"Trigger Warning" -- That Phrase Apparently Doesn't Mean Anything

Jerry Coyne, writing in The New Republic, inadvertently summarizes what I consider the ur-feature of all writing on "trigger warnings" (this is apparently from last year, but TNR's Facebook feed decided I should read it now). Discussing a call from some students to provide a trigger warning for Ovid’s “Metamorphoses" due to its graphic depiction of sexual assault (a student survivor who expressed concerns about how the material was presented said she felt "dismissed" by her professor), Coyne writes the following sentence:

That professor was clearly wrong to dismiss the student, and perhaps he or she might have mentioned beforehand that there is violence and sexual assault in Ovid, but that’s as far as I’d go.

So, Coyne would go as far as giving advance notice that their might be troublesome material in the selected readings. Or, put another way, we might say he'd "warn" his students about content which might "trigger" them.

But a "trigger warning"? Heaven forfend!

Given what Coyne agrees would have been appropriate, I confess its no longer clear to me what he thinks a "trigger warning" is. But you can be sure that the ensuing 10 paragraphs will explain why -- whatever it is -- it's the beginning of academic fascism the likes of which threaten the very foundations of the American university.

Marco Rubio's Good Statement on Police Shootings; Bad Statement on Guns

I always try to give credit where it's due, and I'll thus give Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) credit for a stronger-than-expected statement regarding police shootings:

"Those of us who are not African-American will never fully understand the experience of being black in America," he said. "But we should all understand why our fellow Americans in the black community are angry at the images of an African-American man with no criminal record, who was pulled over with a busted tail light, slumped in his car seat and dying while his four year old daughter watches from the backseat." 

He was referring to Philando Castile, the man killed Thursday in a Twin Cities suburb. Alton Sterling was shot Wednesday in Baton Rouge. 

"There are communities in this country that have a terrible relationship with their local law enforcement. We need to recognize that," he said. "We also need recognize that law enforcement officers in this country are truly among the best that we have. What these people do on a regular basis, you never hear about it. You never hear about the great things they do. No one is capturing that on video or online. It's only when some bad actor or some bad incident occurs we hear something about it."

 On the other hand, this came contemporaneously with him saying "I'm not sure there's a law we can pass" to staunch the flow of gun violence. He argued that the Dallas shooting -- where of course, the victims had guns -- did not falsify the tired "if only everybody was armed" contention because "This is a very unique situation, You have snipers that are in rooftops, picking off police officers -- a very difficult situation." The report continues:

The officers were armed, Rubio conceded, but didn't know who was firing at them or from where. "The police officers found themselves in a very vulnerable situation: They are wearing uniforms," he said.

It is not immediately obvious to me that, in the relevant respects, this is all that unique. One suspects there are many circumstances where it will not be immediately obvious who is firing or from where, or who is the good guy with the gun versus the bad guy with the gun. One further suspects that the difficulty of ascertaining who is who will increase, not dissipate, the more people who are packing. Finally, recent experience makes me pretty confident that the way we'll resolve these difficulties is be simply assuming brown people are the bad guys. Which is to say, we'll persist in our all-too-normal status quo of black men being automatically treated as threats -- all the more so when they're carrying a gun.

The Whites-Only Second Amendment

Believe it or not, I've never been an anti-gun zealot. I've fired a gun before, once, at camp (it had a shooting range) -- it didn't really make an impression on me one way or the other. I'm a huge fan of Top Shot. I did some pro bono work for the Brady Campaign, even interviewed for a job there, but I withdraw my name from consideration immediately afterwards -- I knew I didn't have the true fire in the belly to work there.

I also know enough of the scholarly literature to be quite aware of checkered past gun control has had vis-a-vis the civil rights movement -- David Graham provides some of that history in this incisive piece. There were many periods where efforts to take away guns blossomed because, simply put, black people were using them to defend themselves against racist whites. The NRA has, of course, expended quite a bit of time excavating this history in order to argue that more guns, not fewer, are the solution to violence besetting communities of color.

And yet today, it is beyond clear that the Second Amendment is meaningless for black gun owners. There is no right to bear arms if you're black, and the "defenders" of gun rights like the NRA have virtually nothing to say when black people are victimized for exercising that right.

After all, if there is a right to open carry, then a black man seen with a gun is not only not committing a crime, there's not even probable cause to believe that they have. If a state allows concealed carry, then telling an officer that one has a concealed (and permitted) handgun can't justify even heightened anxiety, let alone fear for one's life. But everyone knows that black men cannot actually draw on these "rights". It doesn't matter if the gun is permitted, out of reach, or even real. A black man possessing a gun is always going to be viewed as a valid target, no matter what the law says.

And as for the NRA -- of course they're not going to stand up for these gun owners. In the NRA's world, black people don't get to own guns, they're the reason one owns guns. When they talk about guns being essential to American liberty, they don't envision an armed black population evening out the balance of force in a police encounter -- that's what justifies force in a police encounter. When they blather about a well-armed citizenry as a bulwark against tyranny, they don't have in mind Black Panthers exercising their open carry rights at the capital; they imagine Clive Bundy making an ass of himself.

Anyone who's read and takes seriously works flowing from the Black Power movement has to acknowledge the theoretical purchase of the idea that vulnerable populations are the ones who lose out when majoritarian dominated institutions gain a monopoly on the instruments of violence. But practical experience has made it abundantly obvious that this theoretical argument has no practical value. "Gun rights" has long since settled into a contented status quo accessible by whites and whites alone.

And that's unsustainable. If as a society, we feel threatened when a black man walks around openly carrying a firearm, that should mean that nobody has the right to openly carry a firearm. If possession of a gun by a black man is sufficient to justify a police shooting, then possession of a gun by anyone justifies it. In short, if we can't guarantee gun rights for everyone -- and we can't, it's clear that we can't, and gun rights organizations have no interest in changing it so we can -- then they don't belong to anyone. The status quo is racist, murderous, and toxic to rule of law. It is not sustainable. And eventually, it will fall.

All Quiet on the Blogging Front

Certainly, there's no shortage of news to be written on. But I've just begin an intensive 8-day course teaching Energy Law, which will sap me of much of my energy (for the past week and a half, I've been on vacation -- my stockpile of excuses for not blogging is infinite). So if I am quiet, I'm neither dead nor abandoning this site -- just busy busy.

Waffle House Song

The name of this blog, The Debate Link, emerged from my time as a high school debater (my first post here was June 2004, shortly after I graduated high school). The original mission statement of the blog was to link commentary on political issues to the debating world (the first tagline of The Debate Link was "The arguments, presented by and for the debating public.").

Among my happiest memories in high school were attending the Florida Forensics Institute (since closed -- read here for more on that story). One year, we adopted as our unofficial theme The Waffle House Song, communicated to us by one Jeff Hannan. A quick google search reveals no record of this song currently exists on the internet. This deserves rectification, and so, without further adieu, I present its lyrics:

We're at the Waffle House!
We're all messed up!
We're at the Waffle House!
We're all messed up!
We're gonna eat our waffles, gonna eat our waffles, gonna eat our waffles fast!
 Gonna eat our waffles, gonna eat our waffles, gonna eat our waffles fast!
[Quickly, while pointing] Drunk driving ain't funny!

And with that, a priceless bit of our cultural heritage has been preserved. You're welcome.

Elie Wiesel Dies at 87

Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and human rights advocate, has died today at age 87. Many have spoken of the influence his book Night, a memoir of his time in the concentration camps, had on their life. I personally was more taken by his play The Trial of God -- an essential work in post-Holocaust Jewish theology (even if it is nominally set in 17th century eastern Europe).

Wiesel, of course, was a life-long human rights advocate who never shied away from standing at the center of causes for justice. In doing so, Wiesel was never under any delusions that his status would shield him from the slings and travails that target any human rights campaigner, and Jewish ones in particular. There are too many instances of this to count, but I recall distinctly the time at the Durban Review Conference where an Iranian delegate referred to him as a "Zio-Nazi". I can't imagine how painful this must have been for him, but I also know he went into such events with eyes open.

The world is lesser for his passing. May his memory be a blessing.

Thoughts on the UK Labour Chakrabarti Inquiry into Anti-Semitism (and Aftermath)

UK Labour today released the text of the Chakrabarti Inquiry into anti-Semitism (and other forms of racism). I'm trying to think about how to describe it. "Bad" would not be fair -- it's not bad. "Milquetoast" is perhaps the best word for it. Shami Chakrabarti was put in an extraordinarily difficult situation when she was commissioned to lead this inquiry, and did her best not to offend anyone. And I'm not offended, so in that I guess she was successful.

But I am to some degree annoyed at myself that I'm not more annoyed at how small-ball it went. The non-procedural recommendations -- "Zio" is a racist epithet, "resist" comparing Israel to the Nazis (is the temptation really that overwhelming?), don't engage in stereotyping -- would be insultingly banal if they did not in fact need to be said. But banality is the order of the day.

Chakrabarti thankfully doesn't engage in any significant victim-blaming or lecture Jews on how we need to stop making anti-Semitism claims up for our own nefarious ends, so thank God for that. Yet everything in her report is calculated to be assure everyone that this problem is not much of a problem at all.  David Hirsh's reaction is here (his characteristically excellent submission to the inquiry is here), and I think it strikes some important chords. This is a superficial report to a problem with much deeper roots. One does not, upon reading the inquiry, get the sense that there is any true danger to Labour anti-Semitism. Nobody is really that bad, we just sometimes use some overwrought rhetoric in the heat of the moment that we should probably "resist". Ultimately, I doubt these recommendations will hurt, but I likewise doubt they will do much to help either. The report condemns stereotypes but gives no guidance on how to root them out; it discusses bias but doesn't even raise the issue that they might be implicit. It speaks broadly about the significant wrong anti-Semitism represents, but it shies away from directly considering anything to be anti-Semitic.

Perhaps most frustratingly, it does not address what to me is the most important issue of all -- the epistemic marginalization of Jews and Jewish voices when we complain about anti-Semitism. Any effort to combat anti-Semitism will fail if it is not coupled with a commitment to take seriously allegations of anti-Semitism. The persistent drumbeat that anti-Semitism is a bad faith charge that serious people should not waste their time with is the single greatest barrier to Jewish inclusion in communal conversations. It suggests that we are unreliable narrators of our own experience -- delusional at best, liars at worst. If that understanding is accepted, then Jews will never be able to be equal participants in dialogue because everything we say will be preemptively discounted -- at least, if it doesn't accord with the preexisting beliefs of our partners.

The Chakrabarti Inquiry should ideally represent the beginning of the conversation on combatting anti-Semitism, not its end. And judging by how the inquiry was received, well, there is more to be had in this conversation. The unveiling was yet another Corbyn catastrophe -- a Jewish Labour MP was chased out the room after being accused of organizing a media conspiracy to get at Corbyn, and Corbyn himself possibly compared Israel to the Islamic State (reports vary on whether he said "Islamic State" or "Islamic states" -- his written text suggests he meant the latter, but many people reported hearing the former). Corbyn certainly did nothing to protect his colleague who -- in a press conference about anti-Semitism, no less -- was victimized by an anti-Semitic trope of the precise sort Chakrabarti identified as being intolerable.

People who don't take anti-Semitism seriously won't fight anti-Semitism seriously. I do think Chakrabarti tried and delivered a seriously flawed but nonetheless sincere effort in her report. Jeremy Corbyn has no interest in fighting anti-Semitism, and so we can expect even the meager gains Chakrabarti gave to use to amount to virtually nothing.

Two Lessons from the Brexit Vote

In a tightly contested race, citizens of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. There are two lessons we can draw from this:

1) Don't underestimate the ability of misguided xenophobic nationalism to carry a national election. This is something for cocky American progressives to keep in mind as we face down a Donald Trump candidacy. Just because it's a really stupid idea doesn't mean it won't happen. And in this day and age, one makes a very serious mistake regarding the sentiments of the right-wing rank-and-file if one only pays attention to the opinions of the right-wing elite. The latter are rapidly losing the grip on the former.

2) A Jeremy Corbyn style left is utterly incapable of standing against this sort of tide. This is true for many reasons, but the primary one is that the sort of conspiracy-laden thinking Corbynistas like to indulge in isn't really that different from the instincts that motivate their right-wing counterpart. Ultimately, they share a sense that "Real Americans Brits" are under the thumb of some sinister foreign body -- the details of whether its the UN or the EU or the banks or the Jews or the neoliberals or the Zionists or the radical Muslims cabals really matter less than one would  think. It is no accident that even though Labour officially supported the Remain position, Brexit won traditional Labour strongholds by crushing margins.

Are Hamas Rockets "War" or "Terrorism"? Thanks To Insurance, We May Find Out

A lawsuit just filed in California federal district court seeks to determine whether Hamas rocket fire in 2014 is an act of "war" or "terrorism".

Was the suit filed by human rights advocates? Survivors of the violence? Maybe an international NGO?

Nope. It was filed by the USA network against its insurance company. You see, USA was filming a series in Israel that was interrupted due to the rocket fire. It claimed coverage under its policy, which was denied as the policy excluded losses stemming from "war or warlike action". But it does not exclude losses incurred due to terrorism, and the network contends that is the proper descriptor of Hamas' activities.

I have no legal commentary to provide -- I'm just darkly amused that this very important issue (as a rhetorical matter, if nothing else) may well gain legal resolution due to an insurance claim.

Where Would a Liberal Supreme Court Strike First?

Among the many, many reasons why it is crucial for our next President to be Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump, the chance to finally put together a progressive majority on the Supreme Court (for the first time since arguably the Nixon administration) is among the most essential. The next President will appoint the replacements for the late Justice Scalia, and almost certainly Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy as well, offering the opportunity for a 6-3 Democratic majority (or, conversely, a 6-3 Republican one). The report that Justice Thomas is also mulling retirement would be icing on the cake, and while at this point its pretty thinly sourced, like Justice Souter Justice Thomas never struck me as the sort of person in love with the job, and so I can imagine him retiring earlier than some of his fellows.

But what would be the most likely alterations we'd see from a progressive Supreme Court? Political Scientists have long believed two things about the courts vis-a-vis political society writ large: (1) They tend to follow the prevailing political trends, at least those with traction amongst the elites of their ideological cohort, and (2) They're limited in what they can accomplish without the backing of the political branches.

Many items high on the progressive wish list would have limited purchase in absence of legislative control in Congress. A decision overturning or circumscribing Citizens United  or Heller would permit Congress to pass more robust campaign finance or gun reforms (respectively), but of course it wouldn't force Congress to do so. For the most part, courts can clear the brush for political actors, and can play defense against hostile legislative encroachments, but they are quite limited in their ability to move the ball forward on their own.

But one area where I think we may witness significant changes is in criminal justice issues -- searches, seizures, sentencing, and qualified immunity. These are areas where we are seeing a significant shift in the political terrain, at least amongst the left, and likewise are more directly under the judicial umbrella than many other areas of social reform. A Court which is less keen on believing that police brutality suits are simply frivolous harassment by social bottom-feeders is likewise less likely to give qualified immunity an expansive reading. A Court which stops seeing unlawful searches as the overzealous effort to preserve social order, and starts seeing it as a threat to social order, will do more to curb those searches and check unlawful behavior by police departments.

Justice Sotomayor's broadside dissent in Utah v. Strief, which clearly has been influenced by changes in the zeitgeist brought about by movements like Black Lives Matter, represents the tip of that particular iceberg. A Supreme Court majority which has that outlook towards the criminal justice system could bring about reforms to a degree unrivaled since the Warren Court era. Law and order, after all, includes the obligation on the state and its agents to stay within the law and follow judicial orders. This election will do much to determine the degree to which everyone -- officer and citizen alike -- are made to live under the rules set by our constitutional system.

Richard Armitage Endorses Clinton

Richard Armitage, a high-profile Republican foreign policy specialist who held senior appointments in the Reagan and Bush administrations, has endorsed Hillary Clinton. This isn't that surprising -- I predicted months ago that the neoconservative wing of the GOP would find the Democratic Party might appealing in the era of Trump, and in general those conservatives primarily concerned with international relations have to find Trump especially terrifying.

To be sure, the endorsement of a pure beltway insider like Armitage is more likely to move pundit pens than to carry over any votes. But it still symbolizes the rapidly shifting sands underneath the feet of many Republican elites.

British Politician Murdered in Terrorist Attack, Brexit Motives Suspected

A British Labour MP Jo Cox has been stabbed to death murdered* in an attack reportedly linked to her opposition to Britain exiting from the EU (known as "Brexit"). The attacker, described as a 52-year old man, reportedly shouted "Britain First" before commencing the assault. Since this was an act of violence targeted to communicate a political message and to instill terror in a particular side's supporters and backers, I feel absolutely comfortable calling it an act of terror.

Both sides of the Brexit campaign have temporarily ceased campaigning. The issue comes to a referendum vote next week.

Thoughts and prayers go to Ms. Cox's family.

* I've seen conflicting reports on the weapon used, so I've updated the post.

The Debate Link Turns 12!

The Debate Link turns 12 years old today. In the space of that time, I've gotten two degrees and started on a third, taught at two law schools, clerked for a federal appellate court, and even been a practicing attorney. This blog has managed to stay constant through all of that (though I haven't managed to keep up the frantic posting schedule of its early days).

Next year will mark the blog's Bar Mitzvah -- a momentous accomplishment indeed! Still, I suppose it's worth savoring the blog's last pre-teen years. It just grows up so fast!

The Rumpelstiltskin Theory of Counter-Terrorism

Radical. Islamic. Terrorism. Is not like Rumpelstiltskin. You do not defeat it by speaking its secret name. The politicians and pundits who insist on clinging to this line of attack -- that somehow if we only said the magic words (or said them more often, or with the right intonation, or in the right order) we'd be in a vastly different stance with respect to global terrorism than we are today -- are treating terrorism with all the seriousness of a fairy tale. It is difficult for me to express in words the contempt I feel for these people. It is perhaps the height of treating genuine important policy issues and security threats as pure theater.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XXVII: The Orlando Pulse Massacre

I woke up this morning to hear of a horrible tragedy: 50 people murdered at a gay nightclub in Orlando. The attack, which President Obama described as "an act of hate and an act of terror", was allegedly carried out by Omar Mateen. Mateen was an employee of G4S security; he reportedly had sympathies with the radical Islamic terror organization ISIS.

Yet of course it took less than a day for someone -- in this case Scottish artist and Holocaust denier Alison Chabloz -- to come out and say, no, it was the Jews who did it.

Aimed at politicising gay community
Wanting gays to become political enemies of Islam
Israel lobby
Gay lobby#Orlando #ZionistFalseFlag

— Alison Chabloz (@AJCTmusic) June 12, 2016

If embedding doesn't work, the tweet reads:

Aimed at politicising gay community
Wanting gays to become political enemies of Islam
Israel lobby
Gay lobby #Orlando #ZionistFalseFlag

I started this feature not because Jews uniquely are blamed collectively for the wrongs (imagined and real) committed by individual members. Every group experiences to that to some degree,  as the inevitable racist backlash against all Muslims for the despicable act of one member of the faith will no doubt soon demonstrate. What makes Jews seemingly unique is that many instinctively blame us for the wrongs committed by anyone. On our heads rest not just the sins we have committed, but the sins anyone has committed.

"Things People Blame the Jews For" is normally somewhat snarky in tone, but that seems inappropriate here and today. So I'll just say this: To lay the Orlando massacre at the feet of an entire religious, national, ethnic, or cultural group is an act of someone who either doesn't care about preventing future attacks, or actively wants to see more in the future. The person primarily to blame for this act of terror is no one but the person who committed it. The persons secondarily to blame are those who call upon or promote such acts. And the persons tertiarily to blame are those -- whether they be radical Islamic clerics or radical conservative activists -- who promote the idea that such acts represent the truth or the heart of Islam. If we don't want attacks like this to occur, we must be clear-sighted about who, precisely, was in the wrong.

Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume XXVI: Stabbings in Bangladesh

A simmering human rights tragedy has been unfolding over the past few years in Bangladesh, where Islamist militants have taken to brazen public attacks against secularists, atheists, religious minorities, gay rights activists, and other liberal public figures. Many of the targets have been hacked to death in their homes or on the street. And Bangladeshi police have had virtually no luck in tracking down culprits (critics accuse them of not being particularly interested in tracking down culprits).

But perhaps we can cut them some slack. Local police are no match for a coordinated campaign of terrorism launched by you-know-who:

Bangladesh Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan has suggested an Israeli link to the recent killings of secular bloggers and minorities. 

He said an opposition politician had met an Israeli intelligence agent and there was evidence of an "international conspiracy" against Bangladesh. 

He gave no more evidence. Israel says the claim is nonsense. 

Critics say the government is in denial about the killings, most of which have been blamed on or claimed by Islamists. 

The "meeting" referred occurred when a Bangladeshi politician met an Israeli diplomat in India. The Bangladeshi was quickly arrested and charged with sedition.

BBC's Dhaka correspondent predicted that Khan's unsubstantiated conspiracy-mongering will play well in Bangladesh because most of the country is sympathetic to the Palestinians.

If I didn't know better, I'd almost think that anti-Israel and anti-Jewish scapegoating are a tool used by political elites to deflect from their own failings.

Scientists Discover New Evidence for the Universal Extreme Left-Right Convergence Theory

One well known phenomenon in political science is that, while we talk of left and right as being diametrically opposed (a political "spectrum" ranging from far-left to far-right), the extreme edges of the left and right often seem difficult to distinguish from one another. This has led to what is known as the Extreme Left-Right Convergence Theory* -- the idea that, at the extremes, left and right wrap back around to converge upon one another. The classic example was European fascism and communism -- despite being at opposite edges of the political spectrum they end up looking virtually identical (the so-called "Brown-Red alliance").

In recent years, though, political scientists questioned whether it made sense to view "left" and "right" as a single linear spectrum. Are communists more "left" than radical environmentalists? Are Leninists more "left" than RadFems? While the well known joke of leftist "splitters" caused theorists to initially focus on left-wing examples, similar questions can be asked of the right (are neoconservatives more "right" than paleocons? Is the "alt-right" more right-wing than Randians?). Instead of a single uniform "line" progressing from left to right, it has become more fashionable to think of the spectrum as "fraying" at the edges -- with many different and disparate groups occupying positions on the left and right frontiers.

This complicated the Extreme Left-Right Convergence Theory, since of course convergence of two particular extreme edges (e.g., fascists and communists) does not prove that the theory is generalizable. And ever since, political scientists have sought to demonstrate the validity of the Universal Extreme Left-Right Convergence Theory -- that every branch of left and right, at their extreme, wraps around to converge with each other extreme. For the past few decades, researchers have been hard at work seeking examples of such convergence (for example, Cynthia McKinney provides the link between the Green Party and Neo-Nazis -- the "Green-Brown" alliance).

Today, a major breakthrough emerged as political scientists announced a link between two seemingly distant extremes -- the anti-colonial left and the alt-right -- in the form of Rania Khalek. Khalek had already been on the radar screens of researchers after promoting David Duke's concept of "Jewish Privilege", and with recent declarations that Trump was actually superior to Clinton on trade issues and has been a boon on deportations (heighten those contradictions!), the community is now confident she represents the convergence point between these particular extreme left and right branches.

The name for this particular left-right alignment has not been settled, though inside reports have suggested that the "Khalek-Weir Axis" is an early front-runner.

* Note: I made this up. This is satire.

Kids are Kids, Parents are Parents, and Tragedies are Tragedies

As you might have heard, a gorilla was recently shot in a zoo in order to protect a three year old kid who managed to get inside the enclosure. As was sadly predictable, the family has suffered the brunt of a massive online backlash predicated on how irresponsible they must have been to allow this to have happened.

Here's my take. Raising kids is hard. And things will always go wrong. Every parent, I imagine, has experienced a scenario where they look away for a second and suddenly their kid is nowhere to be found. Or their mind just slips and they leave an exhibit while Johnny's still there. Or somehow little Caroline managed to worm her way into an out of bounds area (how on earth did she do it?). Or something catches the tyke's eye and he breaks away right into a street crossing.

These things happen to everyone. And most of the time, they don't amount to anything. The kid who wandered away in the supermarket is found a few aisles later in the ice cream section. An usher notices the kid by himself and lets him play cell phone games until mom and dad circle back. The girl in the off-limits area is found by a security guard and is ushered back. The kiddo in the street is quickly pulled back while no cars are coming.

But sometimes, through sheer bad luck, they happen in more serious scenarios. The forgotten kid is forgotten in the back of a car. The breakaway child gets into a dangerous enclosure. The lost kid is lost in a dense forest. In these cases, the consequences can be quite serious. But they're no more blameworthy than their more prosaic cousins. They're just more tragic.

My suspicion is that we seek blame in these scenarios as a psychological defense mechanism to assure ourselves that it couldn't happen to us or our family. If these things happen because the universe can be cruel and capricious, well, it can be cruel and capricious to us as much as to anyone else. And that's a scary thought. But if these things happen because parents are negligent, we can rest assured that they won't happen to us (because we're good, caring parents). A much more comforting thought. But probably not a very fair one.

Naz Shah Goes To Synagogue

Naz Shah, MP of Bradford West (unseating the odious George Galloway to get the seat), became one of the earlier figures in Labour's anti-Semitism scandal after old Facebook posts emerged where she urged that Israel be relocated to the U.S. and complained that Zionism was a tool to "groom" Jews to dominant other countries. She then apologized for these comments, an apology which I discussed in this post. Though I couldn't rate it (because there were actually two apologies floating around), I did note that her remarks had a lot of promise and seemed to go beyond some of the normal platitudes that one sees too often in these sorts of things. In particular, I was impressed that Shah admitted to a gap in her knowledge that needed rectification. While one should read too much into words (much less a single statement), I felt like Ms. Shah seemed like the sort of person who was open to change.

Ms. Shah has since done a public forum at a synagogue in Leeds. And while of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, my own view continues to be quite favorable.

Ms Shah told an audience at a synagogue in Leeds she wanted to make a “real apology” rather than a “politician’s apology”.

She said: “I looked at myself and asked whether I had prejudice against Jewish people. But I realised I was ignorant and I want to learn about the Jewish faith and culture. I do not have hatred for Jewish people.

Appearing at Sinai Synagogue in Leeds on Sunday night, she insisted her views had changed since the 2014 post as a result of engaging with the local Jewish community – something she insisted set her apart from her predecessor George Galloway.

Attacking Mr Galloway she said: “He used Palestine as a political tool and he never engaged with people. When I engaged with the Synagogue and had conversations that is when I changed. Until we have those conversations we won’t achieve change,” she told the audience during her first public appearance at a Jewish event since the controversy erupted.

“It is my job in the Muslim Community to highlight the issues of anti-Semitism. Going to Auschwitz is a fantastic idea but it won’t fix the problem. We need to educate the community. It’s up to me to own the narrative. To have conversations with the Muslim community [about anti-semitism] and that’s my responsibility.”

Those are words with teeth in it. To me, they are not platitudes, but commitments. Commitments that she needs to be held to, obviously. But commitments that it does not strike me as implausible that she intends to uphold.  And while I bow to nobody in the seriousness with which I fight anti-Semitism, part of that fight means figuring out how to reform persons who have held anti-Semitic views, if they genuinely seek change. Just as one doesn't make peace with one's friends, one doesn't fix prejudice by only talking with those already pure of heart.

What keeps on coming to my mind is the case of Ulysses S. Grant, who as a general in the Civil War authored one of the worst episodes of official anti-Semitism in American history when he attempted to expel all Jews from a large swath of the southern United States (contending that they "as a class" were traffickers and profiteers). But while this event is worth remembering, it is equally worth remembering what Grant did afterwards. He was genuinely repentant for issuing the order, and demonstrated his contrition not just in word but in deed. His time as President saw a golden age for American Jewry, with Grant visiting a DC synagogue, speaking out against anti-Semitic violence in Europe, and appointing more Jews to public office than any other president to that time. And so it came to be that, when asked about Grant's expulsion order, Rabbi Isaac Mayor Wise simply remarked "the wise also fail."

Perhaps one day we will say the same about Ms. Shah.

Trump's Pivot to the Conspiratorial Left

The conventional wisdom is that, upon securing the GOP nomination, Donald Trump has to tack to the center. He can't expect to win over independents and undecided voters by the same sort of jingoistic, xenophobic, conspiratorial conservatism that carried him through the Republican primaries.

The conventional wisdom never really applied to Donald Trump, and so it perhaps is not surprising that we have seen no such adjustment as of yet. And the more I think about it, the more I'm doubtful that he will expend any substantial effort to moderate his image. Rather, the move for Donald Trump going forward is straightforward: Double-down on the conspiracy-mongering -- only now, tailor it to aggrieved Sanders voters.

Bernie voters have become more and more convinced that the only reason they lost is because Hillary Clinton and her cronies "rigged" the system. For whatever reason, they just cannot accept the fact that Hillary Clinton is winning because she's winning more votes, and the more Democratic voters there are participating, the better she does (compare caucus vs. primary states). Senator Sanders is, if anything, outperforming expectations, and that's credit to him tapping into real and genuine progressive sentiment that had hitherto lacked significant voice. But he lost for prosaic, democratic reasons -- more people preferred his competitor than him. It happens. It can be difficult to admit (and both the American left and right have a difficult time acknowledging that they do not perfectly and purely represent the outlook of "real Americans"), but that's the long and short of it.

Unfortunately, Trump's own brand of paranoid conspiracy-mongering -- the system's rigged, the media is biased, the establishment is corrupt -- is perfectly tailored to tap into the grievances of the Sanders electorate. Take a look at Trump's statement declining a California debate against Sanders:

“Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher,” Trump said in the statement. “Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders – and it would be an easy payday – I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

That is aimed at Bernie Sanders voters like a laser. "Totally rigged"! "Crooked Hillary Clinton"! The DWS reference, in particular, is a dogwhistle that independents couldn't care less about but Bernie voters are obsessed over. Trump doesn't want to debate Sanders. Trump wants to stand in for Sanders when the time comes for him to debate Hillary Clinton. Certainly, the ground has been prepared by the constant stream of HOT TAKE Salon articles presenting the "liberal case for Trump" and how Hillary is just too shady for pristine Bernie supporters to sully themselves with and at the very least just stay home.

The reason Trump can appeal to Sanders voters is that, for many of them, the issue is not a matter of a "progressive" challenge. The heart of Sanders' appeal is his attack on "politics as usual", and Donald Trump is if nothing else not "politics as usual." Sanders beats Clinton among conservative Democratic voters who dislike Obama; meanwhile, Clinton's actual policy proposals are perfectly progressive and probably a bit to the left of Obama's in 2008. Once we dispense with the fiction that Sanders voters support him because of some down-the-line desire for progressive policymaking as opposed to a more inchoate expression of ressentiment against those they identify with Power -- well, Trump has absolutely proven himself able to market himself very effectively to the latter camp.

There is obviously no path for Trump to victory on policy. And there's no path for Trump to victory on temperament. Trump's only path to victory is the same path that got him through the GOP nomination -- vitriolic, outrageous, rabble-rousing attacks on "the establishment" of which Hillary Clinton is now the prime representative. Many Sanders voters are primed to favor precisely those appeals. And the more the Sanders campaign goes down the route of insisting that the Democratic establishment rigged the system, the more his voters are going to find Donald Trump's message mighty appealing come fall.