views
commentary
The President Has A Special Obligation
To Condemn Nazis And KKK
A
Alan M.
Dershowitz
ll decent Americans have
an obligation to condemn
the violent bigotry of the
Nazi and KKK demonstrators in
Charlottesville or wherever else
they spew their poisonous and
threatening rhetoric. But President
Donald Trump has a special obliga-
tion to single out for condemna-
tion, and distance himself from,
individuals and groups that claim
— even if falsely — to speak in his
name, as the racist provocateurs in
Charlottesville did.
David Duke, the notorious bigot,
Trump initially responded as fol-
lows: “We must ALL be united and
condemn all that hate stands for.
There is no place for this kind of
violence in America.” But then, fol-
lowing the car ramming that killed a
peaceful protestor, President Trump
made the following statement:
“We condemn in the strongest pos-
sible terms this egregious display
of hatred, bigotry and violence on
many sides — on many sides.”
President Trump’s inclusion of
the words “violence on many sides”
— which seemed improvised — sug-
President Trump must stop being
even-handed in his condemnations
of bigotry.
told reporters that white nation-
alists were working to “fulfil the
promises of Donald Trump.” Richard
Spencer, the founder of the Daily
Stormer (a not so coded homage to
the Nazi publication Der Stürmer,)
attributed the growth of the ultra-
nationalist alt-right to the Trump
presidency: “Obviously the alt-right
has come very far in the past two
years in terms of public exposure …
is Donald Trump one of the major
causes of that? Of course.”
gested to some a moral equivalence
between the Nazis and the KKK, on
the one hand, and those protesting
and resisting them, on the other
hand. Trump denied that he was
suggesting any such equivalence
and made the following statement:
“Racism is evil. And those
who cause violence in its name
are criminals and thugs, includ-
ing KKK, Neo-Nazis, White
Supremacists, and other hate
groups are repugnant to everything
we hold dear as Americans. Those
who spread violence in the name
of bigotry strike at the very core of
America.”
But then a day later he seemed
to double down on his attempt to
be even-handed in his comments
about the “many sides” of this
conflict. He pointed to “very fine
people on both sides,” implying
that Nazis and Klansmen could be
“fine,” because their protests were
“very legal.” Then he denounced
“alt-left” groups that were “very,
very violent.” Once again, he
blamed “both sides,” and asked rhe-
torically, “What about the ‘alt-left’,
that as you say, came charging at
the alt-right? Don’t they have any
semblance of guilt?”
David Duke immediately praised
President Trump’s condemnation of
the “alt-left,” thanking him “for your
honesty & courage to tell the truth
about #Charlottesville & condemn
the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa.”
Finally (though nothing this presi-
dent ever tweets is final), President
Trump praised the anti-racist “pro-
testors in Boston who are speaking
out against bigotry and hate.”
It is against this background that
the president’s back and forth state-
ments must be evaluated.
Even if it were true — and the
evidence is to the contrary — that
Black Lives Matter and Antifa were
as blameworthy for Charlottesville
as the Nazis and KKK, it would still
be incumbent on President Trump
to focus his condemnation especial-
ly on the violent racists on the right
that claim to speak on his behalf.
The hard left — which does, in part,
include some violent and bigoted
elements — does not purport to
speak on the president’s behalf and
does not claim to be trying to “fulfil
the promises of Donald Trump.” To
the contrary, they oppose everything
he stands for.
This situation poses a delicate
dilemma for President Trump. He
has denounced the ideology of the
violent racists on the alt-right who
claim to be acting in his name —
not quickly or forcefully enough.
And he has declared his opposi-
tion to “racism” and specifically to
“those who cause violence in its
name,” whom he has called “crimi-
nals” and “thugs.” He specifically
included within these categories
the “KKK, Neo-Nazis [and] White
Supremacists,” the very groups that
purport to speak in his name.
Why is that not enough? Why
should he not at the same time con-
demn the alt-left for its violence?
These are reasonable questions that
require nuanced answers. Let me try
to provide some.
I have long believed that it is the
special responsibility of decent
conservatives to expose, con-
demn and marginalize hard-right
extremists and bigots. William F.
Buckley showed the way when he
refused to defend Patrick Buchanan
against charges that what he had
said amounted to anti-Semitism.
Other decent conservatives fol-
lowed Buckley’s lead, and marginal-
ized anti-Semites and racists who
expressed bigotry in the false name
of conservatism.
I also believe that it is the special
responsibility of decent liberals to
do the same with regard to hard-
left bigoted extremists. I must
acknowledge, as a liberal, that we
have not done as good a job as
decent conservatives have done.
Perhaps this is because hard-left
extremists often march under ban-
ners of benevolence, whereas, hard-
rights extremists tend not to hide
their malevolence.
Consider, for example, Antifa,
the radical hard-left group, some
of whose members violently con-
fronted the Nazis and Klansmen in
Charlottesville. As reported by the
New York Times, the organization
is comprised of a “diverse collec-
tion of anarchists, communists and
socialists” with its “antecedents in
Germany and Italy.” According to
the Times, “Its adherents express
disdain for mainstream liberal poli-
tics” and support “direct action” by
which they mean “using force and
violence,” rather than free speech
and civil disobedience. Their lead-
ers claim that violence is necessary
because “it’s full on war.”
Nor is this merely rhetoric. On
university campuses, particularly
at Berkeley, “black-clad protestors,
some of whom identified themselves
as Antifa, smashed windows, threw
gasoline bombs and broke into cam-
pus buildings, causing $100,000 in
damage.” They model themselves
continued on page 10
8
August 31 • 2017
jn