Scott McConnell calls the New York mayor “craven” for giving his AIPAC speech behind closed doors and claiming he had nothing to do with that decision:
While it’s true the secrecy raised eyebrows, de Blasio’s claim that it was at AIPAC’s insistence is not especially persuasive. AIPAC revels in eliciting public displays of support from American politicians: its annual event in Washington is a media-saturated “see and be seen” parade for established and aspiring office-holders. Why would AIPAC not wish to advertise the support of the hottest new property in progressive politics, a joyfully multicultural Italian-American elected by a landslide, at a very moment when AIPAC was worrying that its political brand was beginning to seem insufficiently bipartisan, too right wing, too narrowly Republican? I could be convinced, but not simply by de Blasio’s word for it. We have to, it seems to me, entertain the notion that the secrecy of the speech was at de Blasio’s behest and not AIPAC’s.
The reason would appear obvious: De Blasio wants AIPAC’s money and support, but does not want to alienate his progressive base. What makes this argument more persuasive to me is the crudely craven manner of the remarks he gave. You don’t often hear a politician in public say things like:
City Hall will always be open to AIPAC. When you need me to stand by you in Washington or anywhere, I will answer the call and I’ll answer it happily ’cause that’s my job.
It’s too blatant a pander. Which is why some prominent, progressive New York Jews have also penned an open letter to De Blasio. It’s to the point:
We understand that the job of mayor of New York is a complex one that often calls for your participation on the international stage, and we would not presume to define your job for you. But we do know that the needs and concerns of many of your constituents – U.S. Jews like us among them–are not aligned with those of AIPAC, and that no, your job is not to do AIPAC’s bidding when they call you to do so. AIPAC speaks for Israel’s hard-line government and its right-wing supporters, and for them alone; it does not speak for us.
Maybe I’m wrong and De Blasio has specifically said in public before that AIPAC will always have access to his office, and that part of his job is mayor is to do whatever AIPAC asks. If you can find identical remarks like that out there, I’ll note them. To be clear: secret pandering to any narrow interest group is always shifty, whatever the lobby.
People were rightly concerned when Dick Cheney secretly brought in the carbon lobby to frame Bush’s energy policy. Pandering to any lobby is, to my mind, a bad thing in the life of a polity. But pandering in secret obviously takes this to eleven. Eric Yoffie makes the obvious point about how bad this looks for both parties:
From AIPAC’s perspective, the “off-the-record” policy is silly from every perspective imaginable. Most troubling, it gives the event a conspiratorial air—which is both unnecessary and self-defeating. The whole purpose of pro-Israel advocacy is to generate public support for Israel’s cause, which already enjoys significant backing from the American people. Anything that seems to rely on behind-closed-doors confidences can only be harmful to Israel’s image and interests. With very rare exceptions, work on Israel’s behalf should be done right up front, in the light of day. In addition, it is astoundingly naïve to think that the mayor of New York can deliver a speech to a large gathering in midtown without it becoming a press issue. …
From Mayor de Blasio’s perspective, his bumbling could turn out to be very serious by conveying the impression that an emphatically pro-Israel mayor is perhaps not so pro-Israel after all. By attempting to dodge the press, the mayor provided an opening for critics to claim that he did not want his pro-Israel views to be widely disseminated because they might offend liberal supporters who are less supportive of Israel than he is. This is hogwash, but even the New York Times, which should know better, included the charge in its story.
Why is it hogwash? Occam’s razor would imply that’s precisely what was going on.
The Dish 