254
PARTISAN REVIEW
than it was in the 1930s and 40s. Its ideological basis, however, remains
remarkably stable and its potential should never be underestimated. Many
of the intellectual currents that fed into modern anti-Semi tism a hundred
years ago are still with us-whether we are looking at irrationalism, illib–
eralism, ethnic nationalism, conspiracy theories or religious
fundamentalism. Anti-Semi tic groups in contemporary society very often
share a range of ideological beliefs that were present a hundred years ago.
In that sense not so much has changed. But the current political signifi–
cance of anti-Semitism is not overwhelming.
I would make the provocative argument that, in terms of collective
Jewish survival today, in some ways "philo-semitism" may be more dan–
gerous to Jews than anti-Semitism. I would at least ask you to think about
it. When I say philo-semitism, I am not alluding to love of Jews as such,
because this has always been a somewhat ambivalent phenomenon, but the
readiness to genuinely accept Jews both as individuals and as a group-the
kind of openness that allows Jews equal access to all areas of society, cul–
ture, and politics. It is the open society that has led to the success story of
the Jews in the last thirty to forty years.Just think of a few examples at ran–
dom: look at this country, at the Clinton administration, was there ever an
administration that had more Jewish advisors? I also think of Great
Bri tain, where I grew up, which currently has a foreign secretary who is
Jewish and minister of the interior who is a Jew. In France there is qui te
a tradition of having Jewish prime ministers and there were many Jewish
cabinet ministers under President Mitterrand. Many presidents of
American ivy league universities are Jews. Probably thirty to forty percent
of the faculty at eli te uruversi ties in the U.S. are Jewish. But in the 1930s
quotas were used against Jews, it was difficult to find one tenured Jewish
professor. Wherever you look you can find prom.inent Jews in the media,
in the professions, in academia, the arts and sciences, and of course in
Hollywood. It may well be a myth to say that Jews dominate Hollywood,
but they are undoubtedly a very important presence. Certainly, there were
precedents: one thinks of Germany, Austria, and Hungary at the turn of
the century. There is no doubt that if you consider banking, commerce,
intellectual life, the cultural world as a whole, the sciences, (especially
physics, chemisty, medicine) Jews had made their mark by that time in a
spectacular way. In Central Europe, they provided a huge galaxy of talents
that profoundly shaped and transformed modern culture. But there was
one great difference between then and now. In spite of their creative suc–
cess,Jews were not truly accepted in pre-war Europe and there was a level
of resentment, antagonism, and hostility to their acruevement wruch, I do
not believe, exists to anything like the same extent today. Or if it exists, it
is so well disguised that it is difficult to actually put your finger on it. Trus
does not mean that the American Jewish diaspora is totally immune to the
