I'm So Disappointed with Schumer and Jeffries. They Don't Agree with Me 100%.

[Cirsium]

140. I agree with that

The criticism of Jeffries because he mentioned God was petty and obnoxious. But that kind of unserious sniping isn’t what’s at issue here, and conflating it with substantive criticism of leadership is a mistake. There’s a long American tradition of labeling any serious challenge to power as “divisive,” “intolerant,” or “purity politics” once it stops being convenient. That move has been used against abolitionists, labor organizers, civil rights leaders, and antiwar critics—usually by people urging patience, unity, and respect for existing leadership.

Invoking “purity politics” here misses the point. Criticism of leadership rhetoric or policy is not intolerance, and it isn’t a demand for personal ideological conformity. It’s a response to public signaling by people exercising power. Throughout US history, appeals to unity and tolerance have routinely been used to deflect substantive critique — especially when that critique comes from those pointing to structural harm rather than stylistic disagreement.

We’ve seen this pattern before. Abolitionists were accused of divisiveness for criticizing Lincoln. Labor organizers were accused of intolerance for challenging party-aligned leaders. Civil rights activists were told they were undermining allies by refusing to soften their demands. In retrospect, those critiques weren’t “purity tests”; they were necessary pressure. Accountability for people in power is not hypocrisy, and solidarity that requires silence is not solidarity — it’s discipline.