My initial concerns in response to Berlet's appearance on DN were expressed as above. While I describe my intellectual responses to Berlet's views, nothing I said was of a personal nature. But because Berlet is in the business of opposing "hate," he seems to be in the habit of accusing those who disagree with him of also hating him. He thus avoided dealing with my substantive concerns.
Max Sawicky's comments have been simply inflammatory, but Doug Henwood seems to be of the view that Chip is being picked on. Yes, Chip now stands accused of profiting from "hate." But when it comes to the role of "hate" on this particular thread, Chip started it--not surprisingly.
Ultimately, I don't believe that "hate" or "hate groups" tells us much about how politics works at a fundamental level. Most importantly, hate is provoked and manipulated by governments. Less importantly, the notion of "hate groups" is manipulated by those who continue to define politics in terms of "moderates" and "extremists." We should reject any analysis that is predicated on the conventional uses of these terms. A revisionist historical account of the McCarthy (Truman) era, a critique of Hofstadter's notion of a "paranoid style" in relation to our government's prosecution of wars against Cuba and Vietnam, etc., and understanding the blatant exploitation of "anti-Semitism" in relation to support for Israel are all efforts toward critiques of the notion of "hate" in politics. I would submit that these efforts should be taken seriously.
As a Jewish critic of Israel, I admit to having had my own obsessions with haters like Daniel Pipes. But I also think it's important to understand that people like Pipes also feed off the notion of "hate" in the Muslim world, and use it to justify their own. Their hate has become more complicated, and more "respectable," and Berlet doesn't seem to want to deal with that. I would suggest that it's important to understand why people like Pipes do not seem to interest people like Berlet, Potok, etc. I think it's pretty obvious that Jewish "hate groups" don't interest those who conform to the conventional notions of moderation and extremism that tend to exclude liberal/conservative support for Israel. But ultimately, I also think that "hate" gets us only so far in understanding the relationships among U.S., Israel, and the Middle East.
I also have a personal interest in AR & Robert Weissberg (and his relationship to the University of Illinois), one of whose hateful columns appeared in the Champaign-Urbana daily newspaper last spring. My response to Berlet was specifically motivated by his apparent willingness to define AR as being in a different category of "hate groups," and my point is that anti-semitism has become a rather archaic form of "hate" in this country anyway. Again, why does it not interest Berlet that Jews (including liberals) now participate in their own institutionalized "hatreds"? I feel that it's because these issues suggest a different narrative that Berlet doesn't want to address.
There's much more to be said, but I'm particularly appalled that Berlet and others have turned these serious issues into an issue of my character and their sensitivities. Again, there was nothing personal in my original statement. Berlet needs to develop a thicker skin, and accord some respectful seriousness to those who are genuinely concerned about the thrust of his efforts against "hate."
David Green