Although there are still six weeks remaining before the advent of the Trump administration, there are signs the presidential election results may already be kicking in.
Thus, the Anti-Defamation League last week reversed its position in support of Rep. Keith Ellison for the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. The ADL now says evidence of Mr. Ellison’s anti-Israel sentiment discovered by another organization made the change appropriate.
This is hard to believe since the ADL research department is known for its professionalism and resources. It is inconceivable that the ADL didn’t have this evidence when it first announced its support for Mr. Ellison. Moreover, the ADL concedes that it did have extremely negative information about Mr. Ellison that was not too different from the “new” information but announced its support anyway.
The language of the initial statement of support is instructive:
We spoke with leadership in the Jewish community in Minnesota who confirmed what ADL and other national organizations have seen: that Keith Ellison is a man of good character. We have seen this through his work in Congress as an important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for civil rights. He has been on the record in support of Israel and supports a two-state solution. However, the Congressman also has made statements and taken positions, especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the [Iran nuclear deal], on which we strongly differ and that concern us. We hope that all candidates for this post will make clear where they stand on these issues and that the Democratic National Committee will make a choice that affirms the long-standing bipartisan consensus on a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. In addition, we want to make clear to those who disagree with Congressman Ellison that in doing so, there is no room for innuendo or slander because of his race or his faith.
Apparently, all the negative information known about Rep. Ellison was disregarded because of the good things the Minnesota Jewish community had to say about him. So why would the ADL not continue to give him the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of new but generally similar information about Mr. Ellison’s past statements coming to the fore?
The answer may have something to do with President Obama’s ultra-politically correct approach to Muslims and Islam (Rep. Ellison is a Muslim) and the fact that the ADL’s national director, Jonathan Greenblatt, served as a special assistant to Mr. Obama.
Mr. Greenblatt’s initial inclination to support Rep. Ellison was almost, one might say, Obamaesque given the clear determination to ignore his troubling history. But as the negative pushback to Mr. Ellison grew stronger and more widespread, it became virtually impossible for the ADL to ignore both the dismay toward Rep. Ellison in the Jewish community and the new political dynamic in a country that had just elected a decidedly politically incorrect man to the presidency.
The recent vote in Congress extending the Iran Sanctions Act is of a piece with the ADL/Ellison issue. For almost two years the Obama administration virtually genuflected to Tehran as it tried to avoid angering the Iranians out of fear they would pull out of the nuclear agreement. Yet Congress overwhelmingly passed a 10-year extension of non-nuclear-agreement-related sanctions against Iran because of Iran’s support of terrorism.
And not only did Congress vote to extend the sanctions by a lopsided margin, the administration raised no serious objection and actually stated: “While we do not think that an extension of ISA is necessary, we do not believe that a clean extension would be a violation of the [Iran nuclear deal].”
Back in 1901 the Chicago newspaperman Finley Peter Dunne coined an expression that is still frequently cited: “The Supreme Court follows the election returns.” So, apparently, does the ADL, not to mention Congress.