The Bravery of Going Off Script

It’s happening again. People who deviate from the unofficial script written for them by their political side are becoming scapegoats for all that is wrong in America.

It’s nothing new. In 2020 after the death of George Floyd people mobilized against brutality against Black people in a big way. There was solidarity in the fight against something that reasonable people agree is bad: racism. It was exhilarating to witness the way people came together so quickly for what seemed like the greater good.

But many of the people protesting had a fierce need for everyone to recite the same mantras and slogans, to read the same books (“White Fragility,” anyone?), and to commit to the same ideologies—even if they had nothing to do with racism—without question. Once the pandemic started, for example, even an ardent supporter of the BLM movement could not raise the possibility that the COVID virus was developed in a lab without facing complete ostracization and even bullying. If you subscribed to one progressive view, you must faithfully subscribe to all of them or risk being kicked out of the club.

I know how this works because it happened to me. At an implicit bias session for parents at my son’s school, I asked a question about antisemitism that upset some families in the school so much I’m lucky I wasn’t beaten in the schoolyard after dark. But it didn’t deter me. It caused me to dig my heels in deeper and to look for the truth even when it didn’t line up with the liberal and progressive agendas I had previous followed. I no longer accept as truth everything my favorite media outlets tell me. I now believe that viewpoint diversity is just as important as racial and cultural diversity.

It was painful, but it was the wakeup call I needed.

As more people started to reject some of the premises put forward by the left as representative of liberalism, it became more acceptable to question the script we were all supposed to follow. Public intellectuals—many of whom identify as politically liberal—like John McWhorter, Coleman Hughes, and Kmele Foster began to challenge the race narratives hoisted on us by opportunists like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. Anyone with a shred of honesty had to admit, at the very least, that these guys—all of whom are Black—had a point.

Things started to get easier for those of us who suddenly felt politically homeless. Why? Because we had a community.

But now that Trump’s back, it feels like all bets are off. Many people who are otherwise thoughtful have reverted to extreme rhetoric. “If you voted for Trump or if you support anything Trump is doing then unfriend me now,” wrote one friend on Facebook. And he wasn’t the only one. It’s back to all or nothing. Trump is bad, and therefore everything he does is bad—even if it’s good. One dare not suggest that tariffs may ultimately be good for the American economy or that undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes should be deported. Doing so makes you the enemy even if you check all of the other “right” boxes.

Look no further than the way media outlets ignored the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first term for an example of how this broken clock will never be correct once let alone twice. Trump is the lightning rod of our time, and it’s hard to imagine anyone overtaking him for that title.

I don’t agree with all of Trump’s policies. But there are also policies I do support. The previous two lines will likely stir up some anger among some of my friends. I’ll probably lose at least a couple of them for suggesting that I don’t disagree with everything Trump does. And this is one of the greatest tragedies of this political moment: If I identify as politically liberal agreeing with Trump is off limits even if his policies are more in line with the liberalism and concern for working Americans than what we see on the left.

The case of Mahmoud Khalil crystalizes this issue. Even those who recognize the exponential increase in antisemitism—especially on university campuses and within the “pro-Palestine” movement—and denounce it have become hysterical over the question of whether Khalil should be deported for actions that may have violated his visa agreement. If you’re not protesting in support of him, then you are a fascist who does not believe in free speech.

It may turn out that the rights of Khalil, who is represented by 19 high-power attorneys, were violated. It also may turn out that Khalil did in fact act in ways that blatantly support terrorism and should be deported. But because the Trump Administration is responsible for his arrest, we are all expected to speak out on behalf of Khalil’s innocence even though none of us know whether he is innocent or guilty. We are expected to scream and protest the ongoing deportations as a new chapter in the fascist turn of our country even though to date there were more quiet deportations under President Obama than any other administration. But few people got worked up about that. Even President Biden’s track record is not clean when it comes to deportations. Where were the outcries?

We are blinded by our political and ideological allegiances. We have trained ourselves to hate anyone who opposes our political beliefs. We can no longer see the forest for the trees.

We are blinded by our political and ideological allegiances. We have trained ourselves to hate anyone who opposes our political beliefs. We can no longer see the forest for the trees.

Even some of the most intelligent people I know have fallen prey to the power of the binary. But the good news is that more and more voices that complicate this imagined binary are emerging—people who don’t allow us to place them staunchly in one category or another. This is where we can find clarity and truth.

Trans activist Brianna Wu, for example, advocates for trans healthcare, but is also highly critical of many trans activists who “are alienating women and feminists.” She’s drawn important distinctions between biological males who present as women (through clothing, makeup, etc.) and trans people who have had gender reassignment surgery when it comes to who should and should not be allowed in bathrooms and locker rooms. She understands nuance and demands that we see it too. She has fought for representation of women in the gaming industry, but she also says that DEI initiatives have “gone way too far.” She is a staunch progressive but is also a fierce supporter of Israel.

Wu makes a lot of people mad because she can’t be forced into one category. She isn’t reading from the script. And for every person that is angered by her refusal to fall into line, there are two more that find her compelling and invigorating.

Similarly, “MAGA leftist” Batya Ungar-Sargon recently caused heads to explode when she articulated that she hasn’t ceased to be a leftist because she supports Trump. In fact, it’s the “pro-worker, anti-war, socially moderate America First agenda” of the Trump Administration that is more in line with what were historically seen as the goals of the Democrats.

And Palestinian activist Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib has emerged as a compelling voice of clarity when it comes to Israel and Gaza. He has been taken to task by the left for his anti-Hamas and pro-peace stance. He lost multiple family members in IDF strikes in Gaza, but still advocates fiercely for the return of Israeli hostages. He refuses to let the complexities of the situation be suppressed by simple, either-or thinking.

If you’re looking for truth rather than propaganda, then I have some advice for you: Follow the ones who are willing to go off-script, who are willing to criticize their own party, and who will tell the truth no matter the cost.

Monica Osborne is Editor at Large at The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles.