After a week of efforts to equate the controversial remarks of two particular members of Congress, I pushed back a bit at New York:
It looks like House Republicans are going to deal with outrage over their perennial problem child Marjorie Taylor Greene by finding a Democrat to punish. That would be Minnesota’s Ilhan Omar, according to Politico’s Huddle:
“’I think that Ilan should receive the same type of punishment as Marjorie because if it’s good for one, it is good for another,’ Rep. Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), who voted to remove Greene from her committees, told me. ‘Anti-semitism is the same thing as anti-semitism. It’s just that Nancy is afraid …'”
There are others who want to push for Omar’s removal as well as those looking to censure her over her war crimes remarks — and a few Dems may join them.
The idea of equating Omar’s complaints about unequal treatment of countries in investigating military misconduct with Greene’s comparisons of mask and vaccine requirements to the Holocaust is deeply satisfying to a lot of people. Republicans can continue their now-ancient habit of waving away extremism in their ranks by claiming it’s more prevalent on the other side of the aisle. Nervous centrist Democrats can document their nervous centrism by firing thunderbolts left and right. And most of all, accusing both parties of harboring those prone to “false equivalence” appeals to the false equivalence many Beltway media folks want to draw between Democrats and Republicans, who are engaged in the mutually assured destruction of partisan polarization.
There’s only one problem: Treating what MTG and Omar have said as equal expressions of false equivalence actually is false, as any honest evaluation of their words quickly shows. Greene bluntly compared COVID-19 precautions to the Holocaust, analogized vaccine documentation mandates to the Nazi practice of making Jews wear yellow stars, and, for good measure, said Democrats are like Nazis because they are “socialists.” Omar said this in the midst of a virtual exchange with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken over investigations of the brief but intense war between Israel and Hamas:
“’We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity,’ she wrote. “We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.’”
Her point wasn’t to say the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban were equally culpable in their commission of atrocities, but that all should be equally subject to international investigation. I suppose there are superpatriots who would dispute the idea that America has ever committed “unthinkable atrocities,” though the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks, and of countless genocidal assaults on Native Americans, among many examples, suggest otherwise. But in any event, when challenged by Republicans and Democrats alike to make it clear she was not imputing equivalent culpability to these various nations and coalitions of fighters, Omar complied instantly:
“U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar said Thursday that she was ‘in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems … ‘
“’To be clear: the conversation was about accountability for specific incidents regarding [International Criminal Court] cases, not a moral comparison between Hamas and the Taliban and the U.S. and Israel.’”
MTG, meanwhile, kept doubling down on her comparisons of public-health measures with the slaughter of many millions by Nazi Germany, and finally, after more than three weeks and a tour of the Holocaust Museum, she issued an apology that betrayed little understanding of the full scope of the Holocaust, and then refused to apologize for the Democrat-Nazi analogy.
Looking more broadly at the two women and their records of controversial utterances, Ilhan made an unfortunate and erroneous reference to “the Benjamins,” in a gratuitous comment about support for Israel in the United States, for which she “unequivocally” apologized:
“Anti-semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be able to step back and think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize.”
Greene lost her committee assignments earlier this year after media focus on an almost incredible blizzard of incendiary statements she made on social media before coming to Congress (barely anyone even noticed her practice of brandishing an AR-15 when discussing her enemies in campaign ads). In February, she apologized for claiming that school shootings were fake and for promoting QAnon conspiracy theories. She never apologized for happily contemplating violence against congressional Democrats (including, very specifically, Ilhan Omar) and the Speaker of the House, or for her unusually aggressive support of Trump’s electoral big lie and the effort in January to overturn the presidential election results, or for her own subscription to very weird anti-Semitic claims.
If you cannot discern a qualitative difference between Omar’s “outrages” and Greene’s, and between the speed and coherence of their clarifications and apologies, it may be time for some remedial work in logic and rhetoric. These two members of Congress aren’t alike at all, and as much as I sometimes disagree with Ilhan Omar, treating her as a left-wing MTG is lazy and just plain wrong.
Hi,
While JL’s votes were an issue I think it was his public attacks on other Democrats who did not believe the same things he did that upset our fellow Dems to vote the way they did. It was disengenuise for him to come out a week before the primary with a line about how much he welcomed different opinions and for him to come out with a line a few days after bolting from the Democratic Party with a line about how much of a Democrat he is. I supported him up to the Gore/Leiberman ticket but have been very concerned with his constant Republican light version of being a Democrat via the New Democrats DLC. It might have been a wonderful thing for his national profile but the people who elected him before where not looking for a Republican lite they were Connecticut Democrats, Indies, and Republicans who support Real Democrats and our agenda to promote health care, the citizens in the armed services and thier families, and the general welfare of our nations people.
Of course, it is hard to give up power as graciously as George Washington, or any of our Presidents have. I sort of feel sorry for him until I remember how much he covered GWB’s tail.
Sen. Leiberman was a GOP insurgent who found cover in the Democratic Party. He supported the failed Bush administration as effectively, but not as openly, as Zell Miller.
Leiberman’s loss, and Lamont’s victory, merely validate the Circus Rule. He finally lost the ability to fool a majority of the Democratic and independent voters.
Let us put Mr. Leiberman’s to rest and not speak ill of a Democrat who has passed from the scene.
Ron Alley
Lieberman has claimed that it is the far left wing of the Democratic Party that caused his primary defeat, but the fact that Independents re-registered to vote for Lamont puts the lie to Lieberman’s remark.
While my knowledge of the voting paterns of CT voters is virtually nonexistent, I think I can say this much: Lamont played the game of politics as shrewdly as I have ever seen anyway play it. But politics really isn’t that hard, and the political analysts working on big-stake campaigns know this. The american public is generally uninterested in politics and is looking for a quick piece of information to hold on to, without questioning it. Bush did it in 2004 with John Kerry as the “Flip-Flopper” and Lamont has successfuly engeineered a campaign that painted Leiberman as the “Bush/Iraq war supporting anti-democrat.” Now I can’t claim to be a supporter of Leiberman myself, but his position on the Iraq war has not been different from that of many of his congressional democratic colleagues, and his voting record on domestic issues typically follows the party line. Other than being a career politican and a total bore, he’s not that bad a guy. If is refreshing however to know that after 18 years in congress, new blood can force it’s way in, even if the campaign was superficial. But hey, that’s politics for ya.
Read an analysis that discusses the political strategy ramifications of the Lamont win and how the Democratic position on Iraq will be a key to success in November…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com