(Note: for the record, I’m a fan of Rep. Ilhan Omar, and before you scroll to the end and start griping I’d invite you to read at least a little of this diary, and to take into consideration the tone and respect with which I refer to her and her office.)
Another day, another painful racial moment in America...and Dr. King’s dream seems to be slipping even further over the horizon to some unknown day when we will finally put all of this animosity behind us.
This morning I wanted to finish and post a diary I’ve been working on about Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, and the amazing job she’s done over the first sixty days. But instead I’m motivated to write about Rep. Omar and her recent comments.
Unfortunately, that’s what racial prejudices do — they distract us from the work at hand and force us to have uncomfortable conversations. But those conversations must be had, because if we don’t experience the pain of swabbing a wound with disinfectant, then it becomes a full-scale infection.
So let’s swab that wound.
Last week, Rep. Ilhan Omar stated that many Americans push for allegiance to a foreign nation. Shame on her. Within hours, Daily Kos had five diaries in the rec list in support of her comments, with hundreds of recs. Shame on us. Right and wrong aren’t defined by the D next to one’s name.
This whole affair is embarrassing, but I don’t think adding more rhetoric will really help. So instead, why don’t we take a moment to reflect on the troubling history of the charge that Rep. Omar made, and discuss what that language means to the Jewish people, and what its use says about our coalition.
The complexities of being Jewish in America
I suppose I could begin by disclaiming my position on all of this. I don’t consider myself to be Jewish-American, but I have some Jewish heritage in my lineage (about as much as Sen. Warren has Native American heritage). Because of that, I’ve always been interested in Jewish culture, religion, and history, as I’ve been with all of the various other European ethnicities in my background. So my Jewish friends like to call me “Jewish-adjacent,” a term they use affectionately and one I take as such.
In part because of this background, I’m sensitive to anti-semitic prejudices, and cognizant of the corrupting influence they have. I don’t get them, to be honest. These illogical attitudes have remained pernicious and prevalent throughout history...over a people who have, objectively, never earned the level of ire they seem to draw.
At the same time, like many progressives, I'm harshly critical of many of Israel’s policies, including their flagrant violations of the Geneva Conventions. And like many progressives, I feel that lobbyist groups have oversized power in our system. My Jewish friends share these views, and many, MANY of my weekly dinner parties include passionate discussions about how despondent we are over the political realities in Israel.
So in my own life, I've learned to carefully balance these two sometimes opposing forces - the need to refrain from using racially charged language that can be hurtful, and a desire/need to criticize a nation or groups, groups that themselves have been frequently discriminated against. Granted, that’s not always an easy needle to thread, and anyone can slip up from time to time.
When Rep. Omar stated that some suggest “it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” she failed to balance those forces, and it was a really bad slip-up and she should be called out for that.
Let’s start with the history.
The History of the Disloyalty Charge
It was shocking yesterday that so many comments in support of Rep. Omar claimed ignorance of this particular slur or its history. The claim that Jews have conflicted interests and may secretly be working in allegiance to their co-religionists goes back hundreds of years, and is one of the arguments we see used time and time again when anti-semitic movements gain momentum.
That doesn’t mean that Rep. Omar meant it that way, but because it is such a staid slur it serves as a giant red flag to Jewish Americans and others.
In America, the disloyalty charge extends back to the very founding of our nation. Haym Saloman, a member of the Sons of Liberty and financier who helped Washington throughout the war, and who ultimately died as a result of his service to the cause, was an outspoken opponent against laws that were being used to block American Jews from holding elected office under the argument that they would have loyalties to “the Hebrew nation.”
The disloyalty charge also rose to prevalence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it was frequently claimed that American Jews were secretly faithful to revolutionary causes — socialism and communism, largely. The disloyalty charge was a central argument in the platforms of both the first and second variants of the KKK, when Jews were portrayed as subverting what was “truly American”. (The more things change, the more they stay the same. Sigh)
Leading up to World War II, the smear was frequently used to paint Jewish Americans as “war agitators.” Charles Lindbergh, for example, held that Jewish American were influencing government because they were actually loyal to a foreign people. After the war, the nation of Israel was reestablished, and the disloyalty charge evolved to accuse Jews of secret loyalties to a specific nation, as well as their co-religionists.
In modern times, Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Sanders both faced this charge when running for president/vice-president. They were both asked...and a national discussion ensued...about whether they could really serve in those offices owing to their supposed allegiance to Israel.
And let’s put a number on it — the ADL’s 2015 survey found that 33% of respondents believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their home nations. The disloyalty charge isn't a minor, infrequent slur — it’s a prevalent prejudice that pervades every segment of society, every political party, and is often held by otherwise tolerant people.
It’s pertinent to note that the disloyalty charge hasn’t only been used against Jewish Americans. It was also the central argument used to rationalize one of the most embarrassing, unconstitutional and immoral moments in American history — Japanese internment, where 120,000 Japanese-Americans were stripped of their rights based on the idea that they could secretly be loyal to Japan.
And it’s also a charge often levied on Muslim-Americans, who are constantly questioned over their motives and allegiances. Which makes it all the more odd that Rep. Omar would feel comfortable using this particular rhetoric. As she’s often stated, she faces continual scrutiny over whether her positions and ideas are out of faithfulness to America, or some secret Muslim agenda. Not two weeks ago, racists in West Virginia suggested she was aligned with the perpetrators of 9/11.
Why it’s unacceptable
Like most flawed prejudicial arguments, the disloyalty charge is pernicious owing to its simplicity, and the manner in which it is able to sow division and prejudice.
It’s human nature to be suspicious and distrustful of others. With people like Donald Trump in the world, distrust is often warranted. The disloyalty charge takes advantage of those tendencies, and suggests that we question a person not over their words or deeds, but based on who they are. It implies that we have the right, or even an obligation, to question an entire group even if there is no evidence that we should. And it rationalizes treating groups as monoliths, and with stereotypes.
And once the disloyalty charge is sufficiently in place, it allows its adherents to engage in lazy debate rife with logical fallacies. Legitimate discussion about pertinent issues will inevitably devolve into “you’re just saying that because you’re Jewish/Muslim/black’gay/etc.”
But the problem with the charge extends far beyond poor argumentation. What begins as snide dismissiveness can often evolve into depriving an entire group of their political voice — or even voter suppression and disenfranchisement. The KKK, Lindberg, and others didn’t want American Jews to reduce their influence so they had a fair say, what they really wanted is for them to have had no say.
And that’s a fundamentally unacceptable premise, that certain groups should be locked out of the political process because one disagrees with them. At best, the disloyalty charge has led to unproductive debate on important issues...at worst, it’s used to justify human rights violations, disenfranchisement and political inequality.
Rep. Omar in the hot seat again
It’s my hope that this historical context will help some of the more skeptical Kossacks see why Rep. Omar’s comments were such a red flag to the Jewish community – and also Democratic leadership, the Anti-Defamation League, journalists, and many minority groups – and why those comments draw criticism, and possibly punishment.
It’s important to underline that criticism of Rep. Omar’s specific comment isn’t necessarily an indicator that someone disagrees with her broader points. This isn’t a discussion about her premises — that Israel has some flawed policies or that lobbyists wield too much influence. Those are fair points. This is a discussion about how she expresses this, and the words she chooses.
The comment that drew the most ire was:
I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.
- Rep Ilhan Omar
What is most problematic about this statement is its precise wording. There are many ways in which someone can express that a politician or lobbyist group is prioritizing one interest over another. And yet, Rep. Omar seems compelled to go straight to “allegiance to a foreign country,” the exact phrasing used when a disloyalty charge is being levied in a prejudiced manner.
Some will suggest that the comment isn’t referring to Jewish Americans, and isn’t directly accusing them of allegiance to a foreign country. But that isn’t exactly a good defense of the statement, because prejudiced statements are frequently layered in this sort of insinuation and subtext. When Rep. Omar says “people push,” who is she referring to? Because the group she’s referring to is left ambiguous, it’s hard not to think that she might mean Jewish Americans.
So we end up with a statement that casts aspersions as some ambiguous group, suggests they are behaving immorally, and then substantiates this with a known dog whistle, the most prevalent in all of anti-Semitism. How is it reasonable to brush this off as a non-issue?
Dog whistles in our dialogue
One problem with dog whistles is that they’re intended to be coded, so that we can never be quite sure whether they’re intended out of racial animosity, or if it’s an innocent remark. Here’s an example of one:
I believe in states' rights.... I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment.
On its surface, this sounds like the blathering of any given conservative over something they’re upset about. It could be a pro-life activist justifying unconstitutional restrictions on choice, or an evangelical lamenting gay marriage.
In this case, the quote comes from Ronald Reagan and his 1980 campaign, and it was made in Nashoba County, Mississippi in front of a bunch of old white Southerners he was courting. So while on the surface its a statement about the balance of federal and state powers, in the subtext there is a clear and disgusting message: "I get it, you're pissed about the Civil Rights Act, and the entire civil rights movement, and I agree with you - Southern states should get to be totalitarian racist regimes if that's what you want."
In a more modern context, we saw endless dog whistles used against President Obama. When someone mentioned his birth certificate, or when someone took the time to write out his name as “Barack Hussein Obama,” those were slurs...statements that may have been legitimate on the surface, but deep down meant “he’s an ‘other,’ and he can’t be trusted, and we are warranted in doing anything we want to obstruct or oppose him.”
So whether she intended it or not, Rep. Omar used a very particular phrase that often has a coded message in the subtext, and that understandably alarmed a lot of people.
The “rainbow coalition” and the need for a zero tolerance policy
We, the Democrats, are engaged in a long-term endeavor that often fails to get the credit it deserves — we are transforming our liberal democracy into one that is based on a truly diverse, multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-gender, multi-sexual orientation, multi-everything democracy.
In other words, we are giving rise to the rainbow coalition and seeking to make our government reflective of the actual demographics of our nation. This has never been done before — not really — ever in human history.
So it’s awesome that we are trying, and we have our work cut out for us.
One challenge to this effort is that every single minority group in the rainbow coalition has at some time or other been discriminated against, bullied, harrassed, slandered, subjugated or disenfranchised. So every group has a historical case for mistreatment, and most are sensitive to particular language or ideas that evoke those histories.
If we are going to make this diverse coalition work AT ALL, then each of us has to take responsibility to learn and remain open-minded about how certain words and actions affect others.
Growing up LGBT, I understand the problematic nature of the connotation of gay male sexuality and pedophilia. Others might not understand the history of this slur, and they might stumble into offensive comments if an instance of a man having intercourse with an underage male occurs. That happens, and it can be easy to allow legitimate criticism of an individual to become illegitimate criticism of a group. When that occurs, I feel I have a certain responsibility to use moments like those as teaching moments, and to be open and honest about the offending comments.
And there are plenty of slurs I had to learn about myself — the history of referring to black neighborhoods as ghettos, dog whistles dismissive of the Armenian genocide, the fact that “redskin” refers to systemic genocide and murder, and dozens of others, which I rely on the minority individuals around me to teach me about when I encounter historical contexts with which I’m unfamiliar. Because none of us are born inherently knowing every wrong that has ever been levied on every minority group.
So we absolutely must remain open-minded about those historical contexts. We must listen. We must learn. We must change our behaviors.
I’ll admit that when I was younger I used the “b-word” to refer to complaining. But we are evolving to a place where the word is off-limits, owing to the history of its use to denigrate women. If I had a vote, I might say that we eliminate it as a noun, but keep it as a verb. But I don’t think I should get a vote, because I’m not a member of the group that has been disparaged. Women should get to say it’s a retired word, and I think they’ve expressed this, so I’m happy to limit myself to whining. Not using the word is the least — literally the least — that I can do in helping us get to a place of true gender equality.
I think the rule we are evolving toward is that any given minority group has the inherent right, within reason, to proclaim certain phrases, words, terms, etc. off-limits, and when they do so we have a responsibility to cede to their desires.
I can’t speak for everyone else, but if taking the time to adhere to this simple rule helps us move to a future free of racial animosity, then I’m on board. Even if it’s sometimes awkward or inconvenient. And I think we have an inherent duty on the left to ensure that everyone else adheres to this premise, willing or not.
In effect, I’m suggesting a zero tolerance policy on insensitive language. Well, I’m not sure that “zero tolerance” is the best adjective, because this is often used to mean a “one strike, you’re out” attitude where offenders are cast out of a group. That’s not what I’d suggest — I’d suggest that offenses are met with mandatory but compassionate criticism. We should use offending remarks as an opportunity to underline why they’re unacceptable, ask the offender to apologize, and ensure that they understand it can’t happen again.
Back to Rep. Omar
Which brings us back to the issue at hand, Rep. Omar and her rhetoric.
Here’s the thing — I’m not going to criticize Rep. Omar as anti-Semitic. That feels way too harsh based on the evidence. But I also refuse to accept the false dilemma that she must be either entirely wrong or entirely in the right. These issues are complex, and there’s a lot of grey area between right and wrong, and she has now multiple times tread far, far into the grey zone.
What I will say is that her remarks are tone-deaf, and therefore racially insensitive. And whether or not she harbors prejudiced views, it’s not up to Rep. Omar to decide if her comments were offensive or hurtful, and it’s not up to the Internet community, and it’s not up for a popular vote — it’s up to the minority group she offended, in this case Jewish Americans...who yes, were offended.
The least — the very least — that Rep Omar can do is listen to these concerns, reflect on them with an open mind, and work to retire offending language from her vocabulary.
Unfortunately, she seems more inclined to borrow a page from the Tea Party handbook, and she (and her supporters) have responded with the same flawed arguments that we see the alt-right offer when they’re called out on problematic rhetoric. So let’s address these counterpoints.
One, Rep. Omar is not a victim because she is being called out for her statements. Yes, she is a victim of harsh, disgusting, racist attacks in other areas. But Speaker Pelosi admonishing her is not the same thing as West Virginia racists exhibiting racist posters. We can ignore the racists and have a legitimate discussion over Rep. Omar’s problematic language, and that discussion does not make her a victim.
Two, whataboutism isn’t a legitimate response. Sure, there are disgusting displays of anti-Semitism all over the place. But what Rep. McCarthy has said, or Rep. King has said is irrelevant to this conversation. Their racism is far more egregious, and should be condemned. But they don’t belong to the Democratic Party, and corruption on the part of one person doesn’t excuse corruption on the part of another.
Three, it’s not legitimate to call into question the motives or “true feelings” of Rep. Omar’s critics on this, or at least the legitimate critics (I think we can dump the NY Post in the garbage). The argument against her remarks stand on the evidence...she used the exact language that has been used to disparage Jews for the entirety of U.S. history, and that’s a problem. Discussing the remarks as an issue has nothing to do with her being a woman, or Muslim, or an ethnic minority. This is about one thing only: troubling remarks.
Four, we cannot excuse this behavior just because Rep. Omar is an ideological ally. I want her progressive voice to be a part of our congress. I want her progressive vote to help advance our agenda, but the problem with corruption of values is that it’s a corrosive force. If we allow mildly offensive dog whistles today, tomorrow we allow moderately offensive statements, and eventually we are standing knee-deep in the same crap that Republicans live in. Our standards must apply to our allies as well as our opponents.
I’ve read comments in some of the diaries. And I’m sorry, but it’s not legitimate to deflect on this. Rep. Omar’s said something that many found offensive, and instead of apologizing she’s running to the exact same strategies that right-wingers use when they slip up. That’s just not acceptable.
Where we go from here
After all of that, I honestly don’t have an opinion on what should happen next. I don’t know if the right next step is for Speaker Pelosi to use the power of Congress to condemn this sort of speech, or if that’s counterproductive.
What I do know is that prejudice and racism are systemic problems in America, and we need to address these issues. Rep. Omar has repeatedly tread into tropes with troubling and fraught histories, and whatever her intent, we must hold our elected leaders to the highest possible standards. And when they fail to meet these standards, we need to point that out even if it means criticizing one of our own.
Of anyone on the political stage, this who affair makes me think back to the words of Sen. Kamala Harris.
There’s a thing about speaking truth — yes, people may walk away from that conversation thinking ‘I didn’t particularly like what I had to hear.’ But they will also walk away from that conversation knowing that it was an honest conversation.
So, uncomfortable some truths may be, let’s speak truth.
Racism is real in this country, and we need to deal with that.
Let’s speak truth, sexism is real in this country — let’s deal with it.
Let’s speak truth, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and transphobia are real in this country, let’s deal with it.
Racism and other forms of hate have always been America’s Achilles heel, and we need to deal with that weakness.
- Sen Kamala Harris, Netroots Nation
So we arrive at an uncomfortable truth — whatever Rep. Ilhan Omar’s intent, we cannot have elected Democrats using terminology or language that can be perceived as prejudiced dog whistles.
We can and must demand that they rise to the occasion and refrain from this sort of speech.
Even if they don't see why it’s offensive...even if many disagree that it is. The strength of the Democratic coalition relies on our willingness to treat one another with respect and dignity, and our willingness to defer to one another in how we speak about one another.
At the heart of all of this is a tiny, simple, often overlooked truth: Rep. Omar can criticize Israel and lobbyists. She just needs to be careful in choosing her words when doing so. Measure your words. How hard is that? Don’t talk about MS-13 when discussing hispanics, don’t talk about fried chicken when discussing African American issues, and think before you speak about Jewish Americans.
This doesn’t seem hard. But if she’s not willing to do that, she needs to pause and consider that in the new America we are building, unconditional sensitivity to the minority groups in our coalition is a mandatory requirement for anyone who wishes to serve it in a leadership position.
It is a responsibility you assume when you wield power, and if she wants the power she needs to recognize the responsibilities that come with it.