on his head or something greater still. But surely it is a tragedy of historic proportions that the prophet is destined to be at the ramparts defending the very vanguard opposing his own prophecy.
I am admittedly late in commenting on this item on @TAC praising a new effort to unify and strengthen leftist dissent from Obama. It brings me nothing so much as an overwhelming sense of deja vu about my own youthful travels on the left and what it was that ultimately left me dubious if not completely disillusioned.
Some personal history first. I became a more-or-less committed Green Party backer in my first year of college (my mind-boggling assortment of other associations will be a topic for another day). By the time the 2004 election was in full swing I was solidly behind Nader over the Democratic plant David Cobb to get the Green nomination, but when Cobb prevailed I was disgusted by both sides in the faction fight and ended up voting for Socialist Walt Brown – prompted in large measure by a friend who was voting for him after learning he was pro-life which, unsurprisingly, got him into hot water with some of his initial supporters. I happen to know that the men responsible for getting Walt on the ballot in his two best states respectively, Florida and Wisconsin, both voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000.
By late 2003 I had also fallen in love with the young upstart TAC, which provided intellectual stimulation I could never have hoped to find on the left. It is worth noting that a great deal of the displeasure with Nader from what my friend Keith Preston aptly calls “reactionary leftists” was over his friendly interview with TAC and enthusiastic support from Buchanan backers like Pat Choate and Justin Raimondo.
I take this stroll down memory lane to set the stage for the current effort represented by ProtestObama.org. I have great respect for all the signers, if for some more than others. If I am correct to interpret from their plan of action that they are calling for unity of the third parties of the left, I can only urge it on. A part of me even takes the hope from this that the heartbreak of the Green implosion will lead to a bigger and better force, analogous perhaps to the organizational chaos in the last quarter of the 19th century that led up to the formation of the Socialist Party in 1901.
Alas, that’s the optimist in me. The major source of deja vu in all this is that this open letter takes the form of a direct appeal to a group which is not unjustly referred to as the “left establishment”. These characters who for whatever strange reason are singled out by name – Norman Solomon, Barbara Ehrenreich, Michael Moore, Tom Hayden, Katrina vanden Heuvel – were the Stalinoids centered around The Nation I hated with a passion as a young Green and viewed as one of, if not the major obstacle in the way of the revival of a more authentic and populist left. In short they are exactly the people anyone interested in rebuilding a serious third party movement on the left needs to pointedly ignore.
It would be an injustice to readers if I did not also point out the serious reasons for pause. The Peace and Freedom Party, though a crucial backer of Nader in 2008 and a touchstone of nostalgia for many libertarians, ran for Nancy Pelosi’s seat this past year Gloria La Riva of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, an offshoot probably constituting the majority of the old Workers World Party, which not only worships at the altar of the Kim dynasty but has defended Idi Amin as a progressive anti-imperialist. I even found in my brushing up that one of their members got the Green nomination for a state legislative seat in Ohio. The Workers World remnant itself even endorsed the Green ticket in 2008 rather than run their own campaign.
But let us assume for now that this is ultimately a minor stumbling block. Indeed, the best defense against such a cancer is aggressive outreach to middle-American radicals, as the Greens showed some promise of in their headiest days from 2002-04. An event last spring in Madison, Wisconsin, at which several Greens joined hands with TAC’s own Sean Scallon, Angela Keaton of Antiwar.com, and the heroic third-party defender Christina Tobin, could represent the basis of future unity.
Last summer, I was seized by the idea of Bill Kauffman as the candidate all the people at that event could get behind in 2012, and could do well enough to keep the third party flame alive at a time its desperately needed. I had little luck modestly floating a trial balloon last summer, yet I can not shake off the vision of Batavia as the new Terre Haute. Bill Kauffman in 2012 – who’s with me?
For all the anticipation of the miserable fate of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, the greater outrage upon America of the neocon wars has to be that of the 9/11 first responders that America is turning its back on. Jon Stewart has made news giving an entire episode of the Daily Show to the outrage – whatever Stewart’s motivations, no one can watch this and not be outraged.
Add to this the Wikileaks revelation that Cuba banned Michael Moore’s Sicko on the grounds that its Potemkin portrayal of the Cuban health care system would provoke a popular backlash. It so happens that I know John Graham, the 9/11 first responder who Moore took on his stunt to Cuba. It also so happens that I am of that hardy band that can still, a generation after the end of the Cold War, be easily led to moral outrage about Communism. Which is exactly why it is not only appalling and outrageous that Moore could credibly pull off that stunt, but that no one else seems to find it outrageous that Communist Cuba can have a credible propaganda victory about how we treat those who were killed doing their job on 9/11.
Mind you, I am not trying to get on a nationalist hobby-horse here. Much as I was saddened by Pat getting on the bandwagon against the Lower Manhattan Mosque, he was absolutely right to upbraid Michael Bloomberg when he said:
And those firemen, police and rescue workers did not run into those burning buildings to defend constitutional rights, but, acting out of bravery and love, to save their fellow men.
And as our God, the one true God, said, “Greater love than this hath no man, than that he lay down his life for his friend.”
Let us hope that Jon Stewart and his guests did not lose sight of that truth.
On the contrary, the utter indifference of our political class to these men who acted out of that cardinal attribute they would never know if it stared them in the face – nobility – is the surest sign yet that the ruling class of our empire is in its late decadent stage. All the more so, indeed, as they are the actual heroes of the event which they have mythologized into the launching of the new dispensation that will save and renew Pax Americana. We must not forget.
A commenter on my blog about Jennifer Rubin tells me that he knew her in Hollywood, where she was known to be conventionally liberal as late as 2004:
I knew Jennifer fairly well for a number of years. She worked at DreamWorks and DreamWorks Animation. She worked with Jeffrey Katzenberg on issues and I had lunch with her lots of times. (I’m the labor rep for the Animation Guild, Local 839 IATSE and she was on the company side. You tend to get to know your opposite number.)
We talked about the 2004 campaign endlessly. She was always funny, with sharp observations. I never got the impression she was anything but a Democrat (as am I.) Maybe she was taking on that coloration because Jeffrey K. is a Big Time Dem, or she genuinely felt that way, or she had a religious conversion. She was mildly critical of some of Kerry’s campaign moves during the ’04 campaign, but she wasn’t in the Bush camp.
It’s somewhat startling to me that she is now hard right, but stranger things have happened. Whether she sees this as where the money and fame is, or what she honestly believes, or something in-between, I know not.
A rather startling revelation to be sure. Though it makes a bit of sense with my discovery that she has a rather sparse Wikipedia bio that even sees fit to list my humble blog as a reference! One can not assume that there has been no opportunism in her turn to the right. Certainly she’s milked her status as a “labor lawyer” in working for Jeff Katzenberg to go on the warpath against trade unions, perhaps because, as Marty Peretz might say, she hates her inheritance.
To be sure, one can only assume that even as a solid Kerry supporter she was in the Chuck Schumer/Brad Sherman camp on foreign policy. Yet she has certainly gone the extra mile in changing many of the views one associates with a good Jewish Democrat in her adoring embrace of Sarah Palin. And this is what forces me and others to conclude that there are much deeper, darker pathologies with this woman than simply being mugged by reality on Israel. As Daniel Luban points out in the above link, a pathological hatred of Obama is at the heart of it all, so frankly, simple racism can hardly be ruled out.
Even so, the revelation of my correspondent that our museum-quality specimen of the fundamental Jewish self-hate of the neocons was but five years ago a perfectly contented quintessential Hollywood Jew is a shocking one. Perhaps Jennifer Rubin is but the farcical repeat of the tragic case of Theodor Herzl, of whom a contemporary German editor got it about right – “if Herzl needs to be taken to a lunatic asylum, I shall happily put my carriage at his disposal.”