Understanding the political reaction to Congress’ three amigas

By the Republican response to the three most-famous Democratic freshmen in Congress — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

(or AOC) of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — you’d think these women were Shakespeare’s Three Witches rather than the three amigas seen chumming and laughing in countless photographs.

But then, you’d also infer from Democrats’ counter-response that the GOP’s reaction has been solely an expression of racism, misogyny and anti-Muslim sentiment, rather than the result of legitimate observations of concern. Let’s break it down.

First, shame on the media for giving these three women ohso-much attention. Yes, they’re unique and interesting. AOC, 29, is the youngest woman ever elected to the Congress.

Omar is the first representative to wear a hijab. And Tlaib, also Muslim, is the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in the chamber.

Bravas all around. Their elections, as well as those of two Native-American women, are all noteworthy. After just a few weeks in office, AOC miraculously produced a big bill — the Green New Deal, a joint resolution co-introduced by Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.

In a brief sidebar: Texas’ Beto O’Rourke is experiencing a similarly sudden star turn. It’s easy to see why so many are attracted to him. He’s young (46), charismatic, has a beautiful family, and appeals to a cross-section of Americans. But something about him seems manufactured. A leaner, lankier version of two likely role models, Bobby Kennedy and Barack Obama, his practiced performances tend to make one wish for the real McCoys.

With unmistakable echoes of Obama’s cadences and Kennedy’s mannerisms, O’Rourke seems to have been created by an artificial intelligence that was informed by polls and demographic projections.

Tlaib, too, became newsworthy when the Detroit lawyer was caught on video early last month telling a MoveOn.org gathering that she had come to Washington to impeach President Trump, referred to with a vulgarity. Like AOC, she’s a declared democratic socialist, and she has been a harsh critic of the Israeli government, calling for an end to U.S. aid to Israel.

Not least, Omar, too, has invited accusations of anti-Semitism for recently tweeting that Washington politicians push proIsrael policies because they’re funded by lobbying organizations such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

After incurring a firestorm from nearly all corners, including the Democratic leadership, she issued an apology that was both quick and appropriate.

Regarding money, AIPAC, though a pro-Israel lobbying group, does not actually finance politicians. Omar was also quite wrong about the nation’s pro-Israel stance being “all about the Benjamins baby,” a reference to $100 bills. As most readers know, the U.S. supports Israel because it is in our national interest.

But Omar is right on the money when she expresses broad concern about the degree to which legislators do receive contributions intended to curry favor. In her apology, she said she is being educated on anti-Semitic tropes — and is “listening and learning,” which is good advice for all concerned.

And isn’t it time Democrats discarded their own arsenal of tropes about Republicans? It isn’t racist to openly worry that Democratic newcomers are expressing anti-Israel views.

The fact that the three are female is irrelevant to those concerns. And, it certainly isn’t antiMuslim to observe that expressed sentiments might be influenced by one’s heritage or religion.

A diverse country requires that all voices and perspectives be heard.

An intelligent future demands that the best ideas, not the personalities presenting them, win the day.