An explanation of why Farrakhan is still popular with liberal activists. Worth the read.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/nation-of-islam/555332/
But here's what stuck with me:
"I spoke with several civil-rights leaders who reject Farrakhan’s views but didn’t want to go on record criticizing Farrakhan—in part out of respect for the constituency he represents, but also because they are aware of precisely how he exploits such condemnations to strengthen his own credibility. One prominent civil-rights activist cautioned against reading some black Americans’ sympathy with Farrakhan’s critique of white racism as a wholesale embrace of his message. "
It makes me wonder why that's only a one-way street. Why is it that when some conservatives "hold their nose" and back someone that doesn't completely meet what they believe religiously, socially, or politically, they are attached to the most vile parts of their message while at the same time cautioning that just because they attend Farrakhan rallies and refuse to cut ties with him, that doesn't mean they should be judged by what he teaches.
It's really pretty simple. Liberals don't often distance themselves from Farrakahn because they don't really have to.
There are two factors at play here. First, this is part of the battle over which side has to condemn its crackpots and which side doesn't. Both sides have crackpots who, if they became the face of the party, would be toxic and would severely damage that side's brand. One becomes a crackpot by taking very extreme or unpopular opinions, being rhetorically undisciplined, or both. Both sides need their crackpots, because those crackpots appeal to constituencies that are not big enough to win on their own but are essential to winning.
But of course, crackpots say stupid things from time to time. For the GOP, think Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, or some religious leaders when they sometimes say goofy stuff. For the Democrats, it's their activists (including Farrakahn, SJWs, etc.), the Congressional Black Caucus almost every time their members open their mouths, and sometimes their judicial appointees' rulings.
When a crackpot says something stupid, it can put the party's mainstream in an awkward position. If it backs up the crackpot, then it alienates pretty much every moderate in the country. If it distances itself from the crackpot, then it blunts the enthusiasm and turnout of the constituency that identifies with the crackpot. Either way, the other side benefits. Of course, this is an area in which Democrats have a big advantage because the media is so partisan.
If a Republican crackpot says something stupid, mainstream Republican leaders are going to get confronted with it over and over again as Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were confronted with Akin's and Mourdock's comments about abortion. Even when they distanced themselves from the comments, that didn't resolve the issue. Instead, the talk was about whether they distanced themselves quickly enough or resoundingly enough. The point was to make sure that Akin and Mourdock not only lost but tarnished the GOP brand. It worked.
How often do mainstream Democrats have to answer for Farrakahn's comments one way or the other other? How about the Congressional Black Caucus's support for slavery reparations commissions? Seldom, and when they do, it's superficial and cursory. They're allowed to very quickly move on to minimize the damage. Nobody's going to force them to go into detail or be repetitive. If Democrats were forced to accept the CBC as part of their national branding, they'd never break 120 electoral votes again.
There's another factor at play, which is the long-term role of Jews in the Democratic Party. They've "gone Western," while the Party has started embracing and appealing to anti-Westerners, specifically Muslims. I think they see Muslims as becoming a significant voting bloc especially with their high birth rates. Furthermore, Muslims are becoming more receptive to identity politics while Jews are becoming less receptive. The conflict just isn't reconcilable long term.
They likely view Jews the way they viewed the white working class 20 years ago. They're not going to tell them to get lost, but they're pretty much done appealing to them. They'll condemn antisemitism but only if it comes from somebody associated with the Right. If somebody on the Right told a Jewish joke, they'd lose their minds, but Louis Farrakhan can basically be a latter-day Heinrich Himmler, and we have to approach him with nuance and context and avoid "rushing to judgment."
The bottom line is that Jews just aren't very high on the intersectional hierarchy anymore. In a way, they're less useful to the Left than white Gentiles are, because they don't have any guilt. It's kinda hard to guilt a group of people who had genocide attempted on them 70 years ago and have had large parts of the Islamic world trying to finish the job ever since.
