(Photo: John Taggart, epa)
If you're going to protest a
new president famously accused of being a tool of Russian strongman
Vladimir Putin, common sense would suggest avoiding high-profile speakers who
were proud tools of Putin's former employer, the Soviet Union. But common
sense is often in short supply in our public life.
The Women’s March on
Washington, the massive protest against Donald Trump Saturday, has been
dogged by accusations of not being inclusive enough — toward men,
pro-life
women and even white feminists who feel
they are being treated as oppressors by minority activists. The newly released list
of speakers raises even more questions about whom and what the march
represents. The entire roster skews far left, from feminist doyenne Gloria
Steinem to filmmaker Michael Moore — with no room for anti-Trump Republicans
such as GOP activists Ana Navarro and Amanda Carpenter. And then there’s Angela
Davis, a star speaker and honorary co-chair of the event. An activist and
scholar, Davis is also a Communist Party veteran with a long record of
support for political violence in the United States and the worst of human
rights abusers abroad.
The Washington Post article
on the Women’s March speakers identified Davis as a “civil rights era icon.” In
fact, while Davis participated in civil rights activism as a teenager in her
native Birmingham, Alabama, she spent the peak years of the movement studying
philosophy in Europe; she did not become an icon until 1970, as a famous
fugitive accused of aiding a courthouse escape attempt in which a judge was shot
dead and a juror and a prosecutor were wounded. Davis, by then a University of
California professor, a Black Panther militant, and a hardcore
Marxist-Leninist, was eventually acquitted
by a handpicked politically sympathetic jury despite evidence that the weapons
used in the incident were registered
in her name. In subsequent years, she was an active supporter of the radical
Jonestown commune in Guyana, which ended in murder and mass suicide.
But whatever one thinks of
Davis’s domestic militancy, her true claim to infamy is her career as an
apologist for repressive communist regimes. During her 18 months in jail, Davis
became a heroine across the Soviet bloc; for communist states frequently
criticized for imprisoning dissidents, a perceived “political prisoner” in the
United States was a godsend. After her release, Davis was feted in East Germany
(a 1972 photo shows her shaking hands with then-General Secretary Erich
Honecker, whose orders
to shoot people trying to escape the socialist paradise by crossing the border
into West Germany resulted in over 1,000 deaths), in Cuba, and in the Soviet
Union, where she was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in 1979, just months
before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
It takes some cheek to mount a
protest against Trump with a speaker who was twice honored by Leonid Brezhnev's
Soviet Union.
In July 1972, Czech journalist
and activist Jiri Pelikan, a prominent figure in the reformist “Prague Spring”
who was forced to emigrate after the 1968 Soviet invasion, wrote the recently
freed Davis an open letter
expressing sympathy with her experience and urging her to speak out against
human rights violations in Communist countries. Most of his appeal focused on
the brutal treatment of Czech dissidents—many of them, like Pelikan himself,
idealistic Communists who thought Communism could be humanized into democratic
socialism. Davis did not respond; however, her friend Charlene Mitchell told The Guardian that Davis “did not think
people should leave socialist countries to return to the capitalist system” and
that “even if such people said they were communists they were still acting in
opposition to the ‘socialist system,’ objectively speaking.” Mitchell also
said, professing to speak on Davis’s behalf, that people in Eastern Europe were
only jailed “if they were undermining the government.”
Later, Davis remained a leader
in the slavishly pro-Soviet Communist Party USA; in the 1980 and 1984
elections, she was the Party’s vice-presidential candidate. She did not leave
the organization until 1991, when the Soviet Union was relegated — as those elections’
winner, Ronald Reagan, had predicted — to the ash heap of history.
Davis’s Communist past only
undermines the message of the women's march.
The opposition to Trump accuses
him of being a would-be dictator who seeks to impose an authoritarian order and
trample human rights. While these claims may be exaggerated, there is a good
case to be made that the incoming President has a strong authoritarian
streak. Vigilant opposition is certainly needed. Yet Davis has amply and
repeatedly demonstrated her hypocrisy on the subject of dictatorship and human
rights.
What's more, the rhetoric of
the anti-Trump “resistance” often portrays him as being in cahoots with
Vladimir Putin, or even as a Kremlin puppet. Yet the same resistance is
honoring a woman who ran for political office in the United States on the
ticket of a party that was quite literally a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Kremlin. Such hypocrisy lends credence to gibes by Trump supporters, such as
Ann Coulter, that liberals and progressives had no problem with Russia when it
was the Soviet Union but are now being hawkish against post-Communist Russia.
Trump has often been assailed
for drawing support from extremists including white nationalists and neo-Nazis
and not doing enough to repudiate them. Yet the opposition clearly has its own
extremism problem, openly welcoming a person with an unmistakable history of
reprehensible views. When an anti-abortion feminist group is beyond the
pale but a longtime apologist for the crimes of Communism is not, the
resistance can hardly lay a claim to the moral high ground — or appeal to the
bulk of Americans who consider themselves moderates.
Cathy Young is a columnist
at Newsday and RealClearPolitics.com and a Contributing Editor
at Reason. Follow her
on Twitter @CathyYoung63.
You can read diverse
opinions from our Board of Contributors and other
writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and
in our daily Opinion newsletter.
No comments:
Post a Comment