And in case it isn’t obvious, I find the second view, with its embrace of blood and soil nationalism, just as the rest of the world was rejecting it, to be highly problematic, and inconsistent with everything American liberalism, grounded in the 14th Amendment, purports to stand for.

Needles to say, these aren’t actually two fixed groups but rather competing ideological tendencies that have had greater and lesser salience among (and within) different individuals over the course of time.

…against the Jews (which was their only concern).

The first group saw a liberal world order based on universal human rights as a safeguard against future genocides (against Jews or anyone else). The second group concluded that humanity could not be relied on to protect the Jews, and only overwhelming Jewish power would prevent another Holocaust.

(2) one grounded in Jewish-exceptionalism that saw the enemy as a timeless atavistic anti-Semitism. The first understood the Holocaust arising out of a political dynamic that could repeat elsewhere against other victims. The second as a uniquely Jewish experience explained entirely by Jew hatred.

I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your framing. Both types took the Holocaust seriously but drew different lessons: (1) a humanistic, historically grounded one that saw the enemy as fascism, nationalism and militarism; and

On the plus side, Trump has raised public awareness of the 14th Amendment, which is the very best Amendment and one that most non-lawyers don’t hear much about.

Why does Siberia get all the dramatic space debris?