July 9, 2021

“Why do we hurt the people we love?”

It’s an age-old question one might ask of today’s progressive movement. Progressives are committed to helping women and children, racial minorities, the poor and the endangered. Yet in many instances the policies for which many progressives fight are fundamentally inconsistent with the goals of the movement.

Progressives see themselves as champions for the rights of women, yet many deny the existence of biological sex, demanding that transgender women be treated as biological women, whether in sports, the choice of public restrooms, or even in prisons. In California—and nationwide if Congress passes the Equality Act—biologically male prisoners can transfer into women’s prisons based on “individual preference,” without regard to hormones, surgery, or time spent living as the opposite gender. One can imagine the potential danger to which biological women might be exposed if forced to share a cell, or just to be in enclosed spaces, with a transgender woman.

While transgender women using a women’s restroom may not be as potentially dangerous as the forcing together of biological women with transgender women in prisons, many women are uncomfortable with the idea that they may be sharing the intimate space of a restroom with a biological male they do not know. Many progressives even oppose notifying women that biological males may be using women’s restrooms. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Tennessee law that requires businesses and government facilities to post signs if they permit transgender people to use public restrooms of their choice.

Progressives have been known for their work on behalf of the rights of children. One would expect that preventing children from making irreversible surgical and medical changes to their body when they are not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to make these decisions would be at the forefront of their activism. Progressives, after all, recognize that teenagers are often mentally and emotionally immature—indeed, they insist that individuals under age 21 who commit crimes should be tried as minors because they are not mature enough to be held responsible for their actions–while still arguing that teenagers should be permitted to make permanent changes to their bodies.

One would expect that preventing children from making irreversible surgical and medical changes to their body when they are not emotionally or psychologically mature enough to make these decisions would be at the forefront of their activism.

In her controversial book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” Abigail Shrier suggests that in many cases young girls are not seeking surgical gender reassignment due to transgenderism or gender dysphoria, but as a result of other mental conditions or simply because of the allure of the social capital that comes with being transgender in a society that values marginalized positions. Shrier does not argue that surgical gender reassignment procedures should be off limits, but rather that children should not be able to make these decisions before they reach an age at which they are more psychologically mature. Many progressives, on the other hand, demonize perspectives like Shrier’s—perspectives that, ironically, protect children—in favor of positing that children have the right to modify their bodies in irreversible ways.

Schools are another battleground where progressive politics have an immense impact. Progressives want to improve educational outcomes for minority and low-income students, yet many oppose charter schools even when those schools provide education superior to public schools, and even when they serve primarily minority and low-income students, as in Newark, New Jersey, where 80% of the 20,000 students in charter schools are black and 16% are Hispanic, and 8,000 students are on charter waiting lists.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, where tens of thousands of students have been on waiting lists for charter schools, progressives criticized charter schools because only 72% of students in those schools are living in poverty, while the percentage was 16% higher in non-charter schools. They also argue that charter schools take funding from public schools, although studies differ on this, with some indicating that in most states an increase in the percentage of students attending independent charter schools was associated with a significant increase in their host districts’ total revenue per pupil, total spending per pupil, local revenue per pupil, and per-pupil spending on support services.

While expressing concern for the safety of minorities, progressives argue that police funding should be reduced (initial rhetoric used the term “defunding,” but this proved to be a highly unpopular way to frame the argument) because of police misconduct toward people and communities of color. Yet a 2019 Vox poll found that despite being the racial group with the most unfavorable view of the police, most people in the Black community nevertheless support hiring more police officers. A June 2020 survey, taken after the killing of George Floyd, found that 50 percent of Black respondents still said that more police officers were needed on the street. This is hardly surprising, since according to a National Neighborhood Crime Study, predominantly Black neighborhoods average five times as many violent crimes, and Latino neighborhoods average about two and a half times as many violent crimes, as predominantly white neighborhoods.

In addition to hardline stances on domestic culture war issues that are contrary to their general philosophy, many who call themselves progressives have an increasingly problematic view of Israel. Although President Biden states, “I think that my party still supports Israel,” high-profile progressives such as New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders have harshly criticized Israel in connection with the recent Gaza war, frequently noting the disparity in casualties, calling Israel an “apartheid state,” and questioning the $4 billion in aid the U.S. gives Israel as well as a recent $735 million arms sale. As noted by Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser in the Obama administration, “There was never this kind of pressure vocally from the left on issues related to Israel.” Never mind that Israel’s enemies are hardly models of democracy, respectful of their citizens’ freedoms or even their lives, or that less aid or reduced arm sales could render Israel—which President Biden says his party supports—less able to defend itself.

In addition to hardline stances on domestic culture war issues that are contrary to their general philosophy, many who call themselves progressives have an increasingly problematic view of Israel.

So why do progressives, while professing support of women, children, minorities, and even Israel, often favor policies that are inimical to the very people they seek to help?

Perhaps the progressive focus on the concept of equality, which has recently been replaced with “equity,” provides an explanation. Equity has less to do with ensuring that all people start from a place of equal opportunities and resources than it does with ensuring that all people end up at the same place regardless of personal choices. In other words, if some children get a better education than others; or if transgender women are not treated in the same way as biological women; or if police treat minority communities differently than middle-class white communities; or if children do not have full control over their bodies; or if Israel has overwhelming fire power when compared to its adversaries, the answer is policies that lessen the disparity without regard to the broader consequences of those policies.

Are educational opportunities unequal? Limit better opportunities. Does inequality between adults and children exist when it comes to control of one’s body? Emphasize freedom of choice even for children whose choices may later be regretted. Are transgender people treated differently from those whose genders align with their biological sex? Treat the two groups exactly the same, pretending that differences do not exist. Do police focus inordinately on minority communities? Reduce the number of police. Is the power struggle between Israel and Hamas characterized by inequality? Support policies that disadvantage Israel.

The quest for equality is at the core of progressive ideology. It may sound like a noble pursuit, but ideological purity often results in policies that damage real human beings, and even the people we love.

Gregory R. Smith is an appellate attorney and occasional contributor to the Jewish Journal.  He is of counsel to the Los Angeles firm of Lowenstein & Weatherwax.

Lately, as I’ve been reading about newer members of Congress who clearly have a problem with Jews, I’ve found myself repeatedly asking, “Where’s my blood pressure medicine?” The only problem? I don’t have high blood pressure.

But there was something about watching Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper last week, in which she suggested that Jews aren’t “partners in justice,” or her recent accusation that the United States, Israel, Hamas and the Taliban are basically the same entity, that really triggered me.

There was also Omar’s recent condemnation of the Biden administration’s air strikes against Iranian-backed militias near the Iraq-Syria border. The congresswoman criticized U.S. policy that targets terrorists who pose direct risks to American personnel and facilities abroad. Seven of them were killed by American airstrikes last week. Omar condemned the “cycle of violence and retribution.”

Yes, she sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. And I’m starting to think that her pursuit of justice is only reserved for undermining Israel; in 2019, she didn’t even vote “yes” on a House resolution recognizing the 1915 Armenian genocide, in which Ottoman Turkey killed 1.5 million Armenians. How did Omar vote? “Present.”

Suffice it to say, the past few weeks have forced me to contemplate whether I should at least have a sphygmomanometer in the house.

I was raised to be diplomatic, but in this case, I’ll be blunt: I can’t take Omar anymore.

And that has made me ponder something very sad, but probably true: If she and other members of “The Squad,” including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) were in direct control of allowing persecuted Jews into the United States as refugees today, perhaps few of us would be given refuge.

Yes, I realize that the previous administration’s policies against refugees entering the U.S., as part of former President Donald Trump’s “Muslim ban,” was abysmal. And yes, I know that I’m only speculating about a few, fringe congressional leaders while the last administration actually blocked refugee resettlement on levels previously unseen in this country.

But it just so happens that I know a thing or two about Jewish refugees. In 1989, my family and I entered this country through the invaluable efforts of HIAS, an organization that provides humanitarian aid and assistance to refugees, as protected Jewish refugees from Iran.

I can’t help but compare “The Squad” to American leaders in the 1970s and 1980s, including Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who sponsored the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, and Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), whose 1989 landmark legislation, eponymously known as the Lautenberg Amendment, allowed between 350,000-400,000 Jews and other religious minorities from the former Soviet Union to resettle safely in the U.S. as refugees. In 2004, the amendment was extended to Jews, Christians, Baha’is, and other religious minorities who sought to flee Iran.

In the 1970s, the Jackson-Vanik amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-WA) and Rep. Charles Vanik (D-OH), enacted changes to the Trade Act of 1974 and effectively restricted American trade with Communist-bloc countries that blocked Jewish emigration and denied Jews other human rights. American trade became tied with the human rights of Jews. Imagine that?

Thankfully, Omar, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley aren’t senators. But think about it: Given their deeply disturbing (and unabashedly public) views on Jews, why would they allow people whom they believe to be apartheid-practicing, money-controlling, minority-crushing, privileged oppressors into this country? (Although, frankly, it pains me to admit that I also question how much these lawmakers even like America, which they view as a bastion of racism).

In May, amid the fighting between Israel and Hamas, these American leaders were accused of proliferating messages that incited violence against Jews, whether Jews who were beaten in the streets in Los Angeles, New York, or, in the case of a horrifying incident last week involving a rabbi, stabbed outside of his home in Boston. What would make anyone think that if the leaders of “The Squad” had enough power, they wouldn’t subtly do things to keep “too many” Jews from entering the U.S.?

It’s a bold question, but it’s one worth asking. My childhood in post-revolutionary Iran taught me to take the words of leaders at nothing less than face value. No rationalizations.

My childhood in post-revolutionary Iran taught me to take the words of leaders at nothing less than face value. No rationalizations.

Ironically, watching American Jewish political behavior taught me to what lengths Jews in this country will go to rationalize and excuse antisemitism from their own beloved political parties.

For the record, I’m not imagining unlikely scenarios about desperate Jews in need of refuge. The era of Jews of fleeing oppressive countries is far from over. In fact, as long as there are Jews and oppressive regimes around the world, it will never be over. Think Venezuela. Or Iran. Or Libya. Actually, there isn’t a single Jew in Libya today. Not one, from the nearly 40,000 Jews who were still there in 1948.

There are, however, still up to 8,000 Jews in Iran, the largest population of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel. What will happen if the regime, in a final, desperate act of scapegoating to maintain power, targets them?

Or what about the Jews of France, who, at nearly 500,000 people, constitute the biggest Jewish population in Europe? In the last two decades, tens of thousands of Jews have already left France for the safety of Israel or the U.S. Perhaps you’ll think me glib, but what will happen if France becomes like Iran or the former USSR of the late 1970s and 1980s, not in terms of becoming a dictatorship, but in terms of devolving into a place from where Jews desperately need to flee persecution?

While “The Squad” doesn’t have enough power to keep Jews out of America, I wouldn’t be surprised if, should there be a large resettlement of Jews in this country in the next few years, these controversial leaders would condemn this policy, citing concerns about justice, favoritism, and privilege. Let’s just say that if someone had seen my family and I as we awaited American asylum in a resettlement town in Italy, the last word that would have described us would have been “privileged.”

Let’s face it: If Rep. Omar can’t even condemn the stabbing of an American rabbi in 2021 (was Twitter down for a whole week?), I’m not exactly convinced that she will welcome Jewish refugees from Iran at Dulles Airport, while waving a little American flag.

Maybe some will accuse me of criticizing these leaders because they label themselves as staunch progressives. It has nothing to do with that.

But I also don’t believe in being selectively progressive. Using language that dehumanizes Jews and incites attacks against them on American streets isn’t progressive; believing that Jews have too much money and power isn’t progressive (it’s actually as old-fashioned as you can get); and not offering one word of condemnation or sympathy when a Jew is stabbed outside his home isn’t exactly progressive, either.

While it’s true that people can change—and their ideas and behaviors can evolve—sometimes, if fed enough misinformation against Jews, and if supported by enough radicals (including financial support), some leaders can actually go in the other direction. Case in point: It was then-President Jimmy Carter who signed the 1980 Refugee Act into law, which enabled tens of thousands of Jews, including my family, to come to this country. But given his decades of dangerous Israel-bashing and cozying up to some of the world’s biggest antisemites, look how he turned out.

Tabby Refael is a Los Angeles-based writer, speaker and civic action activist. Follow her on Twitter @RefaelTabby