Missouri, my home state, is called the “Show-Me State” for a reason. According to legend, former U.S. Rep. William Duncan Vandiver etched the nickname into our heartland annals with a few short words: “Frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.” Vandiver hit the nail on the head — us Missourians trust naught but the cold, hard facts. I bring this same noncredulous attitude into my response to the column “Francesca Hong, if you answer to the people, why can’t you answer my question?” published in The Herald last week by my colleague Lia Goldberger ’30.
During a recent talk on campus hosted by the Brown Political Union, Wisconsin State Rep. Francesca Hong was asked a question regarding her appearance on a Twitch stream with left-wing commentator Hasan Piker, a figure whose remarks on Orthodox Jews have been deemed antisemitic, among other controversies. In her column, Goldberger argues that Hong neglected to engage with the inquiring student. She writes that “Rather than sidestepping, those who speak at Brown should respect and respond to students’ questions.” However, this portrayal of the interaction does not hold water. Goldberger’s argument is predicated upon the notion that Hong’s response was avoidant — a framing that does not hold up when you look at the exact question the state representative was answering.
The question that was asked was not, “Will you denounce Hasan Piker?” Instead, it was about how Hong has dealt with the media’s insistence upon that very question. In reference to Hong’s appearance on a stream with Piker, the student said: “He’s a very controversial figure, good and bad — I have more positive feelings — but I know a lot of (politicians) are going back and forth having to stand by him or denounce him. How do you deal with that as a politician and how do you think other politicians should deal with that?”
To this question, Hong answered in full, explaining the context behind her decision to join Piker’s stream. Goldberger is right that Hong “lamented having to waste time denouncing or supporting a Twitch streamer” instead of discussing boots-on-the-ground policy, but her column pins the tail on the wrong donkey. Hong did not “scoff,” as Goldberger writes, at the student’s question, but at the dilemma posited by countless news outlets: One that forced her to take complete responsibility for an internet personality’s inflammatory rhetoric or to resolutely denounce the interlocutor for a demographic — young men — that has been historically undervalued by the Democratic party.
Even if she was explicitly asked to support or disavow Piker, Hong has comprehensively addressed the controversy in prior statements. Hong’s team said the following about engaging Piker’s controversial base: “Speaking with them isn’t an endorsement of those perspectives; it’s a way to reach people who have been isolated from conversations about community, compassion and the systems of power and control that contribute to the struggles we share.” Hong is nothing if not consistent on this matter.
Some readers may believe that actions speak louder than words, in line with my “Show-Me” temperament. A closer look at Hong’s legislative history reveals that she has sponsored multiple enacted bills on Holocaust education — a stark contrast from Piker’s incendiary comments toward the Jewish community. That history of governance makes it hard to assume Hong’s explicitly local platform is unilaterally in agreement with Piker’s inflammatory rhetoric — and even more broadly with the Democratic Socialists of America as a whole. Hong is not alone in distancing herself from the national DSA — New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has expressed disagreement with many of the organization’s controversial policies.
Hong’s insistence on being “deeply connected with and accessible to the constituents she represents,” as Goldberger writes, may be a popular trend among socialist candidates, but it alone does not license comparisons to the most grievous populists in American history. Goldberger deems Hong’s choice to prioritize the interests of working class people over the business of Piker a “classic move from the populist playbook,” putting her in ignoble company in the process. Democratic socialists such as Hong and Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed may be polarizing, but their anti-corruption platforms are a far cry from the despotism of famed populist Huey Long, the blatant corruption of Donald Trump and the evils of George Wallace — a pro-segregationist and rampant white supremacist who earned the title of “the most dangerous racist in America” from Martin Luther King, Jr.
The column’s mischaracterization of socialists is not limited to Hong. In El-Sayed’s case, the article provided did not fully substantiate the claim that he deflected a question. The link provided references a debate moderator questioning El-Sayed on “whether Israel or Iran poses a bigger threat to the U.S..” A closer look at his interaction reveals disagreement with the fundamental premise of the question asked of him, which he then went on to answer.
According to Walter Williams, the founder of the world’s first-ever school of journalism, “clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.” It seems as though, in this case, the misconstrual of Hong’s response impedes that journalistic standard. When we conflate the responses of politicians with the facts of their governance and discursive influence, we fail to uphold the rhetorical integrity that is essential to the dissemination of truth. In this way, all of us at Brown can become more journalistic. We, too, must become more sophisticated in “sifting through” our own discursive responses, to socialists and libertarians alike.
Izuchukwu Obialo ’29 can be reached at izuchukwu_obialo@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
