4

The Washington Post has an article about Republican ads which depict candidates holding fistful of dollars. Specifically, the article contains claims that:

“[...] I will say I have not seen images like this in 21st-century America before.” [...]

Republican ads for other [from context: Non-Jewish] candidates in Washington did not feature the same imagery [as an ad targeting a Jewish candidate]

“It’s not by chance that they’re showing people showing money. It’s not by chance that these people happen to be Jews, and it’s not by chance that there’s more talk about people’s Jewish identity in politics,” [...]

The sort of image the article is referencing are campaign ads which depict the candidate holding money. For example:

Campaign ad showing Matt Lesser holding a bundle of dollars

The article also quotes Republicans denying that these ads target Jewish candidates specifically, but are instead a comment on fiscal policies.

Are Republicans indeed specifically targeting Jewish candidates with antisemitic imagery, or are they using this imagery equally against all Democratic candidates?

Community
  • 1
tim
  • 51,356
  • 19
  • 207
  • 177
  • 3
    I feel like this might be an unknowable question; the only people qualified to give an answer to this question backed up with sources would have to be in the meeting room of the campaign publishing these advertisements to give an account of what was discussed first-hand, which nobody would reasonably do and tell the truth about if the targeting was indeed race-based. I think this question should be closed on the basis of "can't be answered in an objective way" (although I published an answer anyway). – Ertai87 Nov 06 '18 at 20:14
  • 3
    @Ertai87 The question is not about intention, but about impact. It might be that Republicans are just by chance only targeting Jewish candidates with these ads, but that's not relevant (here). The question is only "what is the breakdown of these ads by Jewish/non-Jewish candidates", or are there counter-examples for the "no ads like these before" / "no ads like these for non-Jewish candidates" points. – tim Nov 06 '18 at 20:23
  • @GEdgar That claim did seem a bit unlikely to me as well; I'm only looking for campaign ads here (not antisemitic imagery at large), but I would still be surprised if there was no antisemitic imagery in campaign ads at all in the last two decades. – tim Nov 06 '18 at 20:25
  • 5
    @tim It is plausible that issues of the economy/spending happen to be hot-button issues in areas in which the Democrats also happen to be running Jewish candidates. I would go so far as to say in this case that even correlation does not necessarily imply correlation here, a la this reference: http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations – Ertai87 Nov 06 '18 at 20:26
  • What happened to the answer by the self-described conservative person of Jewish heritage? – elliot svensson Nov 07 '18 at 16:33
  • @elliotsvensson it was deleted by a mod because it was opinion-based and not backed by sources. – tim Nov 07 '18 at 16:39
  • @tim, if you are a mod, do you know to what extent the answer should be providing sources that define "antisemitic imagery"? – elliot svensson Nov 07 '18 at 19:50
  • @elliotsvensson I'm not (mods are the users with the little diamond next to their name), I can just see deleted answers because I have over 10k [rep](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/). But for the purpose of this question, I don't think that you don't need any sources defining this. As per claim, it's candidates clutching a bundle of dollar bills. Whether or not this is antisemitic isn't the topic (though I think it clearly is). Other antisemitic imagery (say puppet master or kraken) are not relevant for this question either. – tim Nov 07 '18 at 19:56
  • @tim, double negative in the second sentence... was that intended as a negation? – elliot svensson Nov 07 '18 at 19:59
  • @elliotsvensson Nope, that was an accident (I revised the comment midway through and didn't double check for errors). – tim Nov 07 '18 at 20:01
  • 2
    @tim, if the definition of antisemitic isn't on-topic, it seems to me that the title and paragraphs are begging the question and tacitly asserting a certain definition of antisemitic imagery. If you are right that this isn't on-topic, then there would be no difference if the title were re-written as: "Are Republicans showing pictures of bundles of cash for Jewish candidates but not for other candidates?" – elliot svensson Nov 07 '18 at 21:51
  • 1
    I didn't see the ads themselves yet so I may be out of ine, but I really don't think it's all that uncommon for one candidate to accuse the other of having too much money earned supposedly unethically from the tax payers. Unless the imagery is overtly antisemitic, I'm not entirely convinced that the correlation is relevant. – PC Luddite Nov 09 '18 at 05:40
  • @PCLuddite It's about images such as [this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/3ILNJwUy--BvI0FAmy0_4Nt24o8=/480x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MP4PIIG4RMI6RC5MX7QB7TODUY.jpg). – tim Nov 09 '18 at 08:36
  • @tim that's definitely questionable... – PC Luddite Nov 09 '18 at 08:37

2 Answers2

7

It's not just Jews.

For example:

enter image description here

According to WRAL with respect to the above ad concerning George Holding:

The ad has run more than 500 times so far on network television in the Raleigh

and according to Wikipedia:

George and Lucy Holding... are members of Christ Baptist Church in Raleigh

Republicans are also depicted by the news media in the same way:

enter image description here

The above is the Tucson Weekly's depiction of Senator Jon Kyl who is reportedly Presbyterian.

DavePhD
  • 103,432
  • 24
  • 436
  • 464
  • The second image is definitely the sort of image the WP seems to be refering to, but it doesn't seem to be a campaign ad. – tim Nov 12 '18 at 13:58
  • @tim what about this ad? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62LW2eI5_Tw or this similar one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knNMhsSD7iI ? – DavePhD Nov 12 '18 at 19:36
4

Here are some counter-examples to the WaPo narrative: Democratic candidates that have been targeted with adverts suggesting they are motivated by cash, even though the candidates are not Jewish:

The first is actually of national importance. This is Phil Breseden, Dem Senator Candidate from TN:

This is Phil Breseden, Dem Senator Candidate from TN

Source: Tennessee Star

Breseden attends a Presbyterian Church but tries to separate his religious beliefs from campaigning.

Claire McCaskill D-Sen MO., has a "smear campaign" advert against her sponsored by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Screenshot "She gets rich while you pay"

Screenshot from video

Wikipedia has a couple of sources explaining she is Catholic.

Here is another example, from New Jersey from 2015:

Vince Mazzeo has a seat in the New Jersey General Assembly.

In 2015, attack ads were mailed out:

Anti-Mazzeo ad with a pile of money

Mazzeo's religious beliefs do not seem to be widely publicized.

Given the hundreds of campaigns in the House, the Senate, across state legislative assemblies, and lower level localities, this charge of targeting seems to fall flat.

Community
  • 1
  • 3
    Not that I think it matters, but I am part Jewish, just declaring that –  Nov 09 '18 at 20:34
  • 2
    It's not clear to me if this answer supports the allegation, because everyone listed is Jewish, or undermines the allegation, because no one listed is Jewish. Or I might be missing the point entirely. – Roger Nov 09 '18 at 20:40
  • 2
    @Roger No one listed above is Jewish to my knowledge. –  Nov 09 '18 at 21:27
  • I have started to edit this for clarity because the argument took me a few tries to understand, but also to add references. I found the first image as a banner in the Tennessee Star. I don't really know much about that source (apart from [this opinion](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-tennessee-star/)), or even if it is original to them, but it isn't clear it is a Republican *advert*. – Oddthinking Nov 10 '18 at 00:35
  • 2
    I don't think that any of these really apply. The first doesn't seem to be an ad, the second doesn't contain money, and the third has money, but no candidate. The question is about images such as [this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/3ILNJwUy--BvI0FAmy0_4Nt24o8=/480x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/MP4PIIG4RMI6RC5MX7QB7TODUY.jpg) (candidate clutching money), not any ad that is loosely related to money in some way. – tim Nov 10 '18 at 11:03
  • @tim Here's a Republican ad showing Senator Bill Nelson with cash https://grabien.com/story.php?id=190097&video_mode=full – DavePhD Nov 12 '18 at 12:57
  • @DavePhD But that ad isn't about Nelson being displayed as money grabbing, but as a "confused puppet" who is controlled by Schumer, Clinton, and Pelosi. – tim Nov 12 '18 at 13:56
  • 2
    @tim You keep moving the goalposts. –  Nov 12 '18 at 15:42
  • 1
    @fredsbend The WP article is about campaign ads depicting candidates with fistful of cash (the theme being that they are money-grabbing). The goalpost didn't change. It should be ads (not newspaper articles), it should display candidates, and they should hold money. A candidate being a controlled puppet can be considered antisemitic imagery (it isn't targeting the "puppet" though), but it doesn't match the claim. – tim Nov 12 '18 at 16:01
  • 1
    @tim Lets take the McCaskill example above. It's basically saying exactly what you're looking for, but you don't want to accept it because the cash isn't in her hands. The Breseden image is also accusing a money grab, but you reject it because it's an article, not an ad. I think you need to concede at this point. The WP is creating a non issue by basically saying any money grabbing charges against a candidate that happens to be Jewish is inherently antisemitic, while disregarding the overt fact that many candidates suffer the same charge. Fixating on exact imagery over message is not helping. –  Nov 13 '18 at 20:41