The Slippery Slope of Being a Democrat
Words by Alexander Kamczyc
The Slippery Slope of Being a Democrat
I want to start this piece off with a saying:
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
I think it’s under-utilized, and when it is used, it’s normally used by people who are not “without sin,” to prop themselves up on a moral high ground. Separating themselves from others who they feel are uninformed or in some cases just flat out wrong.
It’s a tricky thing being in a position where you can point a finger at someone and point out their flaws. I think it’s even trickier when you mix that in with a boozy cocktail of politics, civil rights and other cultural movements that are affecting our society today.
This applies to Republicans like Donald Trump and his laundry list of woes involving his administration. However, this applies to the Democrats also, the ones who are supposedly fighting the good fight, the ones on the metaphorical moral high ground.
I actually think this goes double for them due to things like “Resist,” the #MeToo movement and the Women’s March, all of which are left-leaning progressive organizations.
Take last month.
The Nation of Islam, a radical black organization founded in the 1930s, held its annual Saviours’ Day convention where Louis Farrakhan delivered a fiery, yet anti-Semitic speech to a crowd of followers or people who were invited to attend the controversial convention. In a speech that lasted close to three hours, he had declared Jews as his enemy, also blaming them for the filth and “degenerate behavior” that Hollywood was putting out.
In his speech, he also said:
“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up. Your world is through.”
It was nothing too surprising from the known hatemonger, but what was surprising were the people in attendance of such a hate-fueled convention. Women’s March Co-Chair Tamika Mallory was in attendance and has gone on record praising the 81-year-old speaker. She also defended her reasoning for being in attendance.
But the ties don’t stop there for the Women’s March and Farrakhan. Linda Sarsour, a controversial figure in her own right, has worked with the Nation of Islam several times in the past. Carmen Perez has also defended The Nation of Islam leader, stating that no leader is perfect.
And it isn’t like this is an isolated incident either.
In January, a photo surfaced of former President Barack Obama meeting with the controversial minister back in 2005. Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) defended the photo after it was published. He also said he had no problem with Farrakhan’s views on Jewish people. Rep. Keith Ellison also has past ties with the group that have been criticized recently because of his bid for Democratic National Committee chair.
It seems like Democratic leaders have a Farrakhan problem.
How in the world do you expect people in the middle, the uneducated voter, the undecided voter, to trust your judgement when it comes to political issues when your party can’t shake the issues that have festered behind your own lines? It reeks of hypocrisy.
Democrats need to not only acknowledge the fact that the moral high ground that they stand on doesn’t exist. They also need to work on fixing their own dilemmas like addressing their problem with controversial figures like Farrakhan. Stop acting like the only group of deplorable people are those within the Republican party or the alt-right.
There is no moral high ground between the two parties. In cases like the Women’s March, which has released a statement on the matter, leading a group of women and aspiring activists for equality in the workplace among other things, having a connection to a known hatemonger is harmful to your image.
Part of the reason why voters in middle America voted right in last year’s election was because they felt as if coastal liberals or “elites” were telling them what to do while also ignoring the glaring issues they have. The work being done is too important to let something like attending a convention tarnish it, which many have started wondering if it has.
Of course, in an article written for The Atlantic by Adam Serwer, he explains why people like
Mallory can’t simply write off and condemn people like Farrakhan. The issue is more nuanced than just a black and white, right or wrong situation. I understand that. I can’t say I necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.
There have also been people within the party condemning the speech, like Chelsea Clinton among others. So at least some Democrats see the rift that something like this can cause.
Still, the question remains: How can you criticize the Republicans for hate speech and other wrongdoings when you are guilty of just the same?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.