By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
In a closely contested race, on Saturday the Democratic
National Committee selected labor activist and Obama administration cabinet
member Tom Perez to be their chairman over progressive favorite Rep. Keith
Ellison.
In a piece titled “Why did Keith Ellison lose the DNC
race?,” David Weigel of The Washington
Post explores the dynamics of the race and the efforts of hard-left
activists (called “writers” in the article) as they push back against the old
guard. It was all quite interesting, until I got to Weigel’s claim that a
“persistent smear campaign cost Ellison votes.”
I’ve seen a number of progressives accuse Jewish critics
of Ellison of waging a “smear campaign,” yet they offer nothing to back up this
contention. They simply dismiss the accusations … well, because. To smear
someone is to damage his reputation by false accusations. In public debate, at
least, critics of Ellison are noting his words and deeds, all of them
legitimate concerns.
The Washington Post
informed its reader that Ellison had apologized for “his criticism of Israel’s
policy toward Palestinians and his defense of Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan.” But that, of course, is either purposely minimizing Ellison’s
history or extraordinarily uninformed.
For one thing, Ellison didn’t merely defend Farrakhan, he
was a follower. He didn’t only appear as a local spokesman for the Nation of
Islam, he appeared to defend a Minneapolis anti-Semite who said “Jews are among
the most racist white people I know.” Ellison didn’t just support Stokely
Carmichael’s right to speak at the University of Minnesota on free speech
grounds, he argued that a man who claimed Zionists had joined the Nazis in
killing Jews was a useful ideological counterpoint at that school. Ellison
wasn’t just critical of “Israel’s policy toward Palestinians,” he was critical
of the idea of Israel altogether.
When Mother Jones
interviewed a classmate of Ellison’s who claimed he had gone around saying
“European white Jews are trying to oppress minorities all over the world” and
talked about “Jewish slave traders” — typical rhetoric for Nation of Islam
types — there was no denial from the congressman’s office. The congressman only
distanced himself from anti-Semites during his 2006 run for Congress, and then
only when right-wing bloggers started pointing out his past.
None of this takes into account Ellison’s defense of
other racists and tyrants (like Castro). It doesn’t take into account his 2010
claim that Jews were running American foreign policy. It doesn’t take into
consideration Ellison’s contention, on tape, that 9/11 was set up for George W.
Bush to benefit from war — like the “Reichstag fire.” Then there are the
objectionable, though less clear cut, meetings that he seems to take with
supporters of terrorism.
“The attacks on Ellison,” writes Weigel, “ate up a
surprising amount of the space that the DNC race earned in mainstream media.
(Dershowitz’s media savvy didn’t hurt.)” What should be surprising is that
someone with a history like Ellison’s would gain so much support. I’m certain
that the media would be far less forgiving of a GOP congressman’s past had he
been active with the Klan or another virulently anti-Semitic racist group
aligned with the alt-right. With a rash of threats against Jewish community
centers these days, it is particularly galling to see it.
Then again, with the anti-Israel — and often anti-Semitic
— faction embedded within progressive politics these days (especially on
college campuses) maybe this attitude is the new normal. Some of Ellison’s
biggest defenders are some of the Left’s worst offenders on this issue. “Keith
Ellison Loses DNC Race After Heated Campaign Targeting Him for His Views on
Palestine,” [sic] says The Intercept.
Just to give you a sense of what goes on in sectors of
the anti-Israel Left these days: the author of that piece, Zaid Jilani, was
once let go by the Center for American Progress after The Simon Wiesenthal
Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish Committee all
argued that he (and other bloggers on that site) were “infected with Jew-hatred
and discriminatory policy positions toward Israel.” The author found a perfect
spot to do his work.
Now, I’m sure most of Ellison’s defenders are willing to
overlook his past or rationalize only because they believe his leftist politics
are the future of the party. Is there not one other progressive in America who
can champion the cause of the DNC? Others, no doubt, feel compelled to defend
him because he was America’s first Muslim congressman. The prevailing instinct
of the media and many Democrats to treat every Muslim as a victim is as absurd
as treating every Muslim as if he or she were a radical.
And others seem to intimate that calling out Ellison is a
smear because the man has apologized. Even if he is a new man, it’s not a slur
to put a politician’s career into context. Many of us have taken stupid
positions in our lives. Not all of us want to be the chair of a major political
party.
No comments:
Post a Comment