The Real Trouble With Jeet

Gaslighting progressives about Tulsi Gabbard

Shortly after Hillary Clinton’s infamous attempt to smear Tulsi Gabbard as a “Russian asset,” a new genre of smear appeared on the left that basically took the form of “That smear that she’s wittingly or unwittingly in league with Russia is baseless, but all the other personal attacks on her by smart, progressive people like me are 100% true.” I first encountered it in the form of an article by journalist Ari Paul that, shockingly, appeared on the site of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, an outlet I have long admired and relied on for its incisive analyses of corporate media bias on issue after issue. Paul wrote what was primarily an in-depth “expose” of Gabbard’s supposed sympathy for allegedly far-right forces in India, liberally citing the favorite smears of Hinduphobes such as the notorious Pieter Friedrich. I wrote a reply to that piece here.

Paul must have been comparing notes with fellow Nation writer Jeet Heer, because at roughly the same time, the latter wrote an article, The Real Trouble With Tulsi, with an astoundingly parallel line of argument. After detailing Clinton’s reiteration of the smears prevalent in corporate media such as the New York Times to the effect that Tulsi was a “favorite of the Russians” who was being “groomed to be a third party candidate,” replacing previous alleged “Russian asset” Jill Stein, and pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided for such claims, Heer himself proceeds to recite a litany of baseless smears, beginning by characterizing her as an “exotic figure in American politics” who grew up “under the sway of…a synthetic new religion with roots in the Hare Krishna movement.” Who the hell describes other human beings as “exotic,” besides casually racist pornography merchants advertising their pics and videos of women of color, or white colonists talking about the natives they encountered when they were “discovering” a new place they wanted to conquer? At best, characterizing someone as “exotic” because she practices a religion that is relatively rarely practiced in North America (but by approximately a billion people worldwide) amounts to unintentional religious bigotry. Though he doesn’t say so explicitly, Heer is clearly implying that Tulsi belongs to a cult, a smear that has frequently been thrown at her.

Heer acknowledges that Gabbard has moved beyond the negative attitudes toward homosexuality that her family and religious background imparted to her in her youth — he’s not one of those critics of Gabbard, after all — but has nothing to say about her current religious views. One would think that if he wanted to provide a fair picture of her religious views and their role in her politics, he could have interviewed her, as journalists are known to do — and talked to her about her actual views, as a recent NPR interviewer refused to do, prompting her to walk out of the interview.

Heer goes on to claim that her “opposition to a particular style of war doesn’t make her anti-war.” Presumably by “particular style of war” he means wars intended to overthrow governments — regime change wars — but Heer glosses over the fact that most US military interventions major enough to be called wars are aimed at overthrowing governments, nor does he mention that Tulsi has also consistently expressed opposition to US-backed coups or attempted coups, dating all the way back to the CIA-backed overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953. Instead, he characterizes her as having an ideology of “hawkish nationalism, with a strong undercurrent of Islamophobia.”

Heer cites an out-of-context quote from her as supposed evidence for this claim: “…when it comes to the war against terrorists, I’m a hawk. When it comes to counterproductive wars of regime change, I’m a dove.” The interview from which the quote came is no longer available; however, when Glenn Greenwald asked her to clarify what she meant by it in an interview (see minutes 27–30), she explained that she meant that the US had not only not done enough to keep people safe from terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS, but had only made them stronger by, for example, literally funneling weapons to them. She went on to explain that one aspect of her “hawkishness” was her introduction of the Stop Arming Terrorists Act, co-sponsored by such notable hawks as Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that allowed the Bush administration to wage war in Afghanistan. What Heer fails to take into account about US foreign policy is that regime change efforts are generally directly at odds with combating terrorism in many cases (e.g., in Syria), because the US uses terrorist groups as proxies for its regime change efforts.

And given that Gabbard has called for deep cuts in military spending in favor of domestic programs, introduced legislation calling for withdrawal of all US forces from Syria, introduced the aforementioned legislation banning military aid of any kind to terrorist groups, expressed opposition to US intervention in Syria ever since she came into Congress in 2013, introduced the No More Presidential Wars Act reiterating the unconstitutionality of acts of war without Congressional approval, spoken out against one after another US-backed coup, and adopted the general position that the US should stop interfering in the affairs of other countries altogether, the claim that she is a “hawk” in any meaningful sense is bizarre.

As for the absurd claim that she is Islamophobic, it is reflective of either journalistic laziness or an extraordinary degree of lack of objectivity — take your pick — on Heer’s part. Gabbard has put forth a very clear message of religious tolerance and support for civil liberties, and has backed that up in her legislative record. Given her obvious opposition to wars in Muslim countries, the fact that she has many Muslim supporters, her being the keynote speaker at the 2017 Muslims for Peace conference, her support for Keith Ellison for DNC chair, her staunch defense of Ilhan Omar in the face of Islamophobic attacks and false accusations of anti-Semitism, and her general message of religious tolerance, all things that Heer could easily have looked up, to claim that she is Islamophobic constitutes journalistic malpractice.

Heer goes on to claim that “Like the reactionary right, she frames the problem of terrorism in religious terms and mocked Barack Obama for his refusal to say ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’” Ironically, in the very same link that Heer provides (also provided here), Gabbard directly contradicts his contention that she is aping the reactionary right in tarring all Muslims with the same brush:

I understand and appreciate the president’s concern which is he doesn’t want all Muslims to be cast with the same targeting or the same look as this handful of radical jihadists, and I agree with that. No one wants that to happen, but that’s why I think it is important that we make the distinction between the vast majority of Muslims who are practicing their spiritual path, who appreciate and support a pluralistic society and government that’s free, versus the small handful of people who like ISIS and al-Qaeda, who believe that unless you abide by their caliphate and their theocracy, you should be killed. And obviously that’s something we need to be able to identify in order to defeat this threat.

Note the complete absence of any mockery in what Gabbard said. She was making a serious point that the specific terrorist groups Obama and she were referring to are, indeed, intolerant religious extremists. What she was responding to was Obama’s claim that ISIS and other Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups operating in Syria were either “criminal groups” motivated by material aspirations or “moderate rebels.” Gabbard disputed these contentions, pointing out that the motivation of those joining ISIS was instead the radical Islamic ideology of Wahhabism. It is hardly only the radical right that has made this claim; it is the generally accepted view of the nature of ISIS, al Qaeda, and similar groups, expressed in mainstream publications such as The Atlantic as well as by non-fundamentalist Muslims themselves, including the founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, Ani Zonneveld, that these groups are radical Islamic terrorist groups and should be called what they are. Irrespective of her insistence that radical Islamic terrorists be portrayed accurately, Gabbard hardly frames the problem of terrorism exclusively in religious terms (or ignores terrorism committed by non-Muslim groups). As previously noted, the US has directly and indirectly funded many of these terrorist groups, using them as proxies in its regime change wars — the very same thing that Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s by illegally funding terrorists trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, as Tulsi points out. Obviously, a major part of the strategy for combating radical Islamic terrorism needs to be ceasing such practices, as she has repeatedly called for.

Given that I have devoted several hundred words to refuting this claim of Heer’s, readers may have the impression that he provided arguments or evidence to support it. However, that is not the case; rather, it begins a rapid-fire succession of unsubstantiated smears: “She opposed the Iran nuclear deal. She’s worked to limit the number of Muslim refugees America takes in. She’s also celebrated authoritarian leaders who have cracked down on political Islam…These are all positions that bring her in alignment with the Trumpian right...” And following up on the last claim, Heer brings up that Gabbard met with Trump (but doesn’t mention the purpose of the meeting), repeats a rumor that she was offered a job in his administration, and mentions that former Trump advisor Steve Bannon praised her. Let’s take these attacks one by one.

First, was it before or after she voted for it that Heer thinks she opposed the Iran nuclear deal? Gabbard expressed concerns about the agreement, but nonetheless supported it, and condemned Donald Trump for pulling out of it.

The claim that Gabbard has “worked to limit the number of Muslim refugees America takes in” is just an out and out fabrication. Tulsi voted for the SAFE Act, which was a bill that called for stricter vetting of refugees from Iraq and Syria in light of ISIS terrorist attacks that had occurred recently at the time. Of course, it is certainly reasonable to criticize her vote and her reasoning for it, but voting for the SAFE Act is hardly the same thing as attempting to limit the number of Muslim refugees coming to the US, and in fact her reason for voting for it was precisely to make it less likely that restrictions on Muslim immigrants would be put in place in the future by making it less likely that a would-be terrorist would slip through immigration due to an inadequate background check. In fact, she has actively advocated on behalf of Muslim and other refugees throughout her seven years in Congress, including calling for increased funding for refugee assistance and resettlement, and being an outspoken opponent of efforts by Donald Trump to limit the number of Muslim refugees, stating that:

We should not be putting in place a blanket ban of refugees, especially when we have actively been fueling the counterproductive regime change wars that have caused them to flee their homes in the first place. These people would much rather stay in their homes and live in peace. That’s why we must address the cause of this refugee crisis and end the destructive U.S. policy of counterproductive regime-change wars, as we’ve seen most recently in Iraq, Libya, and now in Syria.

The last part of Heer’s article, where he claims that Gabbard has “celebrated authoritarian leaders who have cracked down on political Islam,” mentions the meeting with Trump, repeats an unsubstantiated rumor that the Trump administration offered her a job, describes Breitbart founder Steve Bannon’s praise of her, and makes the overall allegation that her supposed positions on the various issues he’s mentioned “bring her in alignment with the Trumpian right…” amounts to an evidence-free guilt by association attack. Heer implies, without saying so directly, that if Gabbard meets with any individuals considered right-wing, commends their efforts to combat radical Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS (a rather different thing from “celebrating” them), is alleged to have been offered a job by a right-wing Presidential administration, or is praised by a right-winger for any reason, that must mean that she herself is right-wing.

If Heer had, through intrepid investigative reporting, managed to uncover evidence of Tulsi’s right-wing character in terms of her public statements and policy record, one would of course expect to see that evidence presented in his article. And yet, Heer manages to write a 1200 word article with barely any mention of any specific rhetoric or policies. There’s the out-of-context “hawk on terrorism” quote, the false claims that she opposed the Iran nuclear deal and “worked to limit the number of Muslim refugees America takes in,” and that’s it! All in all, much as he tries to distance himself from the attacks on her by more mainstream/centrist sources such as the New York Times, or from Hillary Clinton’s bizarre smear, the article seems to be simply another attempt to otherize Tulsi, particularly in the eyes of the liberal or leftist readers of The Nation, so that they will be dismissive of or even frightened by her — which, as a recent Saturday Night Live skit suggested, the political establishment in this country probably is.

In a recent appearance on The View, Tulsi told Joy Behar (at 2:10 in the linked clip) that “You and other people continue to spread these innuendos that have nothing to do with who I am.” I’m sure she would tell Jeet Heer the exact same thing. There’s no “there” there in this article; all there is is a bunch of either false or unproven allegations that amount to implying “Tulsi is weird and right-wing. Tulsi is not one of us upstanding progressive Americans. Do not trust this strange woman.”

Since Jeet Heer does such an abysmally poor job of telling us who Tulsi Gabbard is, I’ll let her speak for herself on that matter: “I am a patriot. I love our country. I am a strong and intelligent woman of color and I have dedicated almost my entire adult life to protecting the safety, the security, and the freedom of all Americans in this country…Hillary Clinton, throughout her career, has led with a foreign policy of interventionism and being the world’s police — going and toppling dictators in other countries that has caused such destruction and loss of life. I am against that. I am running for president to change that. Rather than actually debate me on the issues, she and others are resorting to these smear-tactic campaigns seeking to undermine me, smear my character, and sending a message to anyone who dissents to toe the line or you too will be smeared.” — from the aforementioned interview on The View

So, what of those issues that Heer studiously ignores? Where does Tulsi stand? Even a cursory examination of her issue positions and voting record reveals the colossal dishonesty of Heer’s innuendos. As discussed above, in terms of foreign policy, she has called for deep cuts in military spending in favor of domestic programs, introduced legislation calling for withdrawal of all US forces from Syria and calling out the illegality of their presence there, introduced legislation (the Stop Arming Terrorists Act) banning military aid of any kind to terrorist groups, expressed opposition to US intervention in Syria for years, introduced the No More Presidential Wars Act reiterating the unconstitutionality of acts of war without Congressional approval, consistently spoken out against US-backed coups, and argued that the US should stop interfering in the affairs of other countries altogether. She has also repeatedly called out the ulterior motives of US interventions — for instance, the fact that Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves, which US corporations and Venezuelan oligarchs seek to control.

Tulsi is a staunch defender of civil liberties and freedom of the press. She was the only member of Congress to speak out against Julian Assange’s arrest the day that it happened, and the only Presidential candidate who has said that she would exonerate and pardon Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and Eric Snowden. She introduced a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which (until it was repealed in 1987) required news outlets with broadcast licenses to allow for discussion of opposing views on important public issues. She has opposed legislation allowing for warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans, and supported legislation banning it. She has introduced bills calling for the legalization of marijuana, and been an outspoken opponent of the “War On Drugs.” She has introduced legislation calling for enhanced election security by requiring voter-verified (and auditable) paper ballots in US elections, and supports ranked choice voting. She has a 100% rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood, as well as a 100% rating on GLBT rights issues from the Human Rights Campaign.

On economic issues, Gabbard, along with other Democratic leaders, introduced legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour; supported Wall Street reform such as reintroducing the Glass-Steagall Act and co-sponsoring legislation to hold banking executives accountable for corruption and fraud; and supports Medicare For All and free college.

Tulsi is a lifelong environmentalist whose early political activism and legislative activity in Hawaii were centered around environmental issues. She is the only Presidential candidate and the only member of Congress at the time to have protested at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline. She has been an outspoken critic of government inaction on the contamination of the water supply in communities such as Flint, Michigan. And she is the only member of Congress to have introduced a comprehensive climate change bill (the Green New Deal is only a resolution), the Off Fossil Fuels Act.

There are certainly issues that people might legitimately disagree with Tulsi about, and I have discussed areas where I personally disagree with her elsewhere. And major social reforms, let alone true grassroots democracy (i.e., genuine socialism, which neither she nor Bernie Sanders advocates), will not be achieved through the route of merely getting Democratic politicians, however progressive, elected to office. But she is calling out the political establishment in ways that no Democratic politician has done in decades. She genuinely embodies the spirit of aloha of which she so often speaks, and she has more courage, integrity, and basic decency than any Democratic Party politician in many, many years. “Progressives” like Heer do a huge disservice to movements for peace, justice, and environmental sanity by spewing fact-free innuendos that have nothing to do with who she is.

I’m a social psychologist, copy editor (www.oceaneditors.com), writer, and longtime activist on a plethora of social justice issues. If you like what you’re reading here, please consider supporting my work on Patreon so that I can do more of this. Even $1 will help!