Like governments, political movements are instituted to accomplish particular ends. When a movement becomes destructive of the ends themselves, it is appropriate to alter or leave the movement. And if alteration proves impossible or seems likely to require effort better spent directly working for those ends, then exit is the right choice.
In thinking about the possibly politically-fatal association between some principal leaders of the Women's March and Louis Farrakhan, one may ask, what are the ends that the Women's March is trying to achieve that led those of us concerned by the association with Farrakhan to support it in the first place? How does this association affect the possibilities for achieving these ends? And, how does a Women's March with the associations it has with Farrakhan affect other ends of importance to us?
One of the ends may be resisting Trump and achieving political victory over him and his supporters as an imperative step towards protecting those he and they put at risk and as a necessary precondition for political, social, and economic justice in a post-Trump era. I may be wrong, but I think this is this end that provided the impetus for the vast throngs that turned out in January 2017. I suspect further that, for the most part, the Women's March simply provided an opportunity for people, women and men, to demonstrate support for this end. And especially today, after nearly two years of Trump and the results of the recent elections, I doubt the need for the Women's March to accomplish this end. (That a particular vehicle for expressing and mobilizing support for this end may not be necessary does not mean that the vehicle should not exist. But it does provide some perspective on the importance of continuing to support the existence of a flawed vehicle, if one has good reasons to think it flawed.)
To the extent this is so, one is entitled to be concerned that a close association of one or more leaders of the Women's March with Farrakhan, together with a refusal of other leaders to criticize that association, may be a substantial impediment to achieving this end. Indeed, the likelihood of this being so appears to me strong enough to place on those who would defend the association the burden of providing reasons why this association with Farrakhan is not a substantial impediment.,
Another end may be fostering a movement that in its relations with its members/supporters and being in the world prefigures the kind of society in which we want to live and which we hope to achieve despite and after Trump.To the extent this is so, one may ask, is tolerating a leadership that associates itself with a man (Farrakhan) and a movement (the Nation of Islam) that is vociferously and deeply homophobic, transphobic, and antisemitic is consistent with the kind of society and social relations we want?
I'm sure there's more to be said. And I've intentionally not addressed Judith's tenth point: what I have said should be of concern to all supporters of the Women's March, not just Jews.
Like governments, political movements are instituted to accomplish particular ends. When a movement becomes destructive of the ends themselves, it is appropriate to alter or leave the movement. And if alteration proves impossible or seems likely to require effort better spent directly working for those ends, then exit is the right choice.
In thinking about the possibly politically-fatal association between some principal leaders of the Women's March and Louis Farrakhan, one may ask, what are the ends that the Women's March is trying to achieve that led those of us concerned by the association with Farrakhan to support it in the first place? How does this association affect the possibilities for achieving these ends? And, how does a Women's March with the associations it has with Farrakhan affect other ends of importance to us?
One of the ends may be resisting Trump and achieving political victory over him and his supporters as an imperative step towards protecting those he and they put at risk and as a necessary precondition for political, social, and economic justice in a post-Trump era. I may be wrong, but I think this is this end that provided the impetus for the vast throngs that turned out in January 2017. I suspect further that, for the most part, the Women's March simply provided an opportunity for people, women and men, to demonstrate support for this end. And especially today, after nearly two years of Trump and the results of the recent elections, I doubt the need for the Women's March to accomplish this end. (That a particular vehicle for expressing and mobilizing support for this end may not be necessary does not mean that the vehicle should not exist. But it does provide some perspective on the importance of continuing to support the existence of a flawed vehicle, if one has good reasons to think it flawed.)
To the extent this is so, one is entitled to be concerned that a close association of one or more leaders of the Women's March with Farrakhan, together with a refusal of other leaders to criticize that association, may be a substantial impediment to achieving this end. Indeed, the likelihood of this being so appears to me strong enough to place on those who would defend the association the burden of providing reasons why this association with Farrakhan is not a substantial impediment.,
Another end may be fostering a movement that in its relations with its members/supporters and being in the world prefigures the kind of society in which we want to live and which we hope to achieve despite and after Trump.To the extent this is so, one may ask, is tolerating a leadership that associates itself with a man (Farrakhan) and a movement (the Nation of Islam) that is vociferously and deeply homophobic, transphobic, and antisemitic is consistent with the kind of society and social relations we want?
I'm sure there's more to be said. And I've intentionally not addressed Judith's tenth point: what I have said should be of concern to all supporters of the Women's March, not just Jews.