Los Angeles Daily News Picks Up Koretz Story
Columnist Doug McIntyre of the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the controversy surrounding Paul Koretz’s use of the Nazi Germany analogy to describe Arizona. In his page one story appearing today, McIntyre further criticizes Koretz not only for his hypocrisy in playing the Nazi card after condemning Pomona Councilwoman Cristina Carrizosa for using the term “Gestapo” in a similar situation, but also for Koretz’s response to McIntyre’s inquiry on the matter. In an email to McIntyre, Koretz wrote:
“I understand that a supporter of the Arizona anti-immigrant laws has complained that my comments in connection with a Pomona incident were somehow inconsistent with my comments in City Council opposing the Arizona anti-immigrant laws. I think the two situations are different. Still, many people took my comments the wrong way and not as intended. Even some of my friends have disagreed with me. In 20-20 hindsight, I wouldn’t have said what I said.”
McIntyre accurately points out that it’s not enough for Koretz to say the “situations are different”, he needs to clearly articulate why he believes that to be so. Without such clarification, Koretz offers only a deflection instead of the forthright and honest explanation we all deserve.
For the record, I too believe the situations to be different – Paul Koretz’s Nazi analogy was far worse than Ms. Carrizosa’s. While I’m not defending the practice, it’s fairly common for lay people to use the word “Gestapo” to describe heavy handed police actions and it’s quite possible that that is all Ms. Carrizosa meant when she used the word. It’s also possible that she lacked the historical perspective to appreciate the weight that the term “Gestapo” carries, especially to the Jewish community. Certainly, Paul Koretz’s 2008 city council meeting lecture on the subject clarified the matter for her.
Koretz, on the other hand, has no such excuse. There’s no question that he fully understands how analogizing lesser offenses to what happened in Nazi Germany cheapens the deaths of millions of innocent people. First, some of his own relatives were murdered by the Nazi regime. Second, his criticism of Ms. Carrizosa’s “Gestapo” reference as “a blood-curling analogy” that was “painful” and “insensitive” clearly reveals how he believes such analogies are to be viewed. Assuming, of course, that back in 2008, he wasn’t just demagoguing on the issue for personal or political gain.
Even more importantly, though, is that Koretz stated that Arizona’s passage of their anti-illegal immigration law made him “think we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany”. There is no mistaking what this phrasing is meant to convey. “What went on” when Hitler came to power in the early 1930’s is that the German government embarked on a series of policies that inexorably lead to the systematic slaughter of a people who’s only crime was that they existed. I’m not sure how anybody else tallies things, but in my book suggesting that we view the actions of Arizona in a similar light is a much greater transgression than anything Cristina Carrizosa did.
Finally, I want to point out another way Paul Koretz has tried to divert the criticism he so rightly deserves. In case you missed it, it’s in the first sentence of his email where he calls me “a supporter of the Arizona anti-immigrant laws”. First, Paul Koretz has no idea whether I support SB 1070. He’s never asked me and I’ve never volunteered the information. But he’s characterizing me this way in an effort to suggest that 1) if I’m criticizing him I must be in favor of the law, 2) that’s the real reason I’m “complaining” and 3) my concerns about how he’s acted should be discounted because I support the law and I’m “anti-immigrant”. Why else would he use the phrase “anti-immigrant laws” rather than the correct term “anti-illegal immigration laws” or the actual name of the law, SB 1070? This is a classic political tactic. Disparage those who disagree with you in an attempt to discredit their opinions. Don’t fall for it. The truth is that I’m not in any way “anti-immigrant”. In fact, in my perfect libertarian utopia, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s natural rights, you would be free to live anywhere you want (and can afford to) and do any job anyone is willing to hire you for. But that’s a discussion for another blog post.
What’s important here is that once again Paul Koretz has failed to definitively retract his original statement or explain why it’s unnecessary for him to do so. Saying, “I wouldn’t have said what I said”, isn’t sufficient. If he really feels that way, he should make a public retraction. Nor is it sufficient to claim that his comments were taken the wrong way without following up with an explanation of exactly what he meant and how his words should be taken. He’s had ample opportunity to do so, and he hasn’t. Finally, when faced with his hypocritical behavior, the only thing he has offered is “it’s different”. Again, this just doesn’t cut it. As Doug McIntyre has asked, “How are these situations different”? Until we get a definitive answer from Paul Koretz, we’re going to keep asking.
Loading ...|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think. |
by David Boaz or 
by David Bergland, both excellent books on libertarian thought.
sending...
