It’s neither new nor a big deal that Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is anti-Semitic, misogynist, homophobic and transphobic. Not in the fashionable social justice way, but the old school way.

“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men,” Farrakhan said in his keynote speech.

“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” Farrakhan said towards the end of his speech.

In fairness, he’s a religious leader and these are his beliefs. Nobody said religion had to be woke, and, indeed, most religion isn’t. And what of his flock, his friends, his admirers?

The image of this fearsome foursome, echoed in more than a few flattering profiles, was as seductive as a Benetton ad. There was Tamika Mallory, a young black activist who was crowned the “Sojourner Truth of our time” by Jet magazine and “a leader of tomorrow” by Valerie Jarrett. Carmen Perez, a Mexican-American and a veteran political organizer, was named one of Fortune’s Top 50 World Leaders. Linda Sarsour, a hijab-wearing Palestinian-American and the former head of the Arab-American Association of New York, had been recognized as a “champion of change” by the Obama White House. And Bob Bland, the fashion designer behind the “Nasty Women” T-shirts, was the white mother who came up with the idea of the march in the first place.

While Sarsour has long hated Israel and Zionism, which isn’t surprising given that she’s Palestinian, Tamika Mallory was there for Farrakhan. And she’s allowed to be, if that’s her belief. There were calls for her to denounce Farrakhan for standing for everything she was purportedly against as a leader of the Women’s March, but she refused to do so.

For those who struggle to understand why this is not a problem, the answer is fairly clear: there is no way in which identity politics can be principled. If you reject rights for all, then you are constrained to pick your favorite identities and demand their rights come ahead of someone else’s rights. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Mallory is allowed to make her choices, just like everyone else is, and she didn’t choose you.

Does this mean the Women’s March didn’t really stand for what you thought it did?

Senator Charles Schumer called the protest “part of the grand American tradition.” The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi, offered her congratulations to the march’s “courageous organizers” and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand gushed about them in Time, where they were among the top 100 most influential people of 2017. “The Women’s March was the most inspiring and transformational moment I’ve ever witnessed in politics,” she wrote. “And it happened because four extraordinary women — Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour — had the courage to take on something big, important and urgent, and never gave up.”

And to the marchers, it stood for whatever they believed it stood for, even if Jewish dykes
or pro-life feminists made others feel unsafe. And it’s not as if they were unclear that one couldn’t be an acceptable feminist if they weren’t pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist.

If you disagree with these beliefs, that’s fine too. But this is ideology of the leaders of the march, whether you like it or not. Your option is not to participate or to hold your own march. They don’t owe you an ideology you agree with. And they don’t owe you a consistent, principled ideology. They can love and hate whomever they want, and Farrakhan is Mallory’s guy.

But when the controversy over Tamika Mallory’s fandom of Farrakhan happened, Donna Lieberman chose to thrust herself into the controversy.

Proud to stand with you @TamikaDMallory and call you companera…You have been an unflinching and early voice against gun violence, a fearless fighter against racism, and stood strong and proud for equality, justice and dignity for all…

— Donna Lieberman (@JustAskDonna) March 4, 2018

Leiberman is the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She, too, is entitled to her views, her favored identities and those identities she deems of lesser value and from whom rights must be denied so they can be afforded others. Her twitter account says these are her views alone, not those of the organization she runs.

Yet, Leiberman didn’t need to announce that she stood (so abelist) with Mallory. If she wasn’t inclined to condemn Mallory’s support of Farrakhan, she could have remained silent. She chose not to be silent, but to be heard in her support of Mallory as a fighter for “equality, justice and dignity for all.” Well, maybe not “all.”

The rhetoric is easy, speaking the words of social justice that make the woke kvell with pride and passion. It’s easy to say “for all,” even if some pigs are more equal than others. And as individuals, each of these people is entitled to believe as they will, just as you or I, or anyone else.

But there is an institutional concern reflected in this hypocrisy and the untenable, unprincipled inconsistency of social justice and identity politics. The organizations that proclaim themselves guardians of the faith, whether that is civil rights, libertarianism or democracy, are increasingly lying to themselves and to us. If social justice creeps into their ideology, they stand for identitarian outcomes without principles. They’re organizations with different names, different mission statements, different leaders, but they all share the same thing: no principles.

The most principled person in this sordid controversy turns out to be Louis Farrakhan. He knows what he believes in and isn’t afraid to tell you. It may be abhorrent, but he owns his beliefs.