By Elliot Kaufman
Tuesday, August 08, 2017
A recent Harvard-Harris poll reveals that 57 percent of
Americans have an “unfavorable opinion of Black Lives Matters protests and
protesters.” Broken down further, the results only get worse for the Democratic
party, which has made support for the movement a litmus test for its
candidates.
Over 60 percent of whites, suburbanites, rural voters,
and people aged 35 and over share the unfavorable opinion of Black Lives
Matters, according to the poll. Most strikingly, 60 percent of self-described
“independents” and 55 percent of “moderates” join them. Hispanics, who tend to
vote Democratic in large numbers, are evenly split.
This means that opposition to the Black Lives Matter
movement is not just for Fox News viewers, right-wingers, or racists, as the
Left likes to imply. It is a widespread view shared by voters whom Democrats
need to win.
But the problems do not end there. The Democratic party’s
support for the Women’s March — Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Cory Booker, and
many others publicly praised and endorsed it — may prove just as damaging.
Conservative media have long criticized the outrageous views and associations
of the March’s organizers, especially those of Linda Sarsour, its most visible
leader. But the New York Times has
lately joined in.
Last week, Times
staff editor Bari Weiss wrote that the solidarity of the Women’s March had
“moved” her. In that, she definitely is not alone. One poll from February
showed that 60 percent of Americans supported the March. But after finding out
about the March’s leadership, Weiss could no longer support it. “What I stand
against,” Weiss wrote, “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.”
But this is about more than the “progressive feminist
movement.” The question is: What if opposing the Women’s March movement may put
moderates “beyond the pale” of the Democratic party itself? “So be it,” many
might say.
Weiss’s article in the New York Times will help spread the word about the organizers of
the Women’s March. Soon, and with help from other moderates in the mainstream
media, Americans of all stripes will realize that they were swindled by the
Women’s March.
That is what happened with Black Lives Matter.
Originally, it was a fairly popular movement. But over time, the movement
discredited itself with its actions and support for cop killers, Fidel Castro,
and a boycott of Israel. What seemed to be a movement protesting the police’s
seemingly disproportionate use of force against black people — which the
American people still believe to be true, according to the Harvard-Harris poll
— came to be associated with violence and hatred of police.
The Women’s March, if it does not quickly change
direction and leadership, may also come to be associated with disreputable
radicalism. But all the evidence suggests that its leaders are choosing to
double down instead.
In response to Weiss’s criticisms, Women’s March
co-president Bob Bland wrote a long, self-discrediting
letter to the New York Times.
Bland offered no defense of her organization’s support for cop killers,
anti-Semites, and racists. Instead, she excused it as a feature of the
“inclusive and intersectional” movement, and made wild accusations: “Ms. Weiss
is endorsing a sensational alt-right attack,” she wrote. But Bland would go
even farther: “Critics like Ms. Weiss,” she concluded, “remain apologists for
the status quo, racist ideology, and white nationalists.”
Did you catch that? If you are a liberal who thinks that,
in 2017, enthusiastic support for Fidel Castro and Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan is a bit much, a co-president of the Women’s March will call you an
“apologist” for racism and white nationalism. How’s that for a campaign pitch
to undecided voters and winnable independents?
But this is the Women’s March’s modus operandi. In response to Jake Tapper’s criticism of her
support for Assata Shakur, a cop-killer and one of America’s most-wanted
fugitives, co-president Linda Sarsour accused Tapper, a CNN anchor, of
“join[ing] the ranks of the alt-right to target me online.”
Her false victimization was as transparent as her
accusation was ridiculous. But no more ridiculous than when the official
Women’s March Twitter account repeatedly and incoherently defended Assata
Shakur in the face of strong criticism.
These two movements are not going to shape up anytime
soon. Nor are they likely to lose the support of progressives. These two facts
combine to leave Democrats with a difficult choice. When they are pushed, will
they stand with Black Lives Matters? Will they stand with Sarsour, Bland, and
the rest of the Women’s March radicals?
Abandoning them would incur the wrath of the party
faithful. Not abandoning them could incur the wrath of nearly everyone else.
Either way, Republicans will exploit the issue, and Democrats will embarrass
themselves.
Astonishingly, the Democratic party may have found a way
to squander the moral high ground and scare off the moderates gifted to them by
President Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment