At least some people are following Rep. Maxine Waters’ (D-CA) advice to continue the public pressure on associates of President Trump as a way to protest the separation of immigrant families.
Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law School professor who has been a frequent defender of the president in his many Fox News and CNN appearances, complained in an op-ed on The Hill that some of his old friends in his summer vacation haunt of Martha’s Vineyard “are shunning me and trying to ban me from their social life.”
Congresswoman Waters was criticized by the president and lionized by progressives for her call to declare “enough is enough” in response to the heartless and uncompassionate family separations put in place as part of Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policies.
In her speech at the Los Angeles families Belong Together March, Rep. Waters gave an impassioned template for how people opposed to those policies should treat enablers and defenders of the Trump administration in order to demonstrate the vehemence of their feelings and the steadfastness of their dedication to their principles.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up, and if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere…. Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are, to let you know you can’t get away with this,” Water exhorted.
Enough of Dershowitz’s acquaintances followed Rep. Waters advice that the Trump apologist attorney was motivated to pen an entire essay attacking Waters for ruining his entitled social life while children remain locked in detention crying for their mothers.
Dershowitz described some of the consequences of his unpopular advocacy of Trump as if it was surprising that the educated and cosmopolitan Martha’s Vineyard denizens would find his opinions distasteful enough to want to avoid him.
“One of them, an academic at a distinguished university, has told people that he would not attend any dinner or party to which I was invited. He and others have demanded “trigger warnings” so that they can be assured of having “safe spaces” in which they will not encounter me or my ideas. Others have said they will discontinue contributions to organizations that sponsor my talks.”
It’s as if he walked into an NAACP convention with a noose and is surprised that no one wants to stand near him.
Dershowitz sees these shunning behaviors as being a result of his refusal to change his position on civil liberties, which is apparently how he now describes his defense of the president. And he goes into full “sour grapes” mode with his declaration that he now knows who his “real friends” are and who were “fairweather friends.”
“From a personal point of view, I could not care less about being shunned by people whose views regarding dialogue I do not respect,” Dershowitz claims while penning an 820 word article on the subject.
Mr. Dershowitz concludes his jeremiad by lamenting “our growing intolerance toward opposing views.” While he at least acknowledges that President Trump bears some responsibility for the divisiveness in the country, he singles out Congresswoman Waters as “both the symptom and the cause of the divisiveness in this country.”
The problem with Dershowitz’s analysis, besides the fact that it stems from his own hurt feelings, is that he affords the same moral equivalency to people who are expressing their principles by fighting against human rights abuses as to people who are enabling those abuses. To those fighting against practices that they see as the embodiment of evil, having a dialogue is not an option where current policy is so far removed from the moral norms the nation was founded upon.
Follow Vinnie Longobardo on Twitter.