What Can We Learn From the Lipstadt Hearing?

Like many American Jews who are involved in the fight against antisemitism, I greatly admire the tireless work of Deborah Lipstadt in standing up for our community. Whether it be challenging Holocaust deniers in court or standing up to the BDS campaign, Lipstadt has repeatedly shown her dedication to rooting out threats to the Jewish people. This is why I, along with many American Jews, was greatly annoyed at the stalling of her confirmation as the next U.S. Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, entirely the doing of the Republican Party, which argued that Lipstadt needed more “vetting” due to an early 2021 tweet in which she accused Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) of espousing white supremacy and white nationalism. At her much anticipated and much delayed Senate hearing, Lipstadt and Johnson finally sparred face to face, a spectacle that illuminated how the non-Jewish majority of the United States grapples with the subject of Jew-hate, and how much it informs this contemporary crisis. 

After the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, Senator Ron Johnson argued that the “Stop the Steal” participants were citizens “who loved their country, truly respect(ed) law enforcement, and would never do anything to break the law,” but that if the mob had been comprised of Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists, he would not have felt safe being in Washington that day. The statement is absurd on its face, as those involved in the storming of federal buildings proudly brandished confederate flags and Nazi paraphernalia, expressed the desire to hang the Vice President of the United States, and attacked police officers in uniform—in other words, behavior wildly antithetical to patriotism. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the BLM organization and movement to go around, but putting a violent right-wing throng on a pedestal of “legitimate political discourse” while regarding any protest of racism as fundamentally dangerous reeks of bigotry and double standards. In response, Lipstadt wrote: “This is white nationalism/supremacy. Pure and simple.” 

Professor Lipstadt did not mince words in her comment. She apologized to Senator Johnson, a move I felt was unnecessary if she truly believed what she wrote, considering that Johnson’s vote alone or even a handful of Republicans taking his side would not have cost her the confirmation. But more importantly, this apology came after Senator Johnson used the vast majority of his allotted questioning time to complain about how cruel Lipstadt had been to him on Twitter rather than to ask her anything about the rise of antisemitism in the United States. In a tangent with little room for Lipstadt to respond, Johnson moaned: “You don’t know me. You don’t know a lot of the people you have accused online in front of millions of people. You have engaged in malicious poison [and] vile and horrible charges against people including me that you don’t even know.”

Both Democrats and Republicans have proved they view antisemitism only through a prism of their own self-interests—using the Jewish community as a weapon to bludgeon far-right or far-left movements they oppose.

What we can learn from Johnson making Lipstadt’s hearing about nothing but himself is the manner in which the non-Jewish world handles the politics of Jewish security. Specifically, both Democrats and Republicans have proved they view antisemitism only through a prism of their own self-interests—using the Jewish community as a weapon to bludgeon far-right or far-left movements they oppose. Condemnations of antisemitism increasingly come without actual concern for Jewish wellbeing, but rather are used only to frame “the other side” as hateful. 

Senator Johnson proved this by asserting that his feelings and the perception of his character were of far more importance than, let’s say, the 300 percent increase in antisemitic crimes from December of 2021 to January of 2022 in New York City. A man of integrity, certainly a man entrusted with representing a constituency, would have perhaps disagreed with Lipstadt, but would have questioned why his words were deemed to be prejudiced by a woman who has spent decades researching the subject of prejudice. Instead, he grandstanded as someone being against the “malicious poison” of social media, to which he accused Lipstadt of contributing, not taking into consideration that it was his party’s malicious poison that led to the Capitol riot in the first place. To Senator Johnson, and to so many others, our community’s concerns are political opportunities to bash those opposite the ideological spectrum, and Johnson felt paralyzed in the face of an antisemitism envoy who was able to judge his misdeeds as well. Republicans likewise pounced on the opportunity to accuse Lipstadt of being a biased, partisan figure, when any glance at her history of activism strongly proves otherwise. 

Luckily, Johnson’s outburst showed the need for confirming Lipstadt, as she has time and time again proven to be an “equal opportunity foe to antisemitism,” stating during her hearing: “Those people who only see antisemitism … on the other side of the political spectrum are not really interested in fighting antisemitism. They’re weaponizing antisemitism.” It’s not that the Republican Party is lacking an envoy candidate more bullish on anti-Zionism; it’s that they have to reckon with an envoy who is capable of recognizing the bigotry they enable as well. And it’s not that the left is struggling with a candidate who refuses to condemn Q-Anon (although by reading the repugnant outburst from the progressive organization IfNotNow after Lipstadt was nominated by President Biden, one would think so); it’s that that they are forced to reckon with a nominee who is brave enough to challenge their anti-Jewish politics as well.

If the right resents you and the left deplores you, and if you can transcend the psychological need to use the Jews as a way to advance your own politics, you’re certainly qualified for the job. 

When it comes to combatting antisemitism, if the right resents you and the left deplores you, and if you can transcend the psychological need to use the Jews as a way to advance your own politics, you’re certainly qualified for the job.

Blake Flayton is New Media Director and columnist at the Jewish Journal.