Yesterday, prominent author and Harvard Professor Stephen Walt spoke to students in Barnum Hall about his controversial new book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." The book, which he co-authored with John Mearsheimer, asserts that the Jewish lobby in Washington has a disproportionate and detrimental influence on the American government.
Walt is wrong.
Walt is not only wrong because, as his colleagues at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government claimed, the quality of his research did not meet fundamental standards, or because of his refusal to speak to the lobbyists or supportive politicians themselves, or because of his avoidance of the reasons for U.S. involvement in Israel. He is wrong because America's support for Israel comes from shared values, strategic interests, and a history of friendship and cooperation between the two countries.
He is wrong because his basic, overarching argument is flawed: We cannot argue that a particular lobby has too much clout and should be stifled, because lobbying itself is a byproduct of any well-functioning democracy. People with similar views should be able to come together to press their causes in Congress.
Powerful lobbying groups have been built over many decades in this country; the speed and force with which they arise are affected by factors such as money and passion, and it is an irresponsible argument to say that one particular lobby should be struck down or deflated. Whether it be AIPAC or EMILY's List or PETA, any lobby is made up of many individuals - some reasonable, some unreasonable - who have taken a position and want to bring their concerns, in an organized manner, to their leaders in Washington.
We do encounter, however, a chicken-and-the-egg dilemma in which we must question whether dominant lobbies are dominant because they represent the will of the people, or whether the most powerful lobbies are simply able to shape public opinion. This government is elected by the people, and one of the reasons that politicians listen to lobbies (apart from the fact that they often agree on particular issues) is that politicians see lobbies as conduits through which they can gain money and support from the voters.
It is in the nature of capitalism that the most powerful groups and companies will be able to afford the most powerful representation, and so it is a concern that the voters could be swayed by the advertising and advocacy of companies that champion products and causes at odds with the will and well-being of the American people. Oil companies and Big Tobacco, for example, have for years had some of the most influential lobbyists on Capitol Hill. However, we are living at a time when the people of this country have stood up against both Philip Morris and Exxon-Mobil; smoking is illegal in restaurants and most public places while smoking rates themselves have plummeted, and the public clamor for alternative energy and environmental concern has risen to such an extent that the United Airlines Web site invites you to buy carbon offsets in order to reduce the carbon footprint produced by your travel.
A single important lobby in Washington cannot force policy because elected officials are accountable to the people. This is not to say that there is not a problem; lobbyists do have disproportionate influence in government. It is important to realize, however, that citizens and voters have more.
Walt's presence on this campus is a positive development, because it is important for us to talk about controversial positions. But lobbyists or no lobbyists, let's discuss the issues, cast our votes and determine policy ourselves.
