----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Rod, 
 
     I mostly agree with remarks that Greg Ransom 
has made, although with a few exceptions. 
 
     First of all I would like to say that Greg overdoes 
it by lumping Keynes and Schumpeter together as 
clear anti-Semites.  Despite its mistreatment of 
Hayek, the article does at least have the virtue of 
making distinctions among the three and clearly 
indicating that Hayek was not in the same category 
as the other two, although he effectively does lump 
them all together.  But Keynes and Schumpeter are not 
also clearly in the same category either. 
 
     The evidence on Keynes has long and quite 
publicly been known.  I am unaware of anybody 
seriously attempting to defend Keynes on this issue, 
other than to note his actions to help out certain Jewish 
scholars.  He was indeed capable not merely of making 
lots of nasty and public anti-Semitic remarks, which he 
did, but it even affected his interactions at the policy 
level on occasion, most famously in the negotiations at 
Bretton Woods, where by all reports his abreaction to 
the (Jewish) US delegates, White (who was also ironically 
by most reports a secret Soviet agent) and Bernstein 
actually complicated the rather difficult negotiations, 
although one might argue that what had Keynes really 
bothered was the fact that at this conference it was really 
clear that the US was in charge rather than the UK, and 
that White and Bernstein as the bearers of this unpleasant 
for Keynes message thus received his wrath in all its forms. 
 
     A crucial issue that Reder discusses arises already in 
his discussion of Keynes, that of "ambivalence" (not ambiguity 
as an earlier post said).  Thus, Reder noted that Keynes 
both helped some Jews and also had good friends who 
were Jewish, although he sometimes made nasty remarks 
about their Jewishness behind their backs.  The issue of 
ambivalence specifically arose from this tension between 
on the one hand hating Jews in general and on the other 
hand liking some specifically and individually.  After all, 
it has long been known that the last refuge of an anti-Semite 
is the line that, "but some of my best friends are Jewish!" 
Clearly for Keynes, Jews in general were bad, but those 
who were his friends or colleagues were the exceptions to 
this general badness. 
 
     However, Schumpeter is in a very different category from 
Keynes, and it is much less clear that the charge of anti- 
Semitism can be made against him, or at least as clearly 
as it can be against Keynes.  The only evidence of anti- 
Semitism are some very nasty remarks that he made in 
his private diaries, apparently during periods when he was 
very depressed, these diaries only seeing the light of day 
many years later and being reported in a biography published 
in 1990, or thereabouts.  Absolutely no public remarks or 
any kind of personal behavior was cited or produced regarding 
Schumpeter against Jews. And, of course, he famously not 
only helped many Jewish colleagues flee from Hitler, but 
defended many against anti-Semitism in academia, although 
Reder tries to minimize his defense of Samuelson at Harvard. 
So, at the most we have that Schumpeter may have had an 
anti-Semitic side that manifested itself very privately when 
he was deeply depressed.  In any case, the issue of 
ambivalence is again brought up in this context with Schumpeter, 
how he could be so nice and supportive to so many Jews 
while harboring all those dark and nasty thoughts in secret. 
 
      With regard to Hayek, this simply does not fly.  First of 
all there are simply no remarks or actions by Hayek that 
Reder can cite that can be called anti-Semitic at all, and 
essentially Reder admits this.  However, he nevertheless 
drags in this term "ambivalence" and applies it to Hayek. 
Clearly, even if he might deny it, Reder has effectively allowed 
this term to become a kind of covert way of charging anti- 
Semitism, which is after all what is in the title of the paper, 
not "ambivalence about Jews."  So, charging "ambivalence" 
does amount to charging de facto anti-Semitism. 
 
      What is the basis of this charge of "ambivalence" on 
Hayek's part?  The most supposedly telling evidence involves, 
as Greg Ransom noted, Hayek's relations with his academic 
colleagues, many of whom were Jewish.  Now, it is noted 
that in the interviews, Hayek described the social environment 
of Vienna prior to World War II.  He noted that the Jewish and 
non-Jewish communities tended to be socially separated 
except for certain places such as in universities where they 
crossed paths and interacted.  Reder seems to suggest 
that this description is evidence of "ambivalence," whereas 
it is clearly simply a factual description of the social environment. 
Hayek's statement that he was a part of that environment 
where the two groups interacted certainly does not indicate 
any approval on his part of this entrenched social segregation, 
even covertly. 
 
     Finally, there is the business of Hayek "complaining" 
that his Jewish colleagues did not like it if he discussed 
Judaism or Jewishness.  This is what is presented as the 
prime evidence of Hayek's "ambivalence."  Well, it is quite 
likely that it was the case that they were less than enthusiastic 
about having him discuss it.  I do not see any reason to 
charge either "ambivalence," much less any sharing of 
some kind of implicit anti-Semitic stereotype, on the basis 
of such an expressed frustration on his part.  I might find 
it frustrating that women might not like having me discuss 
certain aspects of their views or conduct.  But, I would be 
very frustrated if such expressing of frustration on my part 
were to somehow be adduced to suggest sexism, either 
covert or "ambivalent," on my part. 
 
      In short, Reder did a disservice to Hayek by claiming 
some kind of "ambivalence" on his part.  There simply is 
not any remote evidence available of either anti-Semitic 
public behavior, such as Keynes engaged in, or private 
expression of anti-Semitic attitudes, as Schumpeter 
engaged in, on the part of Hayek.  It is indeed unfortunate 
that Reder chose to include a discussion of Hayek in this 
article that seemed to imply any of this, and it would have 
been deeply preferable if the editors of HOPE had indeed 
insisted on Reder excising this material from an otherwise 
very insightful and interesting paper.  Their failure to do so, 
however, does not justify any kind of threats against them 
or Reder. 
 
Barkley Rosser 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]