So is racism such a nuanced issue? Or is there something different about anti-Semitism? Or Democrats? Or African-Americans?
Personally I think the answer is yes to all these questions. The world is a complex place, and black politicians who are not personally anti-Semites have a problem in dealing with Farrakhan’s popularity in the AA community, and in turn, Democrats have a problem in dealing with their AA constituency.
But while the specifics of this situation may be unique, the broader point is a general one, and not just about racism either. It’s easy to take a firm and unyielding stance on all sorts of issues when you’re not in the hot seat and when you can sanctimoniously point at your opponents. It becomes much more “nuanced” when it’s about you and your own practical considerations and broader aims.
By “Democrats” do you actually mean “one or two Democrats”? If so, then may I presume that you would be o.k. if the entire Republican Party be smeared as racist and sexist because certain members aren’t totally denounced publicly by the Republicans?
I think OP makes a compelling argument which doesn’t require us to run to whataboutism or othersideism.
I’d be interested in hearing if prominent Democratic leaders, like Waters and Ellison among others, do respond and address their position on Farrakhan’s long standing anti-semitic and trans-phobic rhetoric.
What’s the calculus here I wonder on the Dem Pols side? Do they think that many AAs are anti-semites but vote overwhelmingly for Democrats so they don’t want to risk them not showing up to the polls if the Dem leaders denounce Farrakhan and those who support him?
Anti-Semitism is higher among AAs than among whites, but that’s not the real issue, I think. There are many AAs who are not themselves anti-Semitic but who admire Farrakhan for other positive things he’s done, and think his anti-Semitism should be overlooked. You start denouncing him and you alienate these people (many of whom will also think you’re a racist who didn’t denounce white people in parallel situations, and so on. See e.g. the John Conyers dance et al).
-Richard Spencer
-Stephen Miller
-David Duke
-“Blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us” chants at Charlottesville
-“Some very good people”
-President retweeting someone who just got convicted on hate crime charges in the UK
…yeah it’s the Democrats that have a problem with antisemitism and bigotry. Uh huh :rolleyes:
Farrakhan’s history of anti-semitism should be condemned without reservation. And it is by most Democrats, in my understanding. Including Ellison, who also apologized for not recognizing it when writing as a student in defense of Farrakhan around 1990: Keith Ellison - Wikipedia
I think it’s fair to criticize activists who rhetorically embrace or praise or ally themselves with Farrakhan, whether or not they are aware of his history of anti-semitism.
I don’t disagree at all. I just thought that “concern” being expressed was a bit curious given the larger context, and who is expressing that “concern”.
Antisemitism should have no place anywhere in our politics, on either side.
A relevant question - it’s possible to be a conscientious liberal and simply not care about Farrakhan because his relevance has diminished significantly, and there will always be cranks and bigots on the fringe (and their followers), and there simply aren’t enough hours in the day to condemn them all to the satisfaction of some seemingly-concerned third party.
That said, it would be different if Farrakhan held elected office and was in position to form government policy, or had the ear of those who could, as seemed the case when Farrakhan met occasionally with Obama. At that point, statements of condemnation and opposition would be far more likely and justified.
We’re talking Waters, Ellison and Davis. All members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Are significant numbers of AA voters going to be alienated if these elected officials came out against Farrakhan?
So in other words, Ellison has recognized it, condemned it, and apologized for not recognizing it or condemning it earlier, and now journalists and his opposition bring it out as a cheap shot hoping to get traction on it.
Hey, a Black American Muslim was involved in the Nation of Islam in 1990 while a student. That’s like saying that a white male liberal college student supported Bernie Sanders in 2016. That doesn’t mean they bought into the whole enchilada.
The entire OP looked like buzz to me, truth be told. Is anti-Semitism bad? Sure, duh. Is it occasionally necessary to politically ally with people who have some bad beliefs, if their other beliefs roughly align with your own? Sure, duh.
Should we be concerned if it’s starting to look like the people who made those alliances to get elected start to put those bad beliefs into policy? Yes, absolutely. I don’t see many elected Democrats pushing for anti-Semitic laws, though I’m sure there a few somewhere. How much condemnation of Farrakhan would satisfy you?
