In Defense Of Jackson

To the Editors of The Crimson:

In recent weeks we have noted with varying degrees of bemusement, disgust and indignation the continued attacks against the Reverend Jesse Jackson and his presidential campaign. However, the inane babbling of self-styled political and moral analyst Michael W. Hirschorn has reached levels of racism and hypocrisy that we can no longer tolerate.

Since Reverend Jackson apologized for the "hymie" remarks long ago, the incident should, at this point, be a dead issue. That Hirschorn and others seem determined to beat to death the relatively insignificant "hymie controversy" is ample evidence of their own "hypocrisy" and "racial demagoguery." We are amazed that Ronald Reagan's terrorism against Third World peoples and Walter Mondale's high position in a corporation that invests in the oppressive South African regime have failed to disturb Hirschorn as much as Reverend Jackson's remarks have. At worst, Reverend Jackson's words lead to hurt feelings, while the actions of Reagan and Mondale lead to genocide.

The claim that an allegedly "abysmal record" on "Black-Jewish relations" nullifies the many laudable aspects of the Jackson campaign is both ludicrous and arrogant. First, the existence of genuine "Black-Jewish relations" which Reverend Jackson could have damaged is simply an illusion from which we urge Hirschorn to free himself. Furthermore, there can be no basis for any such relations as long as American Jews either defend, or silently condone. Israel's role in buttressing the racist South African regime (See Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle) Secondly, the recent tensions between Reverend Jackson and American Jews are of little importance to his campaign. We challenge Hirschorn to deny that Reverend Jackson's attempts to talk to the PLO and his advocation of a Palestinian homeland had made a target for the animosity of most American Jews long before the 1984 presidential campaign. Moreover, despite Hirschorn's presumptuous opinions, the American Jewish community is not, and never will be, so all-important that bad relations with it can nullify the positive aspects of a political campaign or any other endeavor.

Like many white Americans, Hirschorn seems highly disturbed by the remarks of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and accuses him, ironically, of "racial demagoguery." Given the history of Blacks in this country, we find it mind-boggling that this term is used to describe a man who merely gave white Americans a long overdue warning that Blacks will no longer stand by and allow them to kill our leaders. Indeed, Hirschorn and others who take exception to such a justified position are the true demagogues.

The continued uproar over Minister Farrakhan's response to Milton Coleman's action has consistently remained afactual; Hirschorn's tirade, unfortunately, is no exception. First, Milton Coleman admits to violating a confidence with Reverend Jackson--a confidence of the type that is common between reporters and political figures. His only defense--which shows that he knew he did something wrong--was that Jackson had allegedly made this remark among other Black reporters. However, on ABC's Nightline, one Black reporter, Kenneth Walker of ABC News, said that this "simply is not true."

Perhaps the most deplorable aspect of Coleman's action was his utter insensitivity to the fact that breaking this confidence helped to accentuate the climate of danger that already surrounded Reverend Jackson. Somehow Hirschorn and others consistently overlook this, while condemning the one alleged threat against Coleman's life, they remain silent about the more than one hundred death threats against Reverend Jackson (far greater than the number received by any other candidate), or the bombing of his headquarters in Anaheim, California by two whites. We, like Minister Farrakhan, feel that Coleman or anyone who would so carelessly enhance such a climate of danger for a Black leader should be ostracized from the Black community. Furthermore, we condemn as racist any whites who would dare judge the decisions of Blacks regarding the inclusion or ostracism of anyone from our community.

We are also compelled to address Hirschorn's assertion that Reverend Jackson has created an "almost absolute schism" between Black and white voters. Rather, we must address the simple, yet virulent racism that is the impetus behind this and other such grotesque examples of non-analysis.

Only an arrogance stemming from the most vulgar strain of racism could allow Hirschorn to suggest that Reverend Jackson's candidacy has split Blacks and whites in this country. In reality, there has been such a schism, created, nurtured and refined by whites since the first slave ship reached these shores in 1619. What Reverend Jackson's candidacy has done is recognize this schism and provide an opportunity for Black voters to participate in, and, by so doing, transform, a political system which has this schism as a fundamental part of its foundation, and which, therefore, is itself morally bankrupt.

As the product of a racist self-styled analyst, Hirschorn's tirade can be classified as an attempt to refine that schism. By tying worthless praise of Reverend Jackson's to the contingency that he support the Democratic nominee, and by suggesting that the destruction of the two-primary system in the South will hurt Black voters by leading to the election of Southern Republicans, he glosses over the fact that historically, Southern Democrats have been the most overtly racist members of the U.S power elite. Ultimately, it makes no real difference to the plight of Blacks in Mississippi if democrat John Stennis remains their senator of if some right-wing Republican oust him. Indeed, they might well be better off with the Republican. But by simplistically linking Blacks to a Democratic Party that has never adequately addressed their concerns, Hirschorn makes evident a political naivete and an utter ignorance of U.S. history that stems from an ugly and fundamental racism which debilitates his analytical skills.

In addition, Hirschorn argues that Reverend Jackson's indictment of the racism of liberal whites smacks of opportunism and hypocrisy. We note, however, that his nearly atrophied method of analysis is unable to address the fact that many liberal white voters, for some dark and secret reason, are indeed unable to support the presidential candidate who is most in tune with their own philosophy. We would simply ask Hirschorn this: Can Reverend Jackson be called an opportunist and a hypocrite for merely diagnosing yet another dynamic in white Americans that refines and widens the very schism Hirschorn supposedly deplores?

In conclusion, we would assert that the issues of racial unity in general, and Black-Jewish relations in particular, pale in importance next to the opening of this nation's political structure to a segment of the population to which it has traditionally been closed. We further contend that any analysis that attempts to reverse this order is hopelessly skewed and hopelessly racist. Frederick C. Meten '85   Stephen M. Tayler '84   Alan R. Jackson '84   Abner A. Masson '85   Mark E. Brown '83