Of Arrests and Anti-Semitism: The Eric Alterman Story

We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are nothing if not nice. That’s why, in fact, we named our “weblog” as we did: We feel it well fits our pleasant—nay, chirpy—demeanors.

Even so, we must admit that a handful of folks prove consistently capable of getting our dander up. It’s embarrassing, but true: A few people just rub us the wrong way, and there seems little we can do about it. Short of killing them, perhaps. Well, short of maiming them, we suppose.

To be honest, these irksome lads and lasses make for an uninspiring list of irritants: Michael Moore; Hugo Chavez; Billy Joel; et al. We mean, come on: Add Paris Hilton to the list and you’ve pretty much mentioned every humanoid God-fearing Americans disdain.

We would be remiss, however, if we failed to add one name that isn’t as well known to our grand Tallying of the Obnoxious. We refer, dear reader, to Eric Alterman, the incessantly enraged media critic for The Nation.

Longtime readers of this humble “weblog” know that we’ve taken aim at the odious Mr. Alterman in the past. And for good reason: Not only is he an unreflective dunce who shills for any militantly left-wing idiocy, he’s also clearly an obstreperous jerk. Anyone who’s seen Mr. Alterman on Book TV can attest that, despite his quixotic “progressive” politics, he’s no happy, peaceful lefty. On the contrary: He comes across as a deeply unhappy man.

Accordingly, we were unsurprised to learn that Mr. Alterman was arrested at the recent Democratic debate in New Hampshire; apparently, he was trespassing and acting like a—mirabile dictu—complete ass. Although, as company policy, we do not engage in bouts of Schadenfreude, we must say that Mr. Alterman’s misfortunes have tested our limits.

Overall, Mr. Alterman’s un-sunny disposition makes his obtuse commentary in The Nation even harder to stomach than would otherwise be the case. And, given that The Nation has long been—to alter their slogan ever so slightly—a source of conventional un-wisdom, that’s really saying something.

But you needn’t take our collective word for it. Why, you could get an idea of Mr. Alterman’s outrageous hackery from “Potemkin Paper?”—a recent hit job appearing in The Nation. In said piece, Mr. Alterman ridicules The New York Sun, the fledgling conservative daily. According to Mr. Alterman, the paper—horror of horrors!—doesn’t have many readers, and merely exists to influence public debate and Washington politicos.

Oh, dear Lord! How blasphemous! We suppose the Sun’s situation is wholly different from, say, The Nation, which has squillons of readers and whose staff has no interest in changing the hearts and minds of the powerful.

Amongst other purported sins, Mr. Alterman flogs the staff of the Sun for inveighing against the blatant anti-Semitic agitation of faculty members at Columbia University—a noble cause that Mr. Alterman counts among the Sun’s “wild charges.”

But never mind this typical lack of regard for intellectual diversity and educational fairness. Just take a gander at the peroration of Mr. Alterman’s dubious screed. Here’s a charming sentence for you:

But I don't want to harp on the Jewish-media-moguls-supporting-Israel angle, which hews a little too close to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes for my taste.

Yeah: You read that right. Mr. Alterman doesn’t want to “harp on the Jewish-media-moguls-supporting-Israel angle,” because it’s a tad “too close to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes” for his taste. Just a little.

This leads us to wonder: Exactly how close must one hew to “traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes” to gain the approval of Mr. Alterman? How much “traditional anti-Semitism” accords with his “taste”?

It is a horrid reminder of how unhealthy the political Left in this country has become that ravings such as Mr. Alterman’s are given the label “progressive.”