Joseph Lieberman’s selection as Al Gore’s running mate sparked — among
other things — another controversy over anti-Semitic attitudes in the Black
community. The Amsterdam News, New York’s oldest black weekly, ran an
editorial by its publisher emeritus Wilbert Tatum, which commented on the
Lieberman selection. “Gore and his minions did it for the money,” wrote
Tatum, who has consistently made himself a thorn in the side of the Jewish
establishment.
He broke down the Democrats’ strategy thusly: “The reasoning in the Gore
camp went out all over the world to Jews of means: You’ve got to show me the
money. When you do, one of yours will be given the second spot on the
ticket. The word went out all over the world to Jews in every pocket of
civilization and near-civilization, that the major protector of Jews in this
world, the American government, is now available. But in order to get it,
you’ve got to buy it.”
Tatum’s remarks have predictably been rebuked by the New York Times and
by Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, who called the editorial
“insidious, and an anti-Semitic canard. …” Rev. Jesse Jackson disagreed
with the Amsterdam News’ analysis though he supported Tatum’s right to free
speech.
Yet, the Tatum remarks, in my opinion, require a closer look, a look that
goes beyond kneejerk condemnation or a reconciliatory invocation of the
First Amendment.
Mr. Tatum, of course, does have a right to say what he said. Moreover,
there’s truth to it. The Lieberman selection was about money and — here’s
the rub — so is everything else that goes on in the Democratic Party. Tatum
leaves himself open to the charge of anti-Semitism because he will say it
only about Jews. He never excoriates the Democratic Party for its relentless
subservience to a multitude of special interests and their money.
Tatum is no anti-Semite, but is soft on the Democratic Party. He never
seriously criticizes black America’s blank check to the Democratic Party or
encourages it to diversify its political connections. In spite of his
predictions of “sea changes” in black politics, where independent parties
and candidates will become a more viable option, he rarely challenges the
Black community to develop its political independence.
The Democratic Party is, pure and simple, captive to big labor and
corporate interests. In his speech to the convention, Al Gore drew a line in
the sand on school vouchers. In a Gore administration, he says, there will
be no consideration of vouchers, no diversion of funding away from the
public school system. This, in spite of the fact that poll after poll shows
that 75-85 percent of minority parents want the option of school vouchers.
Why won’t Gore accede to this? Because the public teachers unions had 457
delegates at the Democratic National Convention, the largest bloc of any
organization. The American Federation of Teachers is among the top 20
contributors to the national party.
At the same time, telecommunications giants — vigorous contributors to
the Republican National Convention — were out in force at the Democratic
National Convention, too. AT&T, Bell South, Verizon, SBC Communications and
Sprint Telecommunications all sponsored lavish receptions for leading
Democratic Party elected officials last week. AT&T gave a million dollars in
goods and services to both major parties for their conventions.
The overriding influence of money in politics goes on and on. Corporate
money. Union money. Soft money. Liberal money. And yes, Jewish money, too.
Mr. Tatum’s nod to anti-Semitism lies neither in his assumption that
Jewish Americans are financial contributors — in some cases, significant
contributors — to the political process, nor in his claim that the
Democrats were motivated by the increased access the Lieberman selection
would give them. His misstep lies in his failure to paint the whole picture.
Money, all kinds of money, makes the Democrats go round.
The death of Obamaism, and the historic MAGA opportunity
Josh Hammer