The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The illiberal Left
Capek
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Just read this article in the NYT and wanted to see if anyone had thoughts about it. I'm sort of a center liberal guy and I've been dismissing a lot of the overheated nonsense from the Right about this kind of thing for a few years - but maybe setting aside those attacks, there is actually something to pay attention to here? Jeffrey Goldberg retweeted this article, and I have a lot of respect for him.
When Progressives Embrace Hate
Thoughts appreciated.
When Progressives Embrace Hate
A mere half-year ago, before collusion and Comey, before Mika’s face and Muslim bans and the Mooch, there was a shining moment where millions of Americans flooded the streets in cities across the country to register their rage that an unapologetic misogynist had just been made leader of the free world.
Donald Trump’s election was a watershed moment. Even those like me, who had previously pulled levers for candidates of both parties, felt that Mr. Trump had not only violated all sense of common decency, but, alarmingly, that he seemed to have no idea that there even existed such an unspoken code of civility and dignity. Now was the time to build a broad coalition to resist the genital-grabber with the nuclear codes.
The Women’s March moved me. O.K., so Madonna and Ashley Judd said some nutty things. But every movement has its excesses, I reasoned. Mr. Trump had campaigned on attacking the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. Now was the time to put aside petty differences and secondary issues to oppose his presidency.
That’s certainly what the leaders of the Democratic Party, who applauded the march, told us. Senator Charles Schumer called the protest “part of the grand American tradition.” The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, offered her congratulations to the march’s “courageous organizers” and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand gushed about them in Time, where they were among the top 100 most influential people of 2017. “The Women’s March was the most inspiring and transformational moment I’ve ever witnessed in politics,” she wrote. “And it happened because four extraordinary women — Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour — had the courage to take on something big, important and urgent, and never gave up.”
The image of this fearsome foursome, echoed in more than a few flattering profiles, was as seductive as a Benetton ad. There was Tamika Mallory, a young black activist who was crowned the “Sojourner Truth of our time” by Jet magazine and “a leader of tomorrow” by Valerie Jarrett. Carmen Perez, a Mexican-American and a veteran political organizer, was named one of Fortune’s Top 50 World Leaders. Linda Sarsour, a hijab-wearing Palestinian-American and the former head of the Arab-American Association of New York, had been recognized as a “champion of change” by the Obama White House. And Bob Bland, the fashion designer behind the “Nasty Women” T-shirts, was the white mother who came up with the idea of the march in the first place.
What wasn’t to like?
A lot, as it turns out. The leaders of the Women’s March, arguably the most prominent feminists in the country, have some chilling ideas and associations. Far from erecting the big tent so many had hoped for, the movement they lead has embraced decidedly illiberal causes and cultivated a radical tenor that seems determined to alienate all but the most woke.
***
Start with Ms. Sarsour, by far the most visible of the quartet of organizers. It turns out that this “homegirl in a hijab,” as one of many articles about her put it, has a history of disturbing views, as advertised by . . . Linda Sarsour.
There are comments on her Twitter feed of the anti-Zionist sort: “Nothing is creepier than Zionism,” she wrote in 2012. And, oddly, given her status as a major feminist organizer, there are more than a few that seem to make common cause with anti-feminists, like this from 2015: “You’ll know when you’re living under Shariah law if suddenly all your loans and credit cards become interest-free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?” She has dismissed the anti-Islamist feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the most crude and cruel terms, insisting she is “not a real woman” and confessing that she wishes she could take away Ms. Ali’s vagina — this about a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a girl in Somalia.
Ms. Sarsour and her defenders have dismissed all of this as a smear campaign coordinated by the far right and motivated by Islamophobia. Plus, they’ve argued, many of these tweets were written five years ago! Ancient history.
But just last month, Ms. Sarsour proved that her past is prologue. On July 16, the official Twitter feed of the Women’s March offered warm wishes to Assata Shakur. “Happy birthday to the revolutionary #AssataShakur!” read the tweet, which featured a “#SignOfResistance, in Assata’s honor” — a pink and purple Pop Art-style portrait of Ms. Shakur, better known as Joanne Chesimard, a convicted killer who is on the F.B.I.’s list of most wanted terrorists.
Like many others, CNN’s Jake Tapper noticed the outrageous tweet. “Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba,” he tweeted, going on to mention Ms. Sarsour’s troubling past statements. “Any progressives out there condemning this?” he asked.
In the face of this sober criticism, Ms. Sarsour cried bully: “@jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.”
There’s no doubt that Ms. Sarsour is a regular target of far-right groups, but her experience of that onslaught is what makes her smear all the more troubling. Indeed, the idea that Jake Tapper is a member of the alt-right is the kind of delirious, fact-free madness that fuels Donald Trump and his supporters. Troublingly, it is exactly the sentiment echoed by the Women’s March: “Our power — your power — scares the far right. They continue to try to divide us. Today’s attacks on #AssataShakur are the latest example.”
Since when did criticizing a domestic terrorist become a signal issue of the far right? Last I checked, that position was a matter of basic decency and patriotism.
What’s more distressing is that Ms. Sarsour is not the only leader of the women’s movement who harbors such alarming ideas. Largely overlooked have been the similarly outrageous statements of the march’s other organizers.
Ms. Mallory, in addition to applauding Assata Shakur as a feminist emblem, also admires Fidel Castro, who sheltered Ms. Shakur in Cuba. She put up a flurry of posts when Mr. Castro died last year. “R.I.P. Comandante! Your legacy lives on!” she wrote in one. She does not have similar respect for American police officers. “When you throw a brick in a pile of hogs, the one that hollers is the one you hit,” she posted on Nov. 20.
Ms. Perez also expressed her admiration for a Black Panther convicted of trying to kill six police officers: “Love learning from and sharing space with Baba Sekou Odinga.”
But the public figure both women regularly fawn over is Louis Farrakhan.
On May 11, Ms. Mallory posted a photo with her arm around Mr. Farrakhan, the 84-year-old Nation of Islam leader notorious for his anti-Semitic comments, on Twitter and Instagram. “Thank God this man is still alive and doing well,” she wrote. It is one of several videos and photos and quotes that Ms. Mallory has posted of Mr. Farrakhan.
Ms. Perez is also a big fan. In the fall, she posted a photo in which she holds hands with Mr. Farrakhan, writing, “There are many times when I sit with elders or inspirational individuals where I think, ‘I just wish I could package this and share this moment with others.’ ” She’s also promoted video of Mr. Farrakhan “dropping knowledge” and another in which he says he is “speaking truth to power.”
What is Mr. Farrakhan’s truth? Readers born after 1980 will probably have little idea, since he has largely remained out of the headlines since the Million Man March he organized in 1995. But his views, which this editorial page has called “twisted,” remain as appalling as ever.
“And don’t you forget, when it’s God who puts you in the ovens, it’s forever!” he warned Jews in a speech at a Nation of Islam gathering in Madison Square Garden in 1985. Five years later, he remained unreformed: “The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters.” Or this metaphor, directed at Jews: “You have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell.” He called Hitler “a very great man” on national television. Judaism, he insists, is a “gutter religion.”
In one of the several widely available YouTube videos he’s made about the Jews, he told black Americans that “the control of the Synagogue of Satan over our people must be exposed.” He adds: “These satanic ones have not only controlled hip-hop but they control, according to their own words, the very messages that are brought to the public.” He goes on to offer a truly remarkable analysis of the hip-hop industry in which “intelligent” rappers are rejected by the “satanic minds” who insist that they “want filth” and encourage “vulgarity” and “savagery.” This is the first 10 minutes of an hour.
Mr. Farrakhan is also an unapologetic racist. He insists that whites are a “race of devils” and that “white people deserve to die.”
Feminists will find little to cheer in his 1950s views of gender: “Your professional lives can’t satisfy your soul like a good, loving man.” Recently he told Jay-Z that he should make Beyoncé put on some clothes. He also opposes gay marriage.
If that wasn’t enough of a rap sheet, Mr. Farrakhan also loves Scientology and believes 9/11 was a false flag operation.
***
I can already hear the pushback. What’s a few impolitic tweets and photos compared to the horror show of this administration? Save your outrage for the transgender ban in the military, for the lies that spew forth daily from the press briefing room, for the cuts to Planned Parenthood, the shady business with Russia, and, and, and.
But the nightmare of the Trump administration is the proof text for why all of this matters. We just saw what happens to legitimate political parties when they fall prey to movements that are, at base, anti-American. That is true of the populist, racist alt-right that helped deliver Mr. Trump the White House and are now hollowing out the Republican Party. And it can be true of the progressive “resistance” — regardless of how chic, Instagrammable and celebrity-laden the movement may seem. Recall that only a few months ago, Keith Ellison, a man with a long history of defending and working with anti-Semites, was almost made leader of the Democratic National Committee.
Will progressives have more spine than conservatives in policing hate in their ranks? Or will they ignore it in their fury over the Trump administration?
I am sure that Linda Sarsour, and perhaps the other leaders of the Women’s March, will block me for writing this. Maybe I’ll be accused of siding with the alt-right or tarred as Islamophobic. But what I stand against is embracing terrorists, disdaining independent feminist voices, hating on democracies and celebrating dictatorships. If that puts me beyond the pale of the progressive feminist movement in America right now, so be it.
Thoughts appreciated.
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past. - Fitzgerald
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
The 'leaders' of the women's march are as irrelevant as ants are to an elephant. They may have organized the initial stages, but the march that happened had little to nothing to do with them. This woman's views seem pretty off in respect to the murderer, but focusing on her to degrade to progressive movement is a clear sign of cherry picking and conscious bias against the left.
Yeah, the tactic of finding particularly extreme statements/views and saying "why do you defend this" or "why does the women's march/feminism support this" or even "what do you think" is often very poorly disguised concern trolling (it's fun to check reddit comment histories).
I get where you're coming from, but I'm not that kind of troll.
-The Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems to be the primary driver of the writer's issue with Sarsour.
-A successful propaganda campaign over decades by the right has led to the public perception that liberals represent the left, leading to reliable surprise when actual leftists don't act like centrist Democrats ("so much for the tolerant left!")
-A fundamental misunderstanding of the left's relationship to figures like Assata Shakur, Fidel Castro, and to law enforcement.
-An attempt to use problematic associations of Sarsour's to impugn the anti-Trump resistance. Look at the Farrakhan quotes, essentially saying "Someone who is admired by someone who was one of four organizers for a specific march 7 months ago is anti-Semitic! Why won't liberals condemn this movement!?" It's criticizing the left for not having a big tent, while demanding that the left adopts strict litmus testing for participation.
I've found they do with anybody on the left. Centrists, liberals, conservatives - you name it. If you don't agree with their ideology and refuse to budge you are classified as an enemy of the right for not being "tolerant" of their "diverse views."
I THINK OP's and the author's main point was this segment....
Essentially, that they're hailed as such heroes, despite having those beliefs or comments or histories. That, I feel, is the gist of the article, and NOT an actual attack on the March itself or defending Trump.
I think
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I guess I wanted to open a wider conversation about whether there are actually currents on the Left that are actually illiberal or not - to what extent is this actually something that I'd need to pay attention to and take seriously?
I mean, on one side, this all somewhat silly and feels like the Obama-Bill Ayers-Alinsky fluff from 2008.
On the other, I think there has been some increasing criticism of parts of the Left from writers I respect like Freddie deBoer, Jon Chait and Connor Freidersdorf.
I'm not terribly interested in imputing the problems of some individuals like Sansour to the larger movement - most of my social circle and family attended one of those marches. I would have myself if I didn't work in a politically sensitive job. I've been using the five calls app for the last six months.
My concern is more that these bad apples are wielding some influence, and moving people in bad directions.
I've never been very convinced that people on the Left are somehow more immune to the series of cognitive errors that have all too clearly gained the upperhand on the Right, and I'm keen to be vigilant against that kind of madness in my own circles.
True, but there's a lot of overlap in the Venn. The people who run Dyke March in Chicago (basically an alternative to Pride since Boystown has some problematic aspects, and a lot of suburbanites coming to get drunk in public) used anti-zionism as a fig leaf to prevent a tolerant synagogue from taking part with a rainbow flag superimposed with a Star of David. Then slipped in the reporting covering the controversy to using some white supremacist anti-Semitic terms.
It isn't necessarily the case, but it is also a pretty easy disguise to wear.
maybe shot at a couple, sure, but just because some weird NJ law allows the prosecutor to not have to prove actual murder doesn't make you a murderer.
My concern for bad ideas or bad apples is... mostly minimal? Again, if you want to discuss the article it would help if you put a specific takeaway rather than dumping most (all?) of it.
Basically, there's always going to be infighting and argument over what ideas are best. Highlighting the worst ideas with "defend this" or whatever is not helpful, as is focusing on purity tests or purging insufficiently left/too left elements. And "concern these individuals wield influence" is basically meaningless.
*raised eyebrow*
That's a distinction for the law, but is it really a distinction in judging whether she's someone to honor? That suggests her character is a function of her aim with a gun.
Part of what I found disquieting was there were here and there among my circle folks passing along stuff like the salutes to Castro, or defenses of Hugo Chavez. I don't want these people in prominent positions among the rising Social Democratic tide (loosely defined) in American politics.
Meanwhile the Republican party itself has litmus test itself for decades, which results in the Freedom Caucus holding the rest of the party hostage.
I don't know how much I'd say they wield influence. But there are definitely bigots on the Left, and you should be vigilant of that. There are bigots everywhere. It's kind of universal. But the main issue is how influential they tend to be. Fortunately lefties don't tend to appoint them Attorney General.
I honestly don't even know how much influence you can impute on somebody essentially being the first operator on something pretty huge in the zeitgeist. Like protesting Trump's inauguration. Or intentionally non-hierarchical groups like Black Lives Matter. Who don't have a 'leader' so things like that op-ed can't be wielded to try and discredit the idea that cops shouldn't murder black people.