On November 7th, in a 234-188 vote, the United States House of Representatives voted to censure Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib following Tlaib’s comments on the Israel-Hamas war. Twenty-two Democrats joined two hundred twelve Republicans to formally express their disapproval of Tlaib’s rhetoric surrounding the war. For many years, Tlaib has been very vocally critical of the Israeli government, thus facing substantial criticism herself, but never in her career has she faced such intense scrutiny by the United States Congress. It is important to note that while censorship does not amount to expulsion and has few substantial effects on the stability of Tlaib’s position in Congress, it is still a serious action that is intended to formally punish and potentially stifle her expression.
When justifying the censure resolution, Republican Congressman Rich McCormick of Georgia claimed Tlaib’s rhetoric surrounding the Israel-Hamas war to be antisemitic in nature. He claimed that Tlaib has “levied unbelievable falsehoods about our greatest ally, Israel, and the attack on October 7.” Tlaib’s promotion of the phrase “from the river to the sea” was also specifically cited and debated in the resolution, with Democrat Brad Schneider claiming the phrase to call for widespread, anti-Jewish violence. While such violence is undoubtedly unacceptable and must be condemned, Tlaib maintains that “her criticism of Israel has always been directed toward its government and its leadership.”
Tlaib, representative of Michigan’s 12th congressional district, is the only Palestinian American in the United States Congress. Therefore, not only does she act as a voice for many Palestinian Americans, but she also acts as a voice for many Arab Americans, as the state of Michigan is home to the second-largest Arab population in the country. Tlaib’s position in Congress is thus vital to the House of Representatives even beginning to be truly representative of the American people.
One of the founding principles of democracy is representation, and adequate representation often gives way to inclusion, or the creation of a political society in which the perspectives of all citizens are recognized and valued. When Congress voted to censure the only Palestinian-American in the House, it effectively excluded every Palestinian American, Arab American, and American in general who stands with the Palestinian people. There can be no “rule of the people” when the voices of an entire population are unfairly excluded from civil society. This therefore represents a dangerous erosion of the principles of American democracy.
In chapter twenty-one of his work Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, political scientist Joseph Schumpeter argues that in order for democracy to function, the management of public affairs must “be entrusted to specialists” who have special attitudes and techniques that enable them to carry out the will of the people. Schumpeter claims that a committee of these “specialists” must be popularly elected by individual citizens, with the responsibility of those elected being to “voice, reflect, or represent the will of the electorate.” American congresspeople act as these “specialists,” offering formal and legitimate voices to those who may lack the authority, expertise, or time to actually engage in policymaking. This model of democracy is not only more efficient for decision-making, especially in communities with many voters, but it also promotes inclusion, allowing for the valuing of diverse voices in the decision-making process.
In order for democracy to truly function in the United States specifically, elected representatives, or “specialists,” must also “voice, reflect, or represent the will of the electorate.” Congresspeople such as Tlaib must be able to freely express the varied perspectives of their constituents without fear of retaliation from colleagues. There must be a diverse body of voices that are equally valued in decision-making processes. When the voice of a congressperson such as Tlaib is condemned, so too are the voices of her constituents. This dangerously undermines the principles of “the rule of the people,” sending a worrying message that the voices of certain people are not welcome in civil society.
Many may argue that certain voices, such as those that are violent or hateful, are not, in fact, welcome in civil society, and this is undeniably true. It is absolutely necessary to reject violent and hateful ideologies in order to protect human rights and to maintain inclusivity in political society. Tlaib has proven to reject these ideologies, claiming the phrase “from the river to the sea” to be “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.”
The censuring of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib represents a dangerous erosion of democratic ideals in the United States. American democracy is built upon foundations of representation and inclusion, and the stifling of the only formal representation for Palestinian Americans in Congress violates these foundations. By censuring Rashida Tlaib, Congress has made it clear that Tlaib is not welcome to truly be representative of her constituents. This action has therefore cast doubt on the stability of the principles of representation and inclusivity in American democracy.
In this post, you argue that the censuring of Tlaib is anti-democratic because it denies her constituents inclusive representation in Congress. You specifically argue that Representatives serve as ‘specialists’ who are supposed to reflect the will and voice of their constituents, and by censuring a Representative you deny their constituents’ will and voice.
I think it is interesting that Tlaib was censured for comments related to the Israel-Palestine conflict as historically censorships was typically preserved for immoral behavior such as bribery, threats, or sexual misconduct. I am curious if you think political polarization has caused censorship to be weaponized for political purposes. I think that political polarization will make the use of the censure more common.
Overall, I think you make a compelling argument for why Tlaib being censured is anti-democratic.
Hi Kennedy,
This was a great article. I found Congress’s decision to censure Representative Tlaib for her comments in support of a ceasefire and Palestinian liberation, while allowing other congresspeople who have made comments about wishing to “turn Gaza into a parking lot” and other such open calls for genocide to go completely unpunished, to be abhorrent and disgusting. I won’t say that I am surprised by this event, however, given this country’s track record with ethnic cleansing and displacement. Just yesterday, the House passed with near unanimous support-with only one “nay” from a republican rep and one “present” from Tlaib- a resolution stating its belief that anti-zionism, the opposition to the illegal settlement and occupation of Palestinian land, is synonymous with antisemitism, even as almost 70% of the country is polling in favor of calling a ceasefire. That the entirety of the House would declare something so contrary to what the large majority of the country seems to believe clearly indicates that there is a disconnect between representative and constituent on this issue.
Kennedy,
Let me begin by saying that I would not vote for Rep. Tlaib if I lived in Michigan’s 13th congressional district. However, I also believe that censuring her for her comments on Israel and Hamas was wrong.
Rep. Tlaib has a Palestinian heritage and represents a district where 35.5% of households speak Arabic, second only to Spanish households at 42.4% (data.io.us). Based on other articles I researched, it is also clear she spends time in the Latino community of her district and works on their behalf too. I share this because, while I do not agree with her politics, she does appear to be representing her constituents that elected her to the House (and re-elected her).
As for the phrase “from the river to the sea” she stated, as you point out, that she saw it as “aspirational” rather than having it mean to eliminate Israel. In addition, she has vocally “denounced the horrific targeting and killing of civilians by both Hamas and the Israeli government.”
Since 2021, one Republican (Paul Gosar) and now two Democrats, (Tlaib and Adam Schiff) have been censured by the House of Representatives. In all three cases it has been in regards to speech and content not behavior. In 2010 Rep. Charles Rangel (D) was censured for improper solicitation of funds. Prior to that, we have to go back to the 1980s to find the last time members were censured – each was because of actions and behaviors.
We must be able to allow differing opinions on any topic for our democracy to work. I fear we are losing that and Tlaib’s censure only moves us that direction even further.
Hi Kennedy,
This was a very well written article and I appreciated your insight. I liked how you made note that Tlaib is the only Palestinian-American in Congress and therefore Palestinian-Americans only voice in our federal government. I agree that representation in our leaders is important and that censuring Tlaib is potentially excluding the voice of Palestinian-Americans. This issue reminds me of the idea of descriptive representation in which our representatives are similar to us demographically. Overall, I think that the entire US Congress has poor descriptive representation of the diverse American public considering a majority of the members in congress are white men. I think it was important that you brought to light how this censuring has the potential to undermine the ideals of representation and inclusivity in America.
Hey Kennedy, I feel like your blog post was great at highlighting the concerning censure of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, and in turn ties into the potential erosion of democratic ideals in the United States. You pretty effectively supported all your arguments and were able to include important theory like Joseph Schumpeter’s perspective on the role of elected representatives, which I felt added a good bit of depth to the analysis. The critique of Tlaib’s censure as a threat to democratic principles and inclusion is well-founded and resonates with the foundational values of American democracy. Great blog post overall, I have no critiques.
Hi Kennedy, this is a wonderful post, and I throughly enjoyed reading it. By first presenting the facts on how the only Palestinian-American woman in Congress is being censored, you really hook the reader. This is such an interesting event as well, being something that I have not heard much about. I think that regardless of what ethnicity or gender she is, no one should be censored for calling for peace in wartime. Her comments are in no way antisemitic and I think that they are quite the opposite as she stated in rebuttal to claims of antisemitism. This is simply an unfortunate circumstance of the US government silencing a voice that needs to be heard and is a great example of how democracy is slowly falling apart.
Hi Kennedy,
Thank you for writing abou this issue. I hadn’t heard about the censorship of this congresswoman until now and it’s incredibly alarming. This first thing I wanted to touch on was this general idea that being critical of the Isreali government and their actions is anti-semetic in nature. It not only goes to show the lack of overall understanding of the topic (which is scary in its own right when discussing members of congress), but it is also a prime example of how autocratic consolidation in Isreal is being fed by international support from the worlds largest powers. People are very quick to bring up the atrocities committed by both Isreal and Hamas, but often stop the discussion before arriving at the larger issues like authoritarian practices within the Isreali government. Furuthermore, this censorship may set a dangerous precedent for the future. As you mentioned it is imperative to democracy to have these “specialists” and for them to be able to have influence and a voice. In this case, members of congress wrote of congresswoman Tlaib’s comments as an incitement of violence, but if these censorship votes become more accepted in congress, there is now telling what important voices will be silenced. Overall this post was very insightful and important to be aware of, especially when it comes to the future of democracy in the US.
Hi Kennedy,
I think the concerns that you bring up regarding the censorship of Representative Tlaib are extremely valid. There have been major protests all over the country in support of Palestinian independence. Despite widespread claims that these movements were “pro-Hamas” and calling for the genocide of Israel, this doesn’t align with the demands that are being voiced by Americans all over the country. Rather, there have been calls to end the siege and bombing of Gaza, to create a secular state where Palestinians and Israelis can both live and have equal rights, and to end the apartheid that Palestinians are living under.
To say that Representative Tlaib is doing anything other than echoing those same concerns would simply be inaccurate, specially as she herself is a Palestinian American with personal knowledge of the struggle that Palestinians have faced. Any expectations that Representative Tlaib stop advocating for the Palestinian people – particularly as a representative from a heavily Arab and Hispanic district – is incredibly unrealistic and goes directly against what her role is in Congress.
I think that there is a clear trend happening in the U.S. government that aims to censor pro-Palestinian voices at every level. The recently passed H.Res.888 treats criticism regarding the existence of Israel to be Antisemitic, despite the fact that many anti-Zionists are actually members of the Jewish community themselves. This conflation of Judaism and Zionism have dangerous repercussions for both Jewish and Muslim Americans, and it is being weaponized to equate criticism of a foreign government with hate speech.