PrintApril 19, 2007
The Economist trashes "neo-cons"
We have had our run-ins with the British-based magazine The Economist before. In the past, the magazine has basically made fun of Southern Christians who died during religious practices.
In the current edition, just hitting newstands, the magazine seems to be setting its sights on Jews now, by promoting a canard popular among anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. In an article cheerfully depciting the "humiliation" of various political and journalistic figures whom the magazine identifies as "neo-cons", the magazine depicts these neocons as being Jewish. How nice the powers that be at the magazine are giving its worldwide readers a distorted view of politics and power in America. Note to magazine: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and many other decision-makers-including numero uno, George Bush who are often tagged as being "neocons" are not Jewish.
In the current edition, just hitting newstands, the magazine seems to be setting its sights on Jews now, by promoting a canard popular among anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. In an article cheerfully depciting the "humiliation" of various political and journalistic figures whom the magazine identifies as "neo-cons", the magazine depicts these neocons as being Jewish. How nice the powers that be at the magazine are giving its worldwide readers a distorted view of politics and power in America. Note to magazine: Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, and many other decision-makers-including numero uno, George Bush who are often tagged as being "neocons" are not Jewish.
Key quote: "They are also being marginalised-or at least slapped down a bit-within the conservative movement. The 'paleocons' have always disliked the neocons, sometimes (disgracefully) just because they are Jewish."
If the magazine intended to indicate that the some "neo-cons" are Jewish the magazine could have more artfully done so; as the sentence is written, many might take away the idea that neocons are Jewish and "sometimes" paleocons don't like them solely because of their religious heritage. I am very disappointed that this legendary magazine did not catch this potential for misunderstanding during the editing process. Or did it?
