The way that the French understand Marie Antoinette's locution,
“let them eat cake” is different from the way that the English interpret the
thing.
Here is the explanation: In every language that I know of, the
word bread has come to represent food of any kind. That's in addition to the
dough which is normally baked in the oven.
And so, when Marie Antoinette, who was born with a silver spoon in
her mouth, heard that the people of the kingdom had no bread to eat, she did
not think of them as hungry people that had nothing to eat; she thought their
table was full of meats, vegetables and fruits, but no bread from the oven. And
so, she thought of a substitute that also comes from the oven, and suggested
that the people eat cake till the baker had the time to bake the dough and make
the bread.
This is why, at worst, the French might think of Marie Antoinette
as having been insensitive due to ignorance, given her upbringing, and not out
of malice. To the English, however, Marie Antoinette's words were uttered
contemptuously, even maliciously as if to mean, let these people go to hell.
Well then, think of that story as the ancient analogue to what
happened to Ilhan Omar who, in a more modern setting, referred to a tragic
event by the shorthand, “someone that did something.” Some people interpreted
this performance as a deliberate act of contempt on Omar's part, whereas other
people saw it as no worse than an insensitive utterance, if that.
Each of those who saw Omar's performance as an act of contempt,
interpreted what she said from their own point of view. Bret Stephens is one of
these people and as usual, filtered his point of view through the prism of
Jewish fanaticism. To explain himself, he wrote a column under the title:
“Omar, Harbinger of Democratic Decline?” and the subtitle: “With political
power comes rhetorical responsibility.” The column was published on April 20,
2019 in The New York Times.
Like the English interpretation of Marie Antoinette's locution,
Bret Stephens's interpretation of what Ilhan Omar has said, is lamentably
devoid of depth. Instead of probing the mental process that has led Ilhan Omar
to use the style that she did when communicating, Stephens resorted to the
usual technique of asking his readers to imagine the furor that would have
ensued if someone from their Conservative side had used that same style to
communicate thoughts the other side considers offensive.
And once Stephens had chosen that track, it was inevitable that he
would jump headlong into the use of the incident as a weapon to attack the
Progressive Democratic side of the political spectrum, which stands as nemesis
to the Conservative Republican side. Thus, Stephens added his two-cents worth
of political gamesmanship to a situation that is already drowning in a deluge
of crass politics.
And being a Jew who is never shy displaying his fanatic side, Bret
Stephens could not ignore the opportunity to mooch all that he could for the
benefit of (a) the Jews whom, he says, are being subjected to a new wave of
antisemitism, and (b) Israel which, he says, is being demonized by Ilhan Omar,
and increasingly let down by those in Democratic circles who used to be on
Israel's side.
Having done all that analysis on the Bret Stephens column, but
failed to locate the answer to the question that's in the title of the column:
“Omar, Harbinger of Democratic Decline?” you go through the column one more
time to see if you missed something. Alas, all you can find in the body of the
column which comes close to relating to the question in the title, is the
following:
“As for her views about Israel, she's practically mainstream for
her segment of the Democratic Party — a harbinger of what's to come as the old
guard of pro-Israel liberals like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer gives way to the
anti-Israel wokesters typified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez”.
Thus, the implication of the title is that the Democratic Party
will suffer a decline because young Americans are waking-up to the reality that
their country is being sucked of the wealth that belongs to the current and to future
generations. Those young Americans are calling for an end to the financial
hemorrhaging of the country, and they want it done by closing the opening to
Israel. This would be the aperture –– more than any other –– through which
American blood is siphoned off to nurture a foreign entity whose evil presence
would have diminished America even without the hemorrhage.
But either Bret Stephens or the editor that chose the title for
the column, is warning by their choice, that closing the Israeli aperture may
save a little of America's wealth, but will also cause the decline of the
Democratic Party.
What Bret Stephens chose to ignore, however, is the history of the
Jews through the centuries. They are the ones that lost the game every time
they tried to pull a fast one on the people that treated them well. The Jews
are repeating that same history in America, and they will evoke the same old
familiar fate.