Trita Parsi and Stephen Wertheim - Democratic party elites silence Ilhan Omar at their peril
The congresswoman’s
foreign policy views are far more in line with voters than the disconnected
party establishment. Absent an open debate
about the party’s values on foreign policy, Democrats are
hurtling toward an election more divisive than the one in 2016. First, on Monday, Omar
criticized the influence of pro-Israel lobbyists on Capitol Hill, tweeting that
Congress’s stance was “all about the Benjamins”. She was swiftly rebuked by the
party leadership in tandem with Republicans, prompting her to apologize.
Then, less than 48 hours later, Omar grilled America’s new envoy to Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, over his well-documented material support for multiple Central American governments that committed mass killings and genocide in the 1980s. She also questioned his credibility, noting that Abrams had pleaded guilty to withholding information from Congress as part of his participation in the Iran-Contra scandal. How did Democratic elites respond? Several pounced again – to defend the Trump administration’s backer of death squads against Omar’s pointed questioning. Kelly Magsamen, a senior official at the Center for American Progress, defended Abrams on Twitter as a “fierce advocate for human rights and democracy”. Likewise, Nicholas Burns, a 27-year diplomat who most recently advised former secretary of state John Kerry, praised Abrams as a “devoted public servant”. “It’s time to build bridges in America,” Burns wrote, “and not tear people down.”
If Democratic leaders
were incredulous at Omar’s statements, rank-and-file Democrats were just as
incredulous at their party leaders. Why, many asked,
is it routine to criticize the influence of NRA money but almost forbidden to
question the influence of Aipac money? On top of that, how could Trump’s neocon
criminal be lauded as some sort of ally while Omar was treated as a pariah? A
Twitter torrent caused Magsamen to delete her tweet and apologize. Personalities aside,
however, the episode is charged with significance for the Democratic party as a
whole. Omar is not going away.
She represents the party’s younger generation, a
more diverse and progressive cohort that came of age in the war on terror. In
the election of 2016, such voters balked at Hillary Clinton’s hawkish record
and her courting of Never Trump neoconservatives. Now the divide is only wider
and more entrenched. Democrats need to have a real conversation, immediately,
about the party’s values and goals in foreign policy. Squelch it now and watch
it resurge in 2020, with Trump the beneficiary.
“We share goals,”
Magsamen wrote of Abrams.
Do we? The outrage over her claim proved its falsity. What goals Democrats wish
to promote in the world is now an open question, not settled dictum that
thinktankers can impose from Washington. The Democratic base is no longer
deferential, especially not when it is told that it has some obvious affinity
with the man who covered up one of the bloodiest
massacres in Latin American history, and went on to push the Iraq war inside
the George W Bush administration.
Just what are the
goals, and values, of those who have implemented decades of fruitless forever
war and then close ranks when their worst members are asked accurate and
relevant questions? The American people are wondering. The manifestations are
everywhere, among young people in particular. Start with the sacred cow of
American exceptionalism: millennials are the first age group to split
evenly on whether the US is the world’s greatest country or no greater
than others. They are increasingly ready to reckon with America’s past actions
and confront hard choices going forward.
Young Democrats are
not likely to agree that one violent misdeed after another is somehow
acceptable as long as it is performed by the US or in the name of democracy or
humanitarianism. Those were the rationales, now revived in defense of Abrams,
that produced impunity for the Iraq war, a disastrous war of aggression.
Ordinary citizens consistently display more skepticism of military intervention
than do foreign policy elites. They are pushing their representatives to
express the goal of peace. The election of Omar herself reflects this
sentiment. And as a result of grassroots mobilization, the House this week,
driven by progressives like Representative Ro Khanna, passed historic
legislation to end US support for the Saudi war in Yemen.
The shift in the
Democratic base is not limited to one episode. Democrats increasingly
favor cutting the
defense budget and imposing restraint on America’s military power. While elites
assume that the US must maintain global military superiority as a matter of
course, less
than half of millennials deem it to be a very important goal. That is
the lowest support on record, continuing a steady erosion since the second
world war. Will political leaders engage the rising generation’s doubts, or
will they insist that armed domination is a self-evident virtue for a country
that is hurting at home and often spreads violence abroad?
On the
Israel-Palestine conflict, it was Omar, more than her party elders, who
represented the values of Democratic voters when she criticized the influence
of money in politics and applied the point to America’s virtually unconditional
support for Israel. The overwhelming
majority of Democrats, about 82%, now say the US should lean toward
neither Israel nor Palestinians. Even more dramatically, 56% of Democrats favor
imposing sanctions or harsher measures against Israel if its settlements keep
expanding. The mounting disaffection with Israel comes as the prime minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, scorned Barack Obama and embraces Trump and other authoritarians.
Yet Democratic leaders leapt to denounce Omar, giving her no benefit of the
doubt for a poorly worded tweet. Critics must take care not to play into
anti-Semitic tropes, but concern about lobbyist influence is
legitimate and poised to intensify... read more
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/16/democratic-party-elites-silence-ilhan-omar
see also
More posts on American imperialismTom Dispatch - William Astore, From Deterrence to Doomsday? // C. Wright Mills on The Structure of Power in American Society (1958) // The Week the World Almost Ended
Pentagon Study Declares American Empire Is 'Collapsing'. By Nafeez Ahmed
Peace as a punctuation mark in eternal war
