I had been apprehensive to engage in this seeming unending wheel of responses to responses to responses. It seems like since having on Tomi Lahren on The Daily Show, I’ve seen nothing but either the complete evisceration of Tomi Lahren or Trevor Noah, the host of The Daily Show. Yet, when I came across a video on Facebook from the founder of For Harriet, Kimberly Foster, entitled “What Trevor Noah Doesn’t Understand” and captioned with “Trevor Noah seems well-intentioned, but he really doesn’t get it” – I noticed something distinctly problematic.
Foster begins by making her contention with Trevor Noah quite clear. She explains that after hearing some jokes in his stand-up about Black Americans that rubbed her the wrong way, that she would not be watching him on The Daily Show. This in no way meant that she desired to see him fail, but rather that she was aware that his comedy didn’t necessarily suit her. While I take absolutely no issue with this distaste, I take very specific issue with her subsequent statements of Noah’s relative distance from “American geo-political realities” which allow him to “take stances that are tone deaf and ahistorical”. Foster contextualizes this stance by referring to Noah’s op-ed in The New York Times following his Tomi Lahren interview, where she believes that his opinions are a clear sign of his inability to understand and conceptualize the race issues that exist in America. Moreover, she argues that Noah’s op-ed completely misses the point of the liberal unrest and critique he faced after interviewing Tomi Lahren.
In her words, “Boiling down the push-back to the Tomi Lahren situation to a desire for nastiness completely misses how insulted many of us feel when we’re asked to engage racism as a valid political viewpoint.” While I am able to understand this sentiment, I challenge this point for failing to recognize that while racism is not a “valid” political viewpoint – it is a fully entrenched political reality that would be foolish to ignore. Although I intend to refrain from making any decisive claims on the success or failure of Noah’s interview of Tomi Lahren, it is clear that Noah was not blind to the particularly problematic, racist, and divisive comments she often makes. Yet instead of doing what we would expect Jon Stewart or like-minded “social justice warriors” with a particularly “axe to grind” with Tomi Lahren and other conservative Americans, he chose a much more tactical, calm, and understanding approach. He chose critical discussion. Something that I believe deserves to be commended, not criticized.
Yet, in Foster’s opinion, this form of discourse is ineffectual at best. Foster explains that although she believes that some people can “be converted through conversation, [racism] operates as a complex, deeply entrenched set of systems. It’s not just about individuals.” You’re right, Ms. Foster, it’s not just about individuals – and you’re also right that racism is a complex set of systems that, in part, is able to stay place through incentives. However, I implore you to consider the fact that while Tomi Lahren may just be one person, she appeals to millions. Tomi Lahren, as she put herself on The Daily Show, speaks for those conservative Americans who have been largely forgotten or ignored by prominent political silos. As problematic as her viewpoints may or may not be, they are the viewpoints of millions, and those millions of Americans not only relate to Lahren, but look to her for the same incisive critiques liberals looked to Jon Stewart for. As such, Tomi Lahren isn’t just some random political junky spewing nonsense at the local bar after a few beers. Like or not, Tomi Lahren is a relational being whose platform needs to be taken seriously and considered in full. This is something that I believe Noah was well aware of in his decision to have Lahren on his show and it is something that is made clear in his consistent appeal to her reason.
However, what I found to be the most troubling and problematic with Foster’s entire critique is a statement she made towards the end of her five and half minute video that I often hear echoed in many circles. Foster takes issue with the following quote from Noah’s op-ed, “We can be unwavering in our commitment to racial equality while still breaking bread with the same racist people who’ve oppressed us.” Her response to this quote is that Noah’s statement is not one of “noble idealism,” but rather a statement of cowardice. As she puts it, “If you have strong principles, stand behind them. Sure, moderation is pragmatic and I know that my side will is going to be doing lots of compromising over the next four years – but it’s not heroic.” This is a sentiment is not exclusive to Foster. In fact, it is often echoed in several socio-political silos as a “with us or against us” philosophy that has entrenched American politics. Yet, what is so inherently dangerous about this about this kind of philosophy is that it often results in dogma. Dogma, no matter how conservative or liberal, is inherently flawed and doomed to fail because it immediately creates a block on dialogue and is believed to be absolute. While absolutism can work with certain truths, it is negligent of the complexities of the lived experience and negligent of the fact that genuine progress will not be achieved through abrasive preaching, but critical discourse.
It is impossible to have critical discourse if from the very start you believe that you are superior to another human being because you hold the better dogma. Although you may characterize your preaching and full disqualification of anything or anyone who pokes at this dogma is courageous and justified, if all it does is ultimately contribute to a toxic machine of gridlock, you are no more “heroic” than the passive bystander. It has been made undeniably clear that with gridlock and screaming-matches, oppressive ideals can sneak through the cracks unnoticed and achieve overwhelming power. Liberalism has gotten comfortable in its dogma, conservatism has gotten comfortable in its dogma, and, as such, both of them have been so distracted with proving each other wrong that neither of them have been able to provide substantive change. So to characterize Noah’s form of mediation, pragmatism, and forgiveness as cowardice is, to quote a friend of mine, juvenile. Criticize Noah all you like, he is noticing something that several liberal silos have failed to notice about themselves, their inability to self-correct, adapt, and problem-solve. He is noticing that the left is failing, and is doing everything he can feasibly do to shift that tide and bring critical discussion back into the American sphere. I wonder, however, if we are all doing our part?
