The Volokh Conspiracy

Good heavens, I just re-read that.

It wasn't a current statement; made more than 6 years ago.

Is there further evidence, more current, to go on, or some other reason one might rationally reject his explanation? What am I missing here?

People don't have opinions in a vacuum. Someone who tries to minimize the number of people killed in the Holocaust is likely to hold other opinions that may make him a real danger to Jews and/or the country if he gets into office.

Especially since Pete McCloskey has long been a supporter of disarming potential victims of crime--and that is an issue of relevance to California voters.

Apparently he also endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004.

What's good for General Motors the Jews is good for America? Please elaborate.

Racism in general is bad for America.

As I posted on my blog, the San Francisco Chronicle just endorsed him yesterday and called him the definition of a "straight shooter."

Racism in general is bad for America.

This statement is arguably true, and one that I agree with. But I don't see how it relates to the facts at hand absent several leaps of logic.

I forget just who it was, but someone once wrote of when he was a child ... speaking, understanding and so on AS a child. The writer went on to say that when he grew up he gave up childish ways. He admitted that, mind you...

Pete McCloskey, maybe you ought to take note of that (only, of course, if your past notions fall into a category of similar childishness — maybe you don't think they do?).

It was St Paul in 1Corinthians, Chapter 10

And, by the way, if on dares to suggest that there were 5,999,999 Jews killed, rather than 6,000,000 does that make one a holocaust revisionist?

If you argue that 6,000,0001 were killed, does that make you a nutty Zionist?

More troubling is McClosky's willingness to associate himself with the Institute for Historical Review, which is a leader in the faux history of Holocaust denial. Why does McClosky want to help the IHR become "more effective"?

It would also be interesting to know what he meant by the "ADL's distortions of truth." The ADL, of course, is not beyond question -- but did he mean that the ADL distorts truth in general, or did he have something specific in mind? And if the latter, it would be very revealing to learn what McClosky considers true or false.

Of all the statements by McCloskey in that speech, the one I found most eyebrow-raising was the claim that Yasser Arafat was a "man of peace." Not to mention the fact that he gave a speech to a Holocaust-denier organization in the first place!

I will offer two intellectual propositions, both divorced from the facts of this particular case:

1) Someone who denies that the Holocaust occurred, or that it was no big deal, is a kook and should be considered generally unfit to hold an office of public trust.

2) One or two offhanded statements which are ambiguous regarding the Holocaust should not follow the speaker around for the rest of his days like some sort of scarlet letter.

As for this particular case, my opinion is (1) if the case against McCloskey were solely the existence of the two ambiguous statements quoted by Prof. Volokh, no, I don't think it would be necessary to repeat them in anything written about the guy years later; and (2) it seems to me that there is a stronger case against McCloskey than merely those two statements.

Still, although I find it abhorrent to suggest that Arafat was "a man of peace," it seems like the job of McCloskey's political opponents to bring that up. It doesn't seem like the kind of statement that is so significant that you can't have any meaningful discussion about McCloskey without bringing it up.

"It does seem to be part and parcel of the "new" Leftist thinking to demonize Jews, but I don't understand it unless it has something to do with trying to make friends with those crazy radical Muslims who try to lead the way into Jew-hate."

"Those crazy radical Muslims"? Careful, my friend. Bigotry goes both ways.

For some reason, a lot of this discussion made me think of this....

http://thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12511

With Iran acting as badly as it is, why do certain groups feel the need to demonize the regime even more?

When I first studied the Holocaust in junior high school,nearly 50 years ago, conventional wisdom was that 12 million were killed in the death camps. About half were Jews, the balance were "undesireables" such as gypsies, homosexuals and political dissidents.
Then, in the sixties with Bob Dylan's song, we focused exclusively on the number of Jews killed as 6 million.
What is the truth?

te makes a valid point. There is a distinct difference between one who claims the Holocaust was fabricated whole cloth or that only relatively small numbers of Jews were killed and someone acknowledging the Holocaust as a great loss of life but claiming that the actual number of deaths may have been inflated for political purposes. I am not a Holocaust scholar, but I have read that the common "six million Jews were killed" claim is really a shortened form of a more accurate statement that "six million Jews and other undesirables were killed." If this is so, then I don't think it is an unreasonable question to ask how many of that total were "other undesirables" and if counting them all as Jews was deliberate. Again, I think there is a difference between recognizing that there may be individual Jewish groups or organizations that might be tempted to overstate the total deaths for political benefit and believing any overstatement is part and parcel to a global Zionist conspiracy.

Hang on. When you endorse Person A for an office, you are saying that Person A is better than the other people running. You may not like Person A, you may even dislike Person A, but you are stating your opinion that -- of the available choices -- Person A is the one to go with.

So, it seems to me that one can't (meaningfully) complain about an endorsement of Person A without explaining why an endorsement of Person B (or no endorsement) would have been better. Suppose Person A's opponents were full-out Holocaust deniers *and* baby-killers to boot. Wouldn't an endorsement of Person A be looking mighty good?

Perhaps Eugene's post was meant as a suggestion that more information would have been better than less. That is almost always the case, but the available space at the point of the endorsement might not have allowed for such full disclosure. To the extent that there was a lengthy discussion of McCloskey's record pro and con, but the Holocaust fact was left out, then yes, that would seem to be an omission for which to take the LAT to task. Was that the case?

Ah, yes -- denying the Holocaust, endorsing John Kerry -- morally equivalent conduct.

I wouldn't say that, although his status as a Rino does shed some light on why it is that the LA Times thought he was "the best thing that could happen for the . . . Republican Party."

I used to respect Pete McCloskey. I don't know what's happened to him. Here's the quote from the LA Times story:

(Holocaust denier David) Irving's appearance was the highlight of a conference of some of the world's best-known Holocaust revisionists, who met at a secret location in Irvine to promote their demands for new investigations to prove there was no mass extermination of European Jews during World War II.

Joining their ranks was former Republican Rep. Pete McCloskey, who is bringing a class-action lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith that seeks damages for the Jewish organization's alleged illegal spying on U.S. citizens critical of Israel and of the former apartheid regime in South Africa.

"I came because I respect the thesis of this organization," McCloskey said at the gathering, "that thesis being that there should be a reexamination of whatever governments say or politicians say or political entities say."

The thesis of the organization is that the Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy to gain sympathy and power by claiming falsely that about six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis during World War II. It is not a thesis worthy of respect. It is not a thesis endorsed solely by governments or political entities either.

In answer to a commenters, previous question: The six million figure is for Jews only. The Nazis also killed or starved or worked to death millions of gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners and Russian POWs used as slave laborers.

-- Joanne Jacobs

Never having heard of Dick Curtiss and Andy Killgore (referenced in the letter quoted in the update), I Googled them. Interesting. Both are retired US diplomats formerly posted to Arab nations. They started a magazine together in 1982: the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. They were also co-authors in 1990 of Stealth Pacs: How Israel's American Lobby Seeks to Control U.S. Middle East Policy. (The amazon.com reviews are entertaining: There are three, identical to the last typo, apart from the names attached and the fact that two give five stars, the other four and a half.)

A recent issue of WRMEA reprints a tribute to the journal's 24 years of advocacy, written by one Abdel Rahman M. Al-Sadhan, described as Seretary-General of the Council of Ministers in Saudi Arabia. The article (originally published in a Saudi journal) is titled "For 24 Years, Two Men from America 'Sing' with 'the Arab Flock.'" A sample:

What is the most important is that both men are supportive of the Arabs—a support that is devoid of hypocrisy, blackmail or ulterior motive. Their support is rooted in knowledge and respect for the religion, history, economy, society and human conditions of this region of the world. Both men are “angry” at the dominance of the tribe of Zion—an anger framed by love for their country, by concern and enthusiasm for it.

I think we can assume that WRMEA is the "publication" McCloskey refers to in his letter as an "ideal example." Count me not entirely comforted by the knowledge that he believes the Holocaust happened.

Incidentally, Jaime non-Lawyer is quite right: The only reason the LAT and the Chron are interested in this primary at all is that both newspapers really, really hate Pombo. McCloskey would need to do something very drastic (say, barbeque a baby, or drive a Hummer in public) not to get an explicit endorsement. Hanging out with the likes of the IHR is not enough.

Andy Killgore’s and Dick Curtiss’ publication would be an ideal example to follow.

I thought those names were familiar. They're behind the anti-Israel, pro-Arab, pro-terrorist Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

(If you doubt my description, Google 'WRMEA'. Their April issue openly celebrates Sami Al-Arian and Marwan Barghouti.)

Mark Anderson is correct -- Thank you, Mark.

Am I on strange ground if I assume a politician would actually want to address his/her past thoughts and beliefs to clarify matters the press folks he/she has employed say is easily explainable? Given some responses here, apparently so. I believe that a kind of "general allowance" given a politician at one moment for the sins and errors he has committed somewhat seemingly habitually in the past but isn't doing quite at the moment to be something I'll give my consideration. But I don't owe anyone a vote based on that.

We all have to grow up, even daily. Anyone who for his or her own convenience denies the past is fundamentally useless to me.

Let's face it -- the politicians we elect to represent us should be accountable for their pasts and it's not unreasonable that voters might consider some of them unqualified for higher office simply on the basis of them not being forthcoming regarding just where all on the map they've been.

Mark Anderson is correct -- Thank you, Mark.

Am I on strange ground if I assume a politician would actually want to address his/her past thoughts and beliefs to clarify matters the press folks he/she has employed say is easily explainable? Given some responses here, apparently so. I believe that a kind of "general allowance" given a politician at one moment for the sins and errors he has committed somewhat seemingly habitually in the past but isn't doing quite at the moment to be something I'll give my consideration. But I don't owe anyone a vote based on that.

We all have to grow up, even daily. Anyone who for his or her own convenience denies the past is fundamentally useless to me.

Let's face it -- the politicians we elect to represent us should be accountable for their pasts and it's not unreasonable that voters might consider some of them unqualified for higher office simply on the basis of them not being forthcoming regarding just where all on the map they've been.
5.25.2006 6:5

Does my comment bear repetition, and handle it nicely? Why Yes, of course...

(I was going to add a comment or two, Eugene, but I'm so flattered by getting double emphasis that I need some time to figure out how to get it ordinarily.)

Ha!

McCloskey has long been a critic of America's support of Israel. I was present at a breakfast meeting that he addressed perhaps twenty years ago; his address included a reference to "Israeli soldiers gunning down Palestinian children in the streets." His language was probably gentler than that, but it was clear that he was no fan of Israel.

I do agree that it's time (actually, well past time) that McCloskey grew up; he's in his late seventies. The Stanford alumni directory lists him as AB 1950, JD 1953.

It seems to be pretty well established that the Germans murdered about eleven million people in the Holocaust, of whom six million were Jews. The convention has been, for a long time now, to ignore the non-Jewish victims unless the point is pressed; thus, the 'six million' meme.

I believe this is because many Liberals are more comfortable acknowledging that old devil, antisemitism, than they are the notion that a socially controlling, centralized state can be evil. Also, of course, many commentators on the Holocaust are Jewish, and so humanly prone to stressing its impact on Jews.

Be that as it may, it's more than a little amusing that those who have already tacitly agreed to ignore five million murders are so easily outraged by the mere suggestion of ignoring another six.

Joanne Jacobs wrote:

I used to respect Pete McCloskey. I don't know what's happened to him. Here's the quote from the LA Times story:

I agree with Ms. Jacobs' past respect for Pete McCloskey. I think it may be possible to maintain that respect (or some of it) by examining more closely some events invoving Pete McCloskey and the ADL only referenced in passing in comments here.

Synopsis, or long story short: In the 1990s some of ADL's files on anti-semitic organizations and people were publicly revealed, and some serious questions about the ethics and legality involved in gathering **some** of that information arose.

Pete McCloskey represented a class of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the ADL. ADL settled out of court with major concessions to plaintiffs. I believe it possible, though I do not really know the facts, that the Institute for Historical Review was among the plaintiff class.

For more detail on the case, a reasonable place to start is the WikiPedia entry for the Anti-Defamation League. Just scroll to the section "The ADL files controversy".

Disclaimers in anticipation of flamage:

I cannot comment on the merits of the case, about which I know only what little I have read. I greatly respect the ADL, but I recognize that even organizations one respects can do wrong on occasion. I find the IHR despicable, but recognize that even the despicable have rights, and can be wronged.

McCloskey also gave a couple interviews for publication to the Lyndon LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review: McCloskey on the ADL. That wasn't the only time he used this creepy group as a forum. I can't find a weblink (not that I wanted to spend much time looking) to the text, but their 9/20/02 issue features an interview with him about Iraq.

How much backslapping with the lunatic fringe is necessary to disqualify you in these papers' opinion?

Nick

Hm. Difficult to imagine that anyone could be elected dogcatcher referring to "the so-called institution of slavery in the South."

(NOT saying they're equivalent, etc., etc., go away trolls.)

So it's pretty amazing that McCloskey is getting away with this.

I'll say it... slavery and the holocaust are not exactly equivalent, but they are both easily ranked in the great evils of history, and they are not very far apart. Slavery was more of a slow burn evil, and the holocaust was more of a saturnalia of cruelty, but yes, they were in the same league.

For instance, the holocaust cost millions of lives. I have heard estimates between 6 million and 11.

Meanwhile, the middle passage in the slave trade alone cost an estimated 15 million african souls.

And further, existance the concentration camps differed from slavery in only a few technicalities. The essence of slavery--being trapped and forced to work--was there.

Of course i am simplifying both events to the point that i am risking trivializing. Both involve almost unimaginable degrees of evil. But the point is that while i guess you can't quite say they are equivalent, they are pretty damned close.

And to deny either would be equally nutty. It would require a conspiracy of breathtaking breadth. The big difference is there is still a living memory of the holocaust, and the aftereffects are able to be felt to this day.

For instance, in the 6th and 7th grade i went to a school that was around 80% jewish. i will never forget telling them once about my summer, how i had visited my grandparents in florida, and then my other grandparents in NJ. My friends looked at me like as i had grown a second head. They were shocked that all four of my grandparents were alive. I admit i didn't figure out why that seemed so unusual until a good week or two later. For my money, that experience put the holocaust into the category of "unquestionable truths" to a degree that even slavery cannot achieve.

Here is an excerpt from a story about the speech and McCloskey's candidacy from the Contra Costa Times:

He adamantly denies that he is anti-Semitic. But he fueled the allegations in 2000 after he spoke to the Institute for Historical Review, whose members either deny or contest the details of the Holocaust. A speech transcript shows that McCloskey said, "I don't know whether you are right or wrong Costabout the Holocaust ... "

The group cites McCloskey as one of its supporters on its Web site and fund-raising letters.

On Wednesday, McCloskey called the group a "bunch of nuts" and said the transcript was inaccurate. He recalled "being booed" when he talked about the Holocaust.

"Of course the Holocaust existed," he said. "But I will go and speak to any group."

Meanwhile, his campaign chairman, Lewis Butler, said he would demand the organization stop using McCloskey's name.

Here is the link to the full story:

Contra Costa Times

First they came for the anti-semites, and no one said anything . . .

Perhaps he wants to campaign on the Bocialist Party ticket.

"I don't like his idea about boncentration bamps."

I agree [that Addressing the IHR makes you suspect] -- does the same rule apply for politicians who speak at Bob Jones University or the Council for Concerned Citizens?

Only to the extent you find fundamentalist Christianity to be as suspect as holocaust denial.

1. Bob Jones University is actually not typical of fundamentalist Christianity, because of BJU's hostility to interracial marriage--a position that is contrary to a fundamentalist view of marriage. (Bans on interracial marriage are an American invention of the late 17th century to deal with shortages of white women--think of it as a form of dangerous liberalism that got out of control.)

2. I don't think much of Bob Jones U., but their flaws are not in the category as denying the Holocaust happened.

My question deals with language. I am a speaker of English as a 2nd language.

holocaust

Main Entry: ho·lo·caust
Pronunciation: 'hO-l&-"kost, 'hä- also -"käst or 'ho-l&-kost
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French holocauste, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn -- more at CAUSTIC
1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire
2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire [a nuclear holocaust]
3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II -- usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : GENOCIDE

holocaust

holocaust
c.1250, "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering," from Gk. holokauston, neut. of holokaustos "burned whole," from holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)) + kaustos, verbal adj. of kaiein "to burn." Originally a Bible word for "burnt offerings," given wider sense of "massacre, destruction of a large number of persons" from 1833. The Holocaust "Nazi genocide of European Jews in World War II," first recorded 1957, earlier known in Heb. as Shoah "catastrophe." The word itself was used in Eng. in ref. to Hitler's Jewish policies from 1942, but not as a proper name for them.
"Auschwitz makes all too clear the principle that the human psyche can create meaning out of anything." [Robert Jay Lifton, "The Nazi Doctors"]

It seems that the word "holocaust" is a noun with both proper and generic forms.

Could the form "so called holocaust" a way of distinguishing from modified uses of the word and as acknowledgment of a word that became a noun?

I have used "so called" to denote:
1) what I consider a wrongly applied term
2) a generic term applied as a proper name

I suppose, ultimately, context is everything.

How can you call a quote to a KNOWN Holocaust denier organization an AMBIGOUS one?

Also, while denying the Holocaust and supporting John Kerry are NOT morally equivilent, they are BOTH good reasons to not support a candidate.

I wonder if the readiness of the two big papers in Calif. to endorse McCloskey contains an element of nostalgia for the '60s. McCloskey was something of a poster boy as an early and rare Republican member of Congress questioning our war in Vietnam, was he not?

As for holding past statements against public persons, I recall that G. Harrold Carswell was disparaged when nominated to the Supreme Court for his remarks in favor of white supremacy while campaigning for (if I recall correctly) the Georgia Legislature.

Which by that time were about 30 years in the past.

Carswell or his supporters dismissed that because he was 'young' at the time, only 28. I was about 28 back then, too, and I could not remember any of my bosses cutting me any slack because of my 'youth.'

I am astounded by the behavior of the newspapers here. What were they thinking?

And even more astounded by McCloskey, a man who had operated in the public eye for more than half a century. Has the man no sense at all?

mls - speaking at Bob Jones University is different because the students who go there may well not agree with the University's official policy on interracial marriage. People seldom pick a college based on one particular issue, and many students cannot academically afford to be too choosy. As for speaking to the Council of Conservative Citizens (note the correct name), since their racism was not particularly hidden [My experience with them came at the 1995 National Conservative Political Action Conference, where they had an exhibitor booth. I had never heard of them before seeing their booth, and I picked up their newsletter and a couple brochures. I think I got to page 5 before seeing a piece that was overtly racist. I wasn't the only one with a "Gaaach" reaction, apparently - they were a first-time participant, and were told not to reapply for future years.], speaking to them means at best that you have failed to investigate at all who you're speaking to, and makes you suspect. Interestingly, the most prominent politician to have spoken to them is Senator Trent Lott, and his likely opponent in November is a Democrat state representative who is a LaRouchie!

Nick

It strikes me that what the Times and Chronicle are really saying is, "Please, Republicans, nominate this guy! Oh please oh please oh please!" (Sort of like how some of us hope Kerry will run for President again.)

To the Questioner:

I've never heard of anything like that. From what I know, the payments to Jewish relatives of Holocaust victims is more along the lines of payment to survivors to make up for their slave labor during the war, as well as restitution for property and businesses that were confiscated by the Nazis. Even if there was some overall "reparations" payment that went to Israel - which there isn't - the number of millions killed shouldn't enter into it. They tried to wipe out all of them, period. Kiling four million is not any less abominable than killing six million. It's just a less successful achievement of their goal.

The State of Israel exists only because of the Holocaust, but Germany does not just give money to Israel. Questioner is wrong in stating that Germany owes or pays restitution money to Israel. The German Foundation has made lots of payments to individual Isrealis, as reparations for slave labor, etc. But these claims are all based on hard evidence of relatives being used as slaves. The Germans were meticulous record keepers, and there's plenty of evidence to back up those claims. This is, however, entirely different from Questioner's assumption that payments from Germany are directly related to the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust.

Germany obviously feels a moral obligation to support Israel and promote good relations between what is left of the Jews and the German people. Indeed the German government has given substantial financial support to educational programs, as well as other economic, artistic, and religious programs. But none of this is tied to any number of victims.

But why believe this coming from someone who is obviously a Jew, and may very well stand to benefit financially from denying Questioner's claims? Read what the German government itself has to say:

www.German-Embassy.org.uk

At its very core, Questioner's statement plays to one of the biggest age-old stereotypes against Jews, dating from long before it was spelled out in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that is to say, that Jews are all about the money. Hopefully a few facts can shed some light into the darkness of that kind of thinking.

McCloskey and the IHR:

McCloskey has a longstanding relationship with the IHR and the far right, including the avowedly racist Elmer Barnes. He has pussyfooted for many years with the anti-semitic right.

Two of the most repulsive comments he made at that June 2000 Speech were overlooked.

First, he compared Mark Weber, one of the nation's foremost neo-Nazis, to John Peter Zenger.

He was also in the room with David Irving, whom he called a man of courage. Mind you, this was 2 months after Irving was adjudged to be a racist and anti-semite by a London Court.

None of this is secret. There are no secrets with Google.

What I find so shocking about all this is how the left is so craven and hyprocritcal that it will whitewash all this in an effort to unseat a Republican.

Sevral years ago, Southern Republicans like Trent Lott and Bob Barr were rightly criticized for giving speeches to the so-called Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group. The IHR makes the CCC look like the Vienna Choir Boys.

It frankly disgusts me.