What's a self-styled Jewish leader to do when the tip of his
sword has been blunted, and he can no longer intimidate people with the
accusation that they are antisemitic? The answer is that he relies on the other
trusted weapon in his arsenal: demagoguery.
Different people define demagoguery differently, but the
most enduring definition is the one which says: to seek controlling the masses
by scaring them of events about to unfold against which only he can protect
them. The weapon has worked well for the Jewish leaders over the centuries,
being the method by which they maintained a firm grip on the multitudes that
chose to stay protected inside the walls of the ghetto rather than venture
outside it and be harmed by what may lurk out there.
But there is a gap between scaring a population of Jews
that's kept inside a walled ghetto, and scaring a diversified population that
sees no walls around it. In fact, this is the gap that Bret Stephens – the
self-styled Judeo-American leader – is trying to bridge in the column he wrote
under the title: “The New Dictators' Club,” and the subtitle: “An echo of the
1930s in the budding alliance of Russia ,
Iran , Turkey and China .” It was published on August
23, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal.
At first, the author attempts to bridge the gap using a
historical analogy. Here is how he starts his presentation: “In the fall of
1940 the governments of Japan ,
Italy and Germany signed
the Tripartite Pact, pledging mutual support … Within five years, 70 million
people would be killed...” To complete the analogy, he explained that: “in July
2015 Iran 's Qasem Soleimani
paid a visit to Moscow … Iran and Russia
are not natural allies … But what tipped the scale in favor of a joint
operation was a shared desire to humiliate the U.S. ”
Humiliating the U.S. is supposed to be the scary
part. Unlike the vague stories that were circulated in the ghettos of
yesteryear, the modern danger, as seen by Bret Stephens, is the well defined
coming together of America's foremost enemies, Iran and Russia. But should this
be so scary as to believe that within a specified period of time (say, five
years,) a specified number of people (say, 70 million) may be killed?
But wait a minute. What's going on here? The historical
reality is that 70 million people died as a result of World War Two which
started a year before the Tripartite Pact was signed, and ended 6 years later.
Yet, Bret Stephens started the article by asserting that there was a cause and
effect relationship between the Pact and that number of dead. Did he
deliberately set out to deceive the readers?
It can only be said that he was conscious of what he was
doing because he ended the article in a way that takes some of the sting out of
his deception. Here is how he did that: “Readers searching for historical
analogies with the present would be wrong to reach for the Tripartite Pact.” He
said this much despite the fact that he earlier made this analogy: “in July
2015 Iran 's Qasem Soleimani
paid a visit to Moscow … what tipped the scale
in favor of a joint operation was a shared desire to humiliate the U.S. ” Whatever!
It is also odd that someone should start with an idea and
construct around it a presentation that ends with the repudiation of the idea.
We must, therefore ask: What is there between the start of the article and its
ending that is so important, it compelled Bret Stephens to express himself
using this style of writing? Two passages in the article may explain what has
motivated him. Here they are in condensed form:
Passage # 1: “All this is happening as the nuclear deal was
supposed to be nudging Iran
in a more pro-American direction. It's also happening as Moscow
and Ankara are
moving toward a possible alliance. Russian media outlets are touting the
possibility that Russian jets might use the air base at Incirlik to bomb
targets in Syria .
That all but presumes U.S.
withdrawal.” It is the fear of no longer being considered the Alpha Dog.
Passage # 2: “The drills in the South China Sea are a reminder
that the Kremlin's goal is to diminish the U.S. It's a goal Beijing appears to share. And why not?
President Obama and his advisers continue to insist that the world has never
been a better, safer, happier place than under their benign stewardship, meaning
they no longer even register the continuous embarrassments of their foreign
policy”.