Unintended Consequences

There’s a video floating in the recesses of YouTube I happened across some time ago. It features noted progressive fraud Linda Sarsour taking a question at some sort of speaking engagement. Ms. Sarsour took exception to the line of questioning and in her response called the interlocutor a “white male” as a way to dismiss the question. In reality, that’s really where the questioner could have claimed victory. If your response to a question or critique is to simply dismiss it based on the race/ethnicity of the person questioning you, you are an intellectually weak coward at best, and potentially a racist.
One of Sarsour’s comrades, Tamika Mallory of the Women’s March, has come under fire recently for attending a Nation of Islam Savior’s Day rally. This rally of course was presided over by the inexplicably still with us Louis Farrakhan. Ms. Mallory in the past has described this man as the greatest of all time, and revealed that she has attended these rallies for 30 years. Ms. Mallory appears to have been blindsided by people taking an issue with her decades long laudatory history with Mr. Farrakhan. To put it mildly, Farrakhan has been an anti-Semite of national prominence since the 1980s. How could Ms. Mallory be a part of a prominent progressive organization and not be aware of Farrakhan’s blatant, unapologetic Anti-Semitism?
Ms. Mallory is in good company. Ms. Sarsour, she of the Sharia endorsements and vagina stealing (both things she actually tweeted about and dismissed as questions from a “white male”) of course is a fellow co-chair of the Women’s March. The rot has infested so deeply that Representative Danny Davis (D-IL) told an interviewer over the weekend that he doesn’t think Farrakhan and the “Jewish Question” are that important.   Yes, Rep. Davis did use the term “Jewish Question” in that interview. I used to live in Mr. Davis’ district when I was in college, I voted for him. In an unusual moment of moral lucidity the Democratic Socialists of America are running a candidate in the Democratic primary against Mr. Davis by the name of Anthony Clark. To Mr. Clark’s immense credit, he has been full throated in his condemnations of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism and Mr. Davis’ deafness to it. Mr. Clark’s response to Farrakhan should serve as a model for other politicians.
Moreover, the question remains: how could this have even happened in the first place? Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are not just anti-Semitic, they are black supremacists. Rep. Keith Ellison, who was wise enough to distance himself from the NOI upon entering politics, once wrote an essay making the case for a black ethno state within the United States. NOI doctrine includes the parable of Yakoub; which is an official NOI etiological myth wherein it is revealed that white people were created in order to enslave black people. These beliefs are absurd, regressive even. And yet, we see people leading liberal organizations with very real connections to this drivel, which even in the most generous of terms is not progressive.
I’m tempted to think of this phenomenon of the Horseshoe Theory, which always has a tendency to converge upon anti-Semitism. David Duke and Farrakhan sound a lot alike when talking about Jews or Israel. I’m also desirous to think this is due to a bastardized misunderstanding and application of intersectional feminism. As I consider what could be at the root of all of it, I find something even simpler, something even more pernicious and universally understandable. It’s self-interested pandering. Sarsour and Mallory know that associating with Farrakhan carries a potential advantage to their careers. They made the bet (in error) that they could avail themselves to benefits of their alignment without culling a damaging amount of attention. So strong is their pandering that even when confronted with the consequences of their words and actions they feign disbelief. The hypocrisy of this is indefensible. They would be the first to demand someone sit down and listen to real accusations of bigotry, but are quite uninterested when they are called out for the same. This is unacceptable.
Simplicity and laziness are really the keys to understanding bigotry. It can come from anyone, anywhere directed at any group at any time. It is simple and even worse, it is easy.





I won’t tolerate it from the Richard Spencers and David Dukes on the far right, and I certainly will not tolerate it from the Farrakhans and his apologists on the far left. None of us should. Whatever patronizing benefits one might think can be gleaned from such a union, they will be short lived and ultimately detrimental.  If we on the left are going to be better than the right, and we damn well should be, we must work to eradicate bigotry, racism, and prejudice within our own ranks, regardless of the source.