Misrepresentation

Matthew Yglesias blames critics of Walt-Mearsheimer for misrepresenting their work, and for reading anti-Semitic and anti-Israel messages where none exist. He and I clearly disagree on what an accurate representation of their work consists of, but let's say he's right. As I commented on his post (but decided merits a post of its own): what about all of Walt and Mearsheimer's supporters who are delighted that it is now socially and--better yet--academically acceptable to declare Jews the root cause of all evil? Even for those of us who have read their article, paper, or book (just the article, in my case), it can be hard to respond to their message without taking into account its reception. The number of blog-comments to the effect of, 'We all know the Jews got us in this mess re: Iraq/Bush/everything,' referring directly or indirectly to their work, is astounding.

I've already asked to what extent we can blame W-M for this avalanche, if they did not intend it (which is debatable); now I'm asking whether it's really fair to expect Jews to respond to W-M without noticing said avalanche. W-M are not addressing only political scientists, who might be expected to produce a more dry, point-by-point discussion of what realism does or doesn't mean. The fact is that Walt and Mearsheimer's work has a specific meaning in the specific context in which it appears, and has become the rallying point for all sorts of traditional anti-Semitic anger. So maybe the answer is to respond to their paper and the avalanche separately, making explicit which part is a critique of the work, which is a critique of the avalanche, and how much the two can justifiably be connected. But it's absurd to suggest that we can look at one with no mention of the other.