#he has declared many a times he does not approve of hate and bigotry and prejudice
Text
British Jews Should Announce They Can't Support Corbyn--or Johnson
This was a piece I initially wrote for publication outside of the blog. It had a tumultuous journey, including being accepted in one newspaper before the editor withdrew the offer an hour later. Most recently, it spent two weeks in limbo after the editor who was considering it solicited the draft ... then immediately went on vacation for a week. When he returned, he promised to get to it "first thing Monday". I never heard from him again.
Anyway, the election is tomorrow and there's still no sign that he will get back to me, so you're getting the piece here. It's slightly less timely than I'd like -- though much more timely than if I posted it after election day.
* * *
Earlier this month, The Guardian published a letter from twenty-four prominent non-Jewish figures, publicly declaring that they could not support Labour in the next election due to the raging antisemitism that has enveloped the party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
For the UK’s beleaguered Jewish community, it was a taste of that elusive elixir: solidarity. The knowledge that Jews do not stand alone, that we do have allies, that there are people who will not stand idly by and do nothing as this wave of antisemitism comes bearing down. That the letter’s signatories included figures like Islamophobia watchdog Fiyaz Mughal, who is intimately and painfully aware of the direct dangers a Tory government would do to him and his community, only makes it more powerful. In a very real sense, this is what it means to have true allies.
These past few years have been rough on British Jews, but if there is a silver lining, it is in moments like these: the public witnessing of all those who remain willing to plant their banner and fight antisemitism. The statements of resignation from persons who no longer can associate with a party that has become a force for hatred against the nation’s Jews. The figures—some Jewish (like MP Ruth Smeeth), some not (like London Mayor Sadiq Khan)—still bravely resisting antisemitism from within the party.
And there is grim satisfaction to be taken in Corbyn’s almost comically-high public disapproval ratings—which have reached upwards of 75% in some polls. For this, too, is at least in part a public and visceral repudiation of the brand of antisemitism Corbyn has come to represent.
Yet it is the ironic misery of the Jewish fate that we cannot even take unmediated satisfaction in those rejecting Labour antisemitism. Why? Well, because of the primary alternative to Labour: the Conservative Party, led by Boris Johnson.
The Tories have their own antisemitism problems, although—and as a liberal it pains me to say this—they pale in comparison to those afflicting Labour, at least today. And for me, I’ve probably written more on Labour antisemitism than I have on any other social problem outside of America or Israel.
But if the Tories are not today as antisemitic as is Labour, where the Tories can be aptly compared to Labour is along the axis of racism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. It is fair to say that on those issues, the Conservative Party is institutionally xenophobic in a manner that is on par with Labour’s own institutional antisemitism. Or put differently: Boris Johnson is to Muslims, Blacks, and Asians what Jeremy Corbyn is to Jews.
This is hardly unknown, and the latent nativism of the Conservative Party’s Brexit policy is only the tip of the iceberg. We saw the ugliness of Conservative racism in the Windrush Scandal, where Afro-Caribbean British citizens were harassed, detained, and even deported as part of the Tories’ pledge to create a “hostile environment” for undesired immigrants in the country (notwithstanding the fact that the Windrush Generation consisted of natural-born British subjects). We saw it in the game efforts by Muslim Conservative politicians to draw attention to festering Islamophobia amongst Tory candidates and politicians, and the grinding resistance of the Conservative political leadership to seriously investigate the issue—surely, this resonates with Labour’s own kicking-and-screaming approach to rooting out antisemitism inside its own ranks.
And—like with Corbyn’s Labour party—Tory xenophobia starts right at the top. In 2018, Boris Johnson was slurring Muslim women in Europe as “letter boxes”. Advocates at that time urged then-Prime Minister Theresa May to withdraw Johnson’s whip. She declined. Now he’s Prime Minister. In the meantime, Islamophobic instances in the country surged 375%.
There is a terrible commonality here: the legitimate fears Jews have about a Corbyn-led British government are mirrored by the equally legitimate worries BAMEs (Blacks, Asians, and Minority Ethnics) about the prospect of another term of Conservative rule.
To be clear: the Jewish community has not endorsed these Conservative predations. They are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit. They have spoken out and stood out against racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia, and have done so consistently.
But there is another step that has not yet been taken. The Jewish community might return solidarity with solidarity, and write their own letter announcing that they cannot sanction voting for Labour—or the Tories. Twenty-four Jewish luminaries, each pledging that just as Labour’s antisemitism means that they cannot support Labour, Conservative racism and xenophobia preclude them from backing the Tories.
The UK, after all, is not a complete two-party system, and in many constituencies there are very live options that extend beyond Labour and Tory. The resurgent Liberal Democrats, for one, bolstered by refugees repelled by Labour antisemitism or Conservative xenophobia and showing renewed strength particularly in marginal constituencies where Labour is flagging. Regionally, the SNP or Plaid Cymru also are often competitive. Even the Greens, in some locales, are a viable option.
None of these parties are perfect. One does not need to search far to find instances of antisemitism in these other parties, for example, and the Liberal Democrats still have trust to re-earn following their disastrous stint as junior coalition partners to the Tories less than a decade ago.
But imperfections notwithstanding, none of these parties has completely caved to gutter populism in the way that both Labour and Tory have. They are cosmopolitan in orientation. They have faced antisemitism and other forms of prejudice, but they’ve responded decisively to it. They are not perfect, but they are viable choices, in a way that neither the Tories nor Labour can at this point claim to be.
And yet, still this companion letter—rejecting Conservative hatred with the same public moral clarity as The Guardian writers rejected Labour hatred—hasn’t been written. As much as many dislike Conservative politics, as much as many loathe Boris Johnson and the insular nativism he stands for—we have not forthrightly declared that the bigotry of his party is of equal moral weight and equal moral impermissibility at the bigotry of Corbyn’s party. We have not insisted that both be rejected.
Responding to the argument that Labour antisemitism had to be overlooked because of the pressing necessity of avoiding the disasters of a Tory government, the Guardian letter writers asked “Which other community’s concerns are disposable in this way? Who would be next?”
One could perhaps forgive the Windrush Generation for taking a tentative step forward in reply.
So again: why hasn’t that companion letter been written? Why hasn’t there been the declaration that the Windrushers, the migrants, the Muslims—that these community’s concerns are indispensable in the exact same way that the Jewish community’s concerns should (but often are not) be viewed as indispensable? Why has the wonderful solidarity demonstrated by the Guardian letter not been returned in kind?
The most common answer is that as terrible as Johnson is and as repulsive as Tory policies are, only a Conservative majority can guarantee that Corbyn will not become Prime Minister. Even the LibDems might ultimately elect to coalition with Labour if together they’d form a majority (ironically, many left-wing voters who dislike Corbyn but loathe Johnson express the same worry in reverse to explain why they can’t vote LibDem—they’re convinced that Jo Swinson would instead cut a deal to preserve a Conservative majority). As terrible as Johnson is, stopping Corbyn has to be the number one priority for British Jews. And a vote for anyone but the Tory candidates is, ultimately, a vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Jewish voters who act under this logic, they would say, are by no means endorsing Brexit, which they detest, or xenophobia, which they abhor. They hate these things, genuinely and sincerely. But their hand has been forced. In this moment, they have to look out for Number One.
I understand this logic. I understand why some Jews might believe that in this moment, we cannot spare the luxury of thinking of others.
I understand it. But it is, ultimately, spectacularly short-sighted.
To begin, if we accept that British Jews are justified in voting Tory because we are justified looking out for our own existential self-preservation, then we have to accept that non-Jewish minorities are similarly justified in voting Labour in pursuit of their own communal security and safety. We cannot simultaneously say that our vote for the Tories cannot be construed as an endorsement of Conservative xenophobia but their vote for Labour represents tacit approval of Corbynista antisemitism. Maybe both groups feel their hands are tied; trapped between a bad option and a disastrous one. And so we get one letter from the Chief Rabbi, excoriating Jeremy Corbyn as an “unfit” leader, and another competing letter from the Muslim Council of Britain, bemoaning Conservatives open tolerance of Islamophobia.
But if the Jews reluctantly vote Conservative “in our self-interest” and BAME citizens reluctantly vote Labour “in their self-interest”—well, there are a lot more BAME voters in Britain than there are Jewish voters. So the result would be a massive net gain for Labour. Some pursuit of self-interest.
Meanwhile, those Brits who are neither Jewish nor members of any other minority group are given no guidance by this approach. There is no particular reason, after all, for why they should favor ameliorating Jewish fears of antisemitism over BAME fears of xenophobia. From their vantage point, these issues effectively cancel out, and they are freed to vote without regard to caring about either antisemitism or Islamophobia. At the very moment where these issues have been foregrounded in the British public imagination in an unprecedented way, insisting upon the primacy of pure self-interest would ensure that this attention would be squandered and rendered moot.
Of course, all this does not even contemplate the horrible dilemma imposed upon those persons who are both Jewish and BAME—the Afro-Caribbean Jew, for instance. They are truly being torn asunder, told that no matter how they vote they will be betraying a part of their whole self.
And finally, whatever we can say about the status of Tory antisemitism today, painful experience demonstrates that tides of xenophobia, nativism, and illiberal nationalism reflected in the Conservative Party will always eventually swallow Jews as well. That day will come, and if history is any guide it will come quickly. Jews should think twice and thrice before contemplating giving any succor to that brand of politics, no matter what seductive gestures it makes at us today.
So no—it will not do for Jews to back the Tories out of “self-interest”, for doing so will ultimately fail even in protecting ourselves. Ultimately, the reason that Jews should clearly and vocally reject both Labour and Tory is not sentimentality, but solidarity—solidarity in its truest and most robust sense. There simply are not enough Jews in the United Kingdom to make going it alone a viable strategy. We need allies, and so we need to find a way to respond to the reality of Labour antisemitism in a way that binds us closer to our allies rather than atomizing us apart. The solidarity they showed us must be reciprocated in kind.
If there is one theme I have heard over and over again from UK Jews, it is the fear of becoming “politically homeless”: unable to stomach voting for Tory nativism, unable to countenance backing Labour antisemitism.
But as The Guardian letter demonstrated, Jews still have friends, and allies, and people who will have our backs no matter what. And if you’ve got friends, allies, and people who have your back, what do you do if you’re worried about homelessness?
I’d say, you start building a new house—one with room enough for all of us.
via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2PcPNkz
29 notes
·
View notes
Text
The Barrabas Legacy: Race and Racism in Trump’s America
Opinion
On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump received 304 electoral votes to Hilary Clinton’s 227 votes. However, Clinton won both the popular vote and a higher percentage of victory than her opponent. Clinton received 65,794,399 (48.2%) of the vote to Trump’s 62,955,202 (46.1%) of the vote, a difference of nearly 2.9 million votes [1]. While this was not the first presidential candidate to lose an election by winning the popular vote, it was a loss by the largest popular margin of any candidate in an election. Further, this election outcome has been discussed, debated, reviewed, and rehashed extensively as to what occurred. This was an election that many pundits and pollsters had Clinton winning by a fairly significant margin. After all, her opponent had held no elective office, had no political experience, and Clinton was up against an individual who had winnowed his way to the Republican nomination. How does one explain the inexplicable?
In a recent meeting of ministers an explanation of the 2016 election was given by an elected official in a spiritual context. He said that following the election his pastor gave a sermon that compared the election to Jerusalem citizens asking for the release of Barrabas, an individual claimed to be a notorious prisoner in the Gospel of Matthew, over Jesus. In each of the four gospels it is revealed that a Passover custom in Jerusalem was to commute a prisoner’s death sentence by popular approval. When offered the choice of Barrabas or Jesus to be released, the crowd insisted that Pontius Pilate release Barrabas. That Barrabas moment, according to the pastor, was clearly an error in judgment, the crowd making the wrong choice. The results of the November 8, 2016 election demonstrated a Barrabas moment for many in America. Not for the first time had people chosen that which was not in their best interest. The consequences of that election have been especially impactful for race relations in the United States.
In Donald Trump’s America, racism has been validated at the highest level of government because he has endorsed it as President of the United States. His bigotry was not new and was prevalent throughout his life and at the foundation of his campaign for the presidency. “Trump moved racism from the euphemistic and plausibly deniable to the overt and freely claimed” [2]. Throughout his campaign Trump made racist and bigoted remarks that demonstrated his disdain for people of color. He called a judge biased because he was a “Mexican.” He refused to renounce white supremacist who campaigned for him. He called Mexican immigrants criminals and rapists. He lumped racial groups into monolithic minority collectives that he loves, like, “the Hispanics”, “the blacks,” “the Muslims” while denigrating the groups at the same time. He condoned the physical attack against an African American Black Lives Matter protester by his supporters, claiming that the man “should have been roughed up” [3].
Donald Trump’s racist America did not begin with his inauguration as the 45th President of the United States [4]. His public life has been obsessed with making racist remarks dating back to his time as a real estate developer in New York City. He was sued twice by the government for refusal by his real estate company to rent to African Americans in the 1970s. He treated his African American employees in his casinos with disdain, claiming that “laziness is a trait in blacks.” In 1989 he took out ads in New York newspapers calling for reinstatement of the death penalty and bringing back the police for five black and Latino teenagers accused of raping a wite woman in Central Park. He continued to claim they were guilty as late as October 2016 although DNA evidence had exonerated them [4]. He became the poster boy for birtherism, the racist conspiracy theory movement claiming that President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States. He also took out ads denigrating Native Americans, alleging that Mohawks had a well-documented record of criminal activity (Ibid).
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center [5], Donald Trump has opened the doors of the White House “to extremism, not only consulting with hate groups on policies that erode our country’s civil rights protections but enabling the infiltration of extremist ideas into the administration’s rhetoric and agenda” (SPLC, 2017). The radical right was previously on the fringes but found itself with a friend in the White House. Trump hired extremist advisors at the outset, such as Steve Bannon from Breitbart News as his chief strategist and Stephen Miller, an anti-Muslim extremist, as his senior advisor for policy (SPLC, 2017). The SPLC indicates that race incidents increased once Donald Trump became president. An atmosphere of intimidation and fear has been created as well as an environment that says overt racism is acceptable. Incidents have ranged from Nazi and racist graffiti being spray painted with references to Trump, middle school students shouting, “build the wall,” pro-Trump racist messages left at a church, to anti-semitic graffiti (Politti, 2016). Data from the Pew Research Center [6], indicate that most Americans believe that Trump’s election has led to worse race relations in the United States. Overall, 60% of Americans believe Trump’s election has caused race relations to become worse. Also, more of the public thinks that not enough attention is being paid to race and racial issues, with young adults more likely to believe this than older adults [6].
In Donald Trump’s America, there is every effort to change the narrative from issues of race and racism. He would declare that he is not racist, but evidence to the contrary demonstrates otherwise. Incidents such as those with Starbucks, the Waffle House, Roseanne Barr’s racist tweet, or the NFL players kneeling get deflected, either to something it is not, or to Trump himself. For example, the NFL players kneeling was about law enforcement mistreatment of African Americans and police brutality. That narrative was changed by Trump to respect for the flag and the national anthem and ultimately led to an NFL policy change about kneeling during the national anthem. The entire issue of police brutality against African Americans was dismissed with Trump ranting about players leaving the country and calling players “SOBs”. Mara Gay, editorial board member for the New York Times, states that Trump uses racism as a political tool simply to distract from the real issues [7].
The negative impact of the tax bill, the separation of families at the border, budget cuts in education, health and human service programs that are detrimental to millions of families are not part of American policy discussions. When the issue of Russian interference with the 2016 election and Trump collusion emerge, Trump changes the narrative, usually to a negative, blatant, generally false Twitter rant that plays to his alt-right base. Rather than making America great again, Donald Trump infuses the environment with a toxicity that serves as a reminder of the Barrabas legacy of making bad choices and having to live with those choices. While one may accept that racism in Trump’s America is a part of that legacy and American political life for the moment, future elections will give other choices and provide an opportunity for redemption.
For Read More... FullText click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/ASM.MS.ID.555573.php
For More Articles in Annals of Social Sciences & Management studies Please Click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/index.php
For More Open Access Journals In Juniper Publishers Please Click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/index.php
0 notes
Text
A new kind of “natural disaster”: a mean tweet from Donald Trump
Michael J. Coren, Quartz, January 25, 2017
Say what you will about his hands, but Donald Trump now has the most powerful thumbs in the world. Even before he was sworn in as president, Trump tapping out tirades on Twitter regularly spooked investors and sent CEOs scurrying to save their stock price.
No company appears to be safe (and woe to those closing US factories). Trump tweets have wiped billions of dollars off public companies’ share values, and ignited national boycotts by irate customers. Victims of Trump’s attention form a roll call of blue-chip stocks: Lockheed Martin, Toyota, Carrier, Ford, General Motors, and Boeing have all been in Trump’s crosshairs, directly or indirectly.
A new industry is emerging in response. Consulting, communications, and public affairs firms in Washington DC have been inundated with calls to help insulate clients from Trump’s attacks via social media. They’re offering strategic advice to protect against the nightmare scenario: a direct assault by the president of the United States. The new playbook for firms bracing for the impact of a Trump presidency involves risk assessments, cultivating Congressional allies, recording testimonials, and rapid response teams for Twitter and Facebook.
Of the eight DC firms Quartz spoke to this month, all were discussing crisis plans with clients to deal with a negative Trump tweet. Several were in the midst of formalizing packages as a kind of insurance plan. One global strategy firm told Quartz it had issued a company-wide directive saying that Trump’s tweets should be treated the same way as an earthquake or flood. “We are putting them in the same class as a natural disaster: a random event, out of the blue, with a really massive cleanup,” said a senior consultant.
Trump’s typing has also roiled international currency markets: Mexican traders have joked the country should just buy Twitter for $12 billion and shut it down, rather than spend billions defending its currency every time Trump tweets about trade and immigration, reports Bloomberg.
For some, including the outdoor apparel company L.L.Bean, even Trump’s praise can be catastrophic. After a supportive tweet from Trump, the Maine company faced a customer backlash by those vowing to toss their backpacks and clothing:
Meanwhile, the sneaker brand New Balance is battling its own boycott after its CEO supported Trump’s policy on international trade agreements and a neo-Nazi blogger declared New Balance the “official shoes of white people.” (New Balance, one of the few shoe companies that does most of its manufacturing in the US, said it rejects bigotry or hate in any form.)
“It’s simply a risk of being pulled into his orbit,” says Andrew Paven of the media and government relations firm O’Neill and Associates.
To cope, experts are counseling proactive defense, says Andrew Shore of the DC law firm Jochum, Shore & Trossevin PC. “‘Duck and cover’ isn’t a strategy,” said Shore, a lobbyist and former Republican congressional staffer.
First, said the firm’s communications specialist Erica Richardson, companies should assess their vulnerabilities based on their industry, labor practices, pending legislation, employees’ political activity and other factors. She suggests bolstering existing relationships with allies in the Trump administration or Congress, as well as forging new ones, to guard against politicians preparing to copy Trump’s tactics. “It wouldn’t surprise me if this approach opens the door to members of Congress following his lead on social media,” she said. Companies should also prepare for a crisis with rapid response teams armed with fact-sheets, customer testimonials and pre-approved content for Twitter, Facebook and other channels--to forcefully challenge the narrative within hours, if not minutes.
Some firms are not waiting to tout their American investments and jobs (many planned long before the election). Amazon’s CEO Jeff Bezos declared the company was creating 100,000 full-time US jobs over the next 18 months, many of them warehouse and call center positions that analysts said were already in the works. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles announced that it was investing $1 billion creating 2,000 US jobs (but denied that Trump’s tweets affected the investment decision).
Expect more of this. The rhetorical weight of Trump’s 140 characters is growing. Trump’s Twitter following, already 20 million or so strong at inauguration, has now added another 14.5 million followers via the @POTUS handle (although many may overlap). With this megaphone, Trump can direct public attention where he wants it, in an instant.
Trump lied regularly as a candidate, and has continued to do so as president (most recently telling lawmakers that millions of unauthorized immigrants robbed him of the popular vote). Twitter allows Trump to bypass the media and its fact-checking, and it amplifies his messages, many of which are taken up at obliging outlets such as Fox and Brietbart News. Each tweet sets off an automated process as well. Every time @realdonaldtrump tweets, thousands of computer algorithms spring into action, reports MarketWatch, triggering stocks being bought and sold, and alerts sent to investors.
“Trump’s ability to dominate the information flow is unlike anything we had ever seen,” says Alex Conant of Firehouse Strategies, a former communications director for Florida congressman Marco Rubio’s failed presidential campaign. “He has a huge microphone and he’s using to shape the national conversation.”
As the president has forged an alternative reality for millions of Americans, some of his Republican colleagues are promoting Trump’s Twitter feed as the sole source of truth--over independent sources and media:
So far most experts have advised companies that the best strategy is to appease Trump and his team. But it’s only a matter of time before some companies strike back, says Richard Levick, who runs his eponymous communications firm. “I think in the not-too-distant future that there will be a company, probably a tech company, that will do the calculus just as Trump does and say, ‘There’s more to be gained by standing up and fighting back,’” he says. “Once that happens, every other company will follow suit. At that point, he’ll be seen as the king without any clothing.”
Julie Hootkin, an executive at the public affairs agency GlobalStrategyGroup, argues that actively opposing Trump is going to be a winning strategy. “The assumption is [Trump] can really do damage to your reputation,” says Hootkin, whose firm works with Democratic-leaning clients. “Many brands’ corporate values are aligned with diversity, inclusion and environmental stewardship. For those companies, getting called out by Trump may not be that bad. He may be a really good foil for doubling down on your reputation.”
For this strategy, a template already exists: media companies. So far, news outlets have thrived whenever Trump has singled them out. The New York Times says it saw record-breaking subscription growth in 2016, even as Trump unloaded on the newspaper.
And a scathing review of Trump Grill by Vanity Fair--calling it possibly the worst restaurant in America--prompted a swift retort from Trump.
The day of that tweet, reports Folio, Vanity Fair saw an unprecedented surge in new subscriptions.
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
