Stop Turning Goldman Into Scapegoat: Opinion

If Goldman is innocent -- and they should be presumed so -- do they still deserve to be hated? However satisfying it feels to bash millionaires in a recession, vilifying Goldmanites simply for being smarter and richer than the rest of us may be bad for society, not just the Park Avenue set. Projecting our insecurities onto others is the root of scapegoating.

There is a long history of individuals and, more disturbingly, entire religious or ethnic groups being blamed for an economic downturn. In the case of Michael Milken in the 1980s or Charles Mitchell in the 1930s, there was at least a shred of truth to their role as bogeymen. At times like these, arguments that speculation serves a social purpose sound heartless as society looks to put a human face on misfortune.

In Goldman's case, some even wonder whether the group's perceived Jewishness has infected legitimate criticism of it with centuries-old prejudices against a group with a long history of being scapegoated. Michael Kinsley, writing in AtlanticWire, cites echoes of the infamous blood libel. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd earned rebukes from theologians after writing that "blood-sucking banks" like "Goldmine Sachs" were "the same self-interested sorts Jesus threw out of the temple". Matt Taibbi's famous line in Rolling Stone about the "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money" received criticism for its resemblance to Nazi propaganda, a claim Taibbi vehemently denies.

Of course the seriousness of a bank or even all bankers being castigated is utterly trivial compared to injustices perpetrated against entire religious groups. During the next Washington telethon, though, consider whether the public's outrage is entirely justified or in some small way a symptom of an unwholesome psychological phenomenon.

>To order reprints of this article, click here: Reprints