Progressive commentator Rula Jebreal had plenty of reasons to criticize House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Instead, last week, she called him an “errand boy” and a “monkey.”
Then she compounded it. In a later statement, Jebreal apologized for “a term” she had used, without mentioning “errand boy.” Earlier, she had tried to explain that she meant not one monkey, but the proverbial three.
Let’s be clear. Calling a Black man a “monkey” draws on a long tradition of depicting Black people as apes to justify slavery and then segregation, while calling him an “errand boy” casts him as a servant and denies him the dignity of being called a man.
Without acknowledging that history, that is not an apology. It’s an attempt to defend a racist insult while distancing yourself from the consequences of having said it.
It’s not an isolated incident, either. Lately, our public political conversations have spiraled out of control, as too many people confuse contempt with conviction. Instead of honest criticism, commentators say things that are cruel, degrading and even racist, then treat the virulence of the attack as evidence that they have made a point.
Jeffries is not above criticism. Certainly, I have lodged my share of complaints about his decisions, and I expect I will do so again.
Just weeks ago, I argued that Democrats need a plan for the power they may gain in November and that Jeffries was not going to find it in a private meeting with the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. His strategy, his relationships, his record on Israel and Gaza and his preparation to lead the House are all legitimate subjects for debate. But not like this.
We have accepted a style of criticism that treats ridicule as a substitute for explanation.
Jebreal did not create this trend. Her comments are just an especially egregious example. Long before she said those words, we had begun accepting a style of criticism that turns people into caricatures and treats ridicule as a substitute for explanation.
You can see a milder version of it in radio host Charlamagne tha God’s repeated use of “AIPAC Shakur” for Jeffries.
The nickname gestures toward a criticism without requiring anyone to explain it. It does not tell us what Jeffries has said or done, which position Charlamagne objects to or why anyone else should share that objection. It attaches “AIPAC” to the late rapper Tupac Shakur’s name and lets the ridicule do the rest.
That may be part of the appeal. Charlamagne doesn’t have to make a case, and his listeners don’t have to evaluate one. People who already dislike Jeffries get to laugh and move on, feeling as though they’ve been part of a meaningful conversation.
To be clear, calling Jeffries “AIPAC Shakur” is not as offensive as calling him a monkey, which calls to mind the long and unmistakable history of racist dehumanization. But both examples tell us something about the current environment.
Across the political spectrum, Americans have begun treating contempt as permission. Once someone says or does something another person strongly opposes, the disagreement can become a license to attack the whole person. They are not simply wrong; they are stupid, corrupt, cowardly, bought or beyond redemption. There is no sense in holding back.
The rest of us help make that possible.
We laugh at the nickname, repost the caricature and cheer on the harshest attack. If someone objects to the language, the response is immediate: Why are you defending them? What about what they did? The substance of the disagreement becomes an excuse for whatever cruelty follows.
I am not calling for polite politics. People have a right to be angry. Some actions deserve condemnation, and some criticism should be sharp and unsparing. But tell us what the person did. Tell us why it was wrong. Tell us who was harmed and what should change.
An insult cannot do that. It only tells us how you feel about the person.
So no, I am not asking anyone to lower their voice. I am asking all of us to raise our standards. Be angry. Be provocative. Be funny when the moment calls for it. Condemn what deserves condemnation. But make the argument.
Because if all you have is an insult, you do not have an argument.
Evan Brechtel contributed to this report.
For more thought-provoking insights from Michael Steele, Symone Sanders Townsend and Luke Russert, watch “The Weeknight” every Monday-Friday at 7 p.m. ET on MS NOW, and check out Symone’s podcast with Eugene Daniels, “Clock It.” Listen now wherever you get your podcasts.
The post The latest attack on Hakeem Jeffries reveals what’s wrong with our political discourse appeared first on MS NOW.
Author: Source Author
From MS Now.
Leave a Reply