Rep. Ilhan Omar is demanding that Congress censure a colleague over offensive remarks. That’s a real demand happening right now, and reporters write about her demands without peppering their prose with incredulous exclamation marks.
House progressives, in fact, are reportedly planning to introduce a resolution that would strip Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., of committee assignments over her stupid and bigoted joke about Omar.
“I have had a conversation with the speaker, and I’m very confident that she will take decisive action next week,” Omar, D-Minn., had the temerity to tell CNN’s Jake Tapper on Dec. 5.
The same congresswoman, who claimed criticism about her smear that Jews were brainwashing the world was “all about the Benjamins,” says it’s “important for us to say this kind of language, this kind of hate cannot be condoned by the House of Representatives, and we should punish and sanction Boebert by stripping her of her committees, by rebuking her language, by doing everything that we can to send a clear and decisive message to the American public that if the Republicans are not going to be adults and condemn this, that we are going to do that.”
First of all, Democrats have already created a new norm, stripping Reps. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and the Rothschild-laser-curious Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., of committee seats. They probably deserved that. And if Republicans have any spine, they will, perhaps as early as 2022, begin throwing Jew-baiting progressives and conspiracy theorists such as Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., off their perches, as well.
Democrats struggle to comprehend that they won’t be in perpetual power. “Inaction is to be complicit in Islamaphobia,” adds Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., herself a font of ugly racial identity-obsessed notions. If so, is the House of Representatives complicit in antisemitism when it fails to censure a member who tells us she gets a “calming feeling” when thinking about the Holocaust’s aftermath?
Are Democrats complicit when they fail to condemn a colleague who says the people “behind the curtain” who want to stop a “free Palestine” are the “same people” who exploit “regular Americans” for “their profit”? Jews, after all, are the most targeted religious group in hate crimes, and it’s not even a close contest.
You may recall a few years back when the Democratic Party backed out of censuring Omar for her numerous repulsive comments because of “fierce backlash” from the Congressional Black Caucus (a group whose members have held strategy sessions and meetings with Louis Farrakhan, because the normalization of certain kinds of hatreds is nothing new on the left).
Censures and resolutions are almost always useless exercises in political theater. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi showed a special kind of creativity when she decided to reprimand Omar with a watered-down, platitudinous “anti-hate” resolution, which mentions Alfred Dreyfus, Leo Frank, Henry Ford, and “anti-Muslim bigotry,” but not Omar.
Parties are reluctant to censure their own members, no matter how odious the words, as that sort of thing telegraphs weakness and upsets the base—and the opposition likes to exaggerate the influence of backbenchers.
Take The Washington Post’s partisan pseudojournalist Greg Sargent, who absurdly argues that Boebert, et al., portend emerging Republican attitudes. Certainly, the faction is not irrelevant, but it’s wishful thinking to say that they will “continue gaining adherents and intensity.” Not a single one of these Republicans is driving any serious policy initiatives.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy certainly isn’t posing with Greene and Boebert on the cover of Rolling Stone in its “Women Shaping the Future” issue.
The “squad,” which is surely “gaining adherents and intensity” as moderate Democrats shed seats due to the party’s progressive turn, already has outsized power. It can stop bills right now. A few months ago, it nearly sunk funding for Israel’s defensive Iron Dome system, perhaps the only spending that squad members passionately oppose. (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was in tears because she had abstained from cutting off spending on a system that saves thousands of lives.)
The Biden administration already uses Ocasio-Cortez’s branding for its climate change agenda, and virtually every Democrat defends the administration’s every move. These are consequential politicians treated with reverence by the press.
That said, the cynical effort to focus on the most absurd members of the opposition party is nothing new—especially as a means of deflecting attention away from your own problems. But when your champion is one of the most repugnant voices in Washington, the effort is transparently preposterous.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CREATORS.COM
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.
