The ascension of Donald Trump to President of the United States may likely spell a grievous blow against the small progress that has been made toward curtailing man-made climate change, equitable tax policy, and healthcare reform made during the Obama years. However, Michael Moore’s electoral hand grenade seems to have already rocked one part of the DC establishment: The Democratic National Committee (DNC) and, by extension, the Democratic Party itself. The struggle for its leadership will shape the Democratic response to this deep loss, and it will decide whether the DNC sinks further into the identity-politics morass or stands upon the solid ground of economic populism.
The DNC has taken on a new identity. For the siren call of the big-money donors and financiers, the DNC forsook its traditional working-class base (according to Opensecrets.org, executive search firm, The Fahr Group, and hedge fund, Paloma Partners, are the top direct contributors to the Democrats). The Democrats expected identity politics to provide the same incentive to vote Democratic as actual left-of-center policies. Identity-based appeals were used throughout the campaign season, baited by Trump’s own crude, racialist provocations. This is perhaps exemplified by the words of Madeleine Albright: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” Said tongue in cheek or not, neither of Obama’s campaigns stooped to such lows, and it is my opinion that this (small “l”) liberal use of appeals to identity led, in part, to the electoral upset.
The result is that the leadership of the DNC is now in the midst of a battle between the Sanders-endorsed Keith Ellison and the current Obama-supported Labor Secretary Tom Perez in a bid to reorganize itself. However, if chosen, Ellison’s personal identity has the potential to sink the Democrats further into the failed identity-politics ship, with no effort from the Congressman himself.
Ellison being the first Muslim-American elected to Congress will likely deepen the conservative-liberal battle lines that have been dug around identity politics. Being a Muslim does not disqualify anyone from serving in higher office, any more than being Christian, Hindu, Jewish, or atheist. This argument is based not only in historical evidence (has the nation collapsed despite having almost exclusive election of Christians to national office?), but codified in our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Yet, as this election season has shown, neither the Constitution nor logic provide much protection from political controversy.
In a recent interview that was as devoid of content as it was plump with platitudes, typical of Fox News, Megyn Kelly painted Ellison as a defender Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Although Ellison has had a controversial history with sordid characters and oft-attacked black leftists, he is not on record making these offensive comments himself and in 2006 fully denounced the Nation of Islam.
Going further than attempts to paint Ellison as a member of the Nation of Islam, some groups are moving to associate him with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni Islamist organization that views electoral politics as a legitimate means to achieving Islamist ends. The organization has affiliates all over the Islamic world and significant funding. So, when Congressman Ellison went on the Hajj, a religious pilgrimage to Mecca that is one of the Pillars of Islam, the U.S. branch of the Brotherhood contributed funds to send him. Fox News has already used this as an attack line against.
Is Ellison a sleeper agent for the Muslim Brotherhood awaiting ascension to the DNC to impose Sharia on the Democratic Party? Preposterous and defamatory, yes, but this is less important in the realm of politics. As we have seen, the preposterous can have consequences for beliefs and actions. What is important is what these two issues will likely dog Ellison if he becomes head of the DNC, and they are likely to inflame identity-based politics.
Trump and his advisors have not been shy about speaking out against Muslims, and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that “[Trump’s] support for Israel is very clear. He feels very warmly about the Jewish state, about the Jewish people and about Jewish people. There’s no question about that.” The ground is therefore set for the Republicans to accuse the DNC of favoring Muslims over Israel.
Yes, this is preposterous again. J-Street, the left-leaning Israeli lobby in D.C., has come to defend Ellison as “a friend of Israel, a champion of pro-Israel, pro-peace policies and an admirable elected official whose thoughtful and considered leadership has shown deep respect for Jewish values and the Jewish people.” They also stated that these attacks on Ellison “are emblematic of the spurious charges often hurled at pro-Israel officials who speak out in support of a two-state solution and oppose the occupation.”
This will be a battle between the Left and Right, but it will be obscured behind a faux battle of identities: the Muslim-supporting DNC against the Israel-supporting Trump administration. But we must not fall into this dichotomous fallacy. It is incumbent upon those who support honest political debate to judge individuals by their character. Many will not heed this advice, and it will prove a thorn in the side of potential DNC Chair Ellison. Liberals have been all too willing to dirty themselves in the debate over identity politics. If they continue, they run the risk of elevating identity over ideology, politics over policy.
This is a debate that cannot be won based on identity; it must be fought through reasoned discourse. It must be fought with policy arguments to move our nation forward. This election taught us that the DNC cannot count on groups to vote just because of the identity of the candidate; “No, that’s not good enough,” as Bernie Sanders recently said. If the Democrats are to choose Ellison for a more progressive DNC forward, they must be prepared for a more progressive politics.