Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Republican Jewish Coalition Supports the Most Antisemitic Congressman in Recent Minnesota History

You might recall a brief blip of news last year where Ilhan Omar was deemed antisemitic for implying that pro-Israel Americans may have dual loyalty with Israel.

It was, to be sure, problematic. But here's the thing: Ilhan Omar is not the most antisemitic politician in America. Hell, even if we restrict the terrain to "most antisemitic member of Congress from the greater Minneapolis area who ran for election during the Trump administration", she still wouldn't place first. That honor has to go to ex-Rep. Jason Lewis (R-MN), who did not imply, but outright stated, that many pro-Israel actors in American politics had "dual loyalties" with Israel and that congressional Republicans were controlled by the "Jewish lobby". Everything Omar hinted at, Lewis outright said. He's the easiest of easy cases.

But alas. Overt antisemitism should hardly be expected to stop the Republican Jewish Coalition from fundraising on Lewis' behalf as he seeks to parlay his 2018 congressional loss into a 2020 U.S. Senate seat. Because while there are many Jewish organizations that earnestly care about antisemitism regardless of source, the RJC is most certainly not one of them.

Friday, February 14, 2020

The New Labour Zionism(?)

In the wake of devastating losses in the 2019 general election, Labour is looking for a new leader to replace Jeremy Corbyn. Four candidates are running: Sir Keir Starmer, Lisa Nandy, Rebecca Long-Bailey, and Emily Thornberry.

One major issue the party faces, of course, is how to deal with an antisemitism crisis in the party that precipitated a collapse in Jewish support and the departure of several prominent Jewish MPs (Louise Ellman and Luciana Berger) from the party.

Today the Jewish Labour Movement membership voted to endorse Nandy, an MP and former shadow energy secretary. The voting results demonstrate a pretty strong love-hate relationship among Jewish Labour figures: Nandy got 51% and Starmer got 45%, while Long-Bailey and Thornberry both were under 2%. This is not a reflection of front-runner bias: while Starmer is considered the odds-on favorite, Long-Bailey (the spiritual successor to Corbyn) is in second-place, with Nandy and especially Thornberry considered to be much longer shots. Rather, it is a divide between those candidates who are closely associated with Corbyn and perceived as continuations of his agenda (Long-Bailey, Thornberry) versus those who are perceived as offering a departure (Starmer, Nandy).

But something even more interesting, to me at least, happened at a candidate forum JLM hosted the other day. All four candidates were asked if they are Zionist. And all four answered "yes" -- either they were, or they support Zionism. Specifically:
  • Thornberry: "I believe in the state of Israel and therefore I'm a Zionist."
  • Starmer: "I don’t describe myself as a Zionist but I understand, sympathise and support Zionism."
  • Nandy: "I believe that Jewish people have the right to national self-determination. That makes me a Zionist.
Even Long-Bailey, who is the most explicitly Corbynist of the candidates, said "I also agree with a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state... I suppose that makes me a Zionist because I agree with Israel’s right to exist and right to self determine." A little begrudging, perhaps, but far better than one expects out of a candidate who rated Corbyn "10 out of 10" as a party leader!

One might have expected that the term "Zionist" would be too toxic for prospective Labour leaders to touch. The fact that they were willing to line up behind it -- a decision which, incidentally, does not and should not preclude critical attitudes towards Israeli policy -- is quite striking.

Of course, things are never all roses. Anti-Zionist-not-antisemitic Labour Twitter was decidedly not pleased with these philo-Zionist responses:

"A minority of less than 0.5% of the U.K. population dominating our political agenda...." I have an inkling of who is being referred to here -- but maybe I just don't understand British irony?

UPDATE: Another fascinating wrinkle: Nandy was also the chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East.

UPDATE 2X: This is a good account of the JLM event, and the palpable sense among attendees that things really may have turned a corner. It also notes that the JLM crowd was especially warm to Nandy when she noted her chairwomanship of Labour Friends of Palestine.

Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Post-New Hampshire Thoughts

New Hampshire is in the bag, and it's a win for Bernie Sanders. That makes him one for two, or two for two, depending on how you count. Let's go with 1.5 for two. And second place goes to none other than South Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- the Iowa Caucus winner (or "winner" -- again, I'm just not going to go into it). Third place, in a huge late surge, was Amy Klobuchar, who rounds out the pledged delegates winners. Fourth and fifth were Warren and Biden, respecitvely.

So where is the race now? My assorted thoughts:

  • The biggest story is, of course, the Klobucharge. Namely, that people have finally settled on "Klobucharge" being the correct term. Indeed, as Eric Muller observes, this is just the tip of the iceberg: there's laying on the Klobucharm, flying off the Klobucharts, watching opponents get Klobucharred....
  • We're so starved for hot takes that "the winner of the evening was the guy who won the evening" never satisfies. After all, Bernie beat Pete Buttigieg by less than two points in a state where he obliterated Hillary Clinton four years ago, and they actually earned the same number of delegates. Is that really good news? Answer: yes, because the moderates are still fractured and it's really hard to see Buttigieg consolidating the vote while there's time for it to make an impact. Sanders is now the definite -- though not overwhelming -- favorite.
  • That said, the other big winner definitely is Klobuchar, who I think probably has positioned herself as the moderate candidate to beat. But does she have the resources and time to really launch in other states? Does she have any significant basis of appeal in communities of color? I'm doubtful -- which is another reason why this was a good night for Bernie.
  • On the one hand: It's strange how we make all this noise about how unfair it is that the Democratic primary begins with two states that have virtually no POC voters, then write campaign obituaries after just two states with virtually no POC voters hit the polls. On the other hand: Joe Biden looks like toast, and his last stab at relevancy may be to play kingmaker among the remaining moderates. My guess is if he passes the torch to anyone, it will be Klobuchar.
  • Tough night for my candidate, Elizabeth Warren. Getting the Castro endorsement may well have been prescient in the worst way: just like with Castro, my entire Twitter feed loves her, and just like with Castro, that love sadly is not translating to significant real world impact. She's not yet DOA, but she's in a tough spot. Sad.
  • Two drop-outs: Yang and Bennet. I think a lot of Yang's supporters go to Sanders. As for Bennet's voters, well, you'd have to ask Michael Bennet because I'm pretty sure he's the only one.
  • There were also reports -- quickly retracted -- that Tom Steyer was dropping out as well. This was the only time anyone has thought about Tom Steyer in the past month.
  • While everyone else has been distracted, Michael Bloomberg is quietly rising in the polls based on the irresistible grassroots force of having literally infinity money to spend on advertising. But what happens when that force hits the immovable object of "Bloomberg is a sexual harasser whose signature political program was police harassment of Black people"? I imagine Bernie will start lighting him up on this sooner rather than later -- but until we actually see it, it's hard to know what will happen.
  • Every year, political commentators breathlessly ask "could we have a brokered convention?" And every year, actual knowledgeable observers roll our eyes and say "there will never be a brokered convention." And yet ... could we have a brokered convention? Most of the "Sanders is the front-runner" case right now is based on the moderates dividing up the vote and allowing  Sanders to continue skating to narrow plurality wins based on his high floor/low ceiling. But Democrats don't have any winner-takes-all states, so even if Sanders keeps "winning" pluralities he's not amassing a delegate majority or anything close to it (the New Hampshire delegate tallies right now are Sanders 9/Buttigieg 9/Klobuchar 6).
  • A brokered convention would be a disaster. Dis-as-ter. It's almost impossible to imagine Sanders winning it -- with the possible exception of Warren, none of the remaining heavies seem likely to have delegates itching to back him. But can you imagine how Sanders Sibs will react if they have a plurality of delegates going in, won the most states, and still lose the nomination? Hell, they barely accept it as legitimate when they lose the normal way. It will be Dems in disarray on steroids, except this time it will actually be true. A brokered convention might well rip the party apart.
  • The only way Sanders wins the nomination in a brokered scenario is if his delegates credibly threaten to shoot the hostage (in this metaphor, the hostage is America, and shooting it means sitting back and letting Trump win), and they just might do it, which means threatening to do it just might work. Either way, it's a nightmare.

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Happy Birthday (Media Quotation Edition!)

It's my birthday (my actual birthday, not the blog's birthday). I'm an alarming-number of years old today, and have the creaky knees to prove it.

In celebration, I give you this article on how the Trump administration's Executive Order on antisemitism may or may not affect free speech on campus. I'm quoted extensively in it.

(I also got myself Breath of the Wild as a self-present. So far it's pretty good!)

Sunday, February 09, 2020

Rate That Apology, Part 9: AIPAC!

A few days ago, it emerged that AIPAC had ran some rather ... aggressive ads targeting Democrats. "The radicals in the Democratic Party," the ad text read, "are pushing their anti-Semitic and anti-Israel policies down the throats of the American people." Whoof. The ads also linked to a petition which said that "It’s critical that we protect our Israeli allies especially as they face threats from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah ISIS and — maybe more sinister — right here in the U.S. Congress." Double whoof.

When I first saw these ads, they were so out-of-character for AIPAC (which -- reputation notwithstanding -- generally tries to avoid wading into partisan frays) that I assumed they were fake. But they were not, and AIPAC has apologized for running them.

So let's rate that apology, shall we?

The apology is four paragraphs long, and it is interesting while it starts off pretty good, each paragraph is worse than the one which comes before it. Let's take them one at a time:
We offer our unequivocal apology to the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress who are rightfully offended by the inaccurate assertion that the poorly worded, inflammatory advertisement implied.
That's not bad! What I like most about this is the phrase "rightfully offended". Not "those who were offended", not "if you were offended", not "read it as offensive". The apology owns up that the ad was, objectively, offensive. It also agrees that the ad was inaccurate and inflammatory. "Poorly worded" is a bit of a hedge, but in the context of the rest of the paragraph I don't think it detracts from the message.
We appreciate the broad and reliable support that Democrats in Congress have consistently demonstrated for Israel. The bipartisan consensus that Democrats and Republicans have established on this issue forms the foundation of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
This is also generally fine. It's less "apologetic" than the first paragraph, to be sure. But had these been the only two paragraphs, I think this would have been an overall pretty decent, unequivocal apology. Alas....
The ad, which is no longer running, alluded to a genuine concern of many pro-Israel Democrats about a small but growing group, in and out of Congress, that is deliberately working to erode the bipartisan consensus on this issue and undermine the U.S.-Israel relationship.
I understand the temptation to try to explain, in one's apology, why you said the thing you're apologizing for. I'm not going to say one should never do that, but it's a high-risk proposition and it rarely pays off. Mostly, that's because it comes off as an effort to dodge responsibility and to rehabilitate what actually matters, which is the underlying cause. But here we see pitfall of a different and more ironic sort. The purpose of the ad was to express concern about the erosion of a bipartisan consensus around Israel? Well gosh golly, what do they think this ad did if not contribute to that erosion? It'd be like writing an apology for cursing out prominent entertainer and then saying you did it only to draw attention about diminishing civility in public life.
We regret that the ad's imprecise wording distorted our message and offended many who are deeply committed to this cause. We look forward to continuing our work with friends in Congress to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship and oppose any efforts to undermine its deep, bipartisan support.
Oh how far we've fallen from the first paragraph. At the start, "poor wording" was contextualized in language that straightforwardly accepted responsibility. Here, it stands alone, suggesting that the only problem with the advertisement was in its choice in rhetoric and that it was expressing an important point poorly. Nooope. The advertisement called Democrats antisemites who were ramming anti-Israel politics down the throats of the American people in a fashion potentially more sinister than ISIS. We're a well ways past the point of poor wording here. AIPAC needs to actually reckon with what it did here, and why it was wrong. If the beginning of the apology seemed to gesture in that direction, it's gone by the end.

I'll add one more note. For the most part in this series we've rated the apology of individuals, not organizations. And there are certain additional elements of an institutional apology that don't make a lot of sense for an individual. An individual can't "discipline" or "fire" the person responsible, nor can they really implement processes to "guard against this happening again". But an institution can, and maybe should be expected to. I don't think AIPAC has said anything on either of these fronts -- who was responsible, what actions (if any) were taken to discipline them, and what guardrails have been put up to ensure we don't see a repeat. That's worrisome, and knocks them down a grade.

In general, my view of AIPAC differs substantially from the conventional wisdom. The latter sees AIPAC as this titan of Washington politics that brutally crushes even the slightest deviation from Likudnik policy. I see AIPAC as a paper tiger that generally seeks to cultivate relationships more than enforce dogma and has largely struggled to flex any concrete muscle in circumstances where there is significant political energy pushing against it. This truth is masked because for many years there rarely was any political energy pushing against -- but you see it in the case of, e.g., the Iran Deal, where AIPAC really did go all out to sink it and made pretty much zero headway.

The problem AIPAC is running into is twofold. First, it wants to be bipartisan in an era of increased polarization. And second, it has a staff which I suspect actually is mostly left-of-center paired with a donor base that is increasingly right-wing. As much as folks like me see AIPAC as engaging in partisan attacks against Democrats (for all its talk about how it "supports a two-state solution", one never sees it drop $40 million to attack Republicans for abandoning it), it's also under a lot of pressure from its right flank which wants to see it really take the gloves off and explicitly come out as an anti-Democratic actor. They are tired of what they see as AIPAC coddling Democrats and want it to announce what they already know: Democrats are the anti-Israel party. These ads almost certainly came either from actors within AIPAC who agree with that sentiment, or as a result of pressure from external donors who are pushing that narrative. Hyperpolarization cuts both ways: Republicans, too, have little use for even a politically-friendly organization if it continues to gesture at straddling the middle. They don't want earnest efforts at cultivating bipartisanship; they want an attack dog.

AIPAC isn't paying me for advice, but I'll offer some anyway: this would be a very short-sighted strategy. It's not just because explicitly aligning with the right would be perhaps a boon for the Republican Party but a disaster for pro-Israel politics. It's also that the right-wing actors AIPAC would embolden are ones whom AIPAC has surprisingly little influence over. Even as its reputation has drifted right-ward over the past few years, AIPAC has progressively lost influence among Republican elected officials who prefer to take their cues from more explicitly partisan outlets like ZOA or CUFI. AIPAC might rule the roost of "bipartisan" Israel talk, but it's hard to see what their niche is as just one explicitly right-wing group among many.

For better or for worse, though, I doubt AIPAC is going to be able to right ship. It's just too big, and archaic, and creaky, and doesn't have the institutional adroitness to adjust to the new era its finding itself in.

Unfortunately for people like me, these sorts of transitions are difficult, and there will be adjustment pains. Is it fun watching AIPAC get used as a punching bag, accused of forming an "unholy alliance" with Islamophobes and White Nationalists while prominent Democratic candidates nod along? Not for me -- but then again, perhaps AIPAC should have thought of that before handing out money to Frank Gaffney or putting Adam Milstein on its national board. More broadly, to the extent the pro-Israel movement aligns itself with Trump, that ipso facto represents allying with an Islamophobe and White Nationalist of the highest order.

The sad truth is that AIPAC is mostly reaping what it has sown here. We can wince at intemperate rhetoric all we want, but the fact is the claim that AIPAC has aligned itself with -- has supported and is supported by -- at least some Islamophobes and White Nationalists is just as strong as the case that Bernie Sanders has aligned himself with antisemites, and the folks getting themselves up in high dudgeon over Elizabeth Warren not rushing to AIPAC's defense hardly would blink at similar accusations being leveled at Sanders (the idea that, if a rally-goer prefaced a question by saying Sanders is "forming an alliance with antisemites and Communists", Donald Trump would do anything but cheer him on is almost as fanciful as the idea that the national media would view it as an unspeakable slander if Trump did nothing more than ignore it).

Anyway, I've digressed a bit from rating that apology. So: A good start is undermined, albeit not wholly erased, by a mediocre ending. 5.5/10

Friday, February 07, 2020

David's 2020 Endorsement: Elizabeth Warren! (Plus: Likes and Dislikes!)

I've been keeping quiet about who I'm backing in the 2020 Democratic primary. I mean, I guess I came out for Booker earlier on, but that was with the self-conscious knowledge that I was just delaying my actual decision until he inevitably dropped out. It actually worked pretty well, since one of my key motivators is "not getting so invested in one person that I get mad if they don't win", and being on team Booker meant avoiding a lot of drama for the first infinity months of this never-ending primary season.

However, the time has come to plant my flag. And so the coveted David Schraub endorsement goes to: Elizabeth Warren!

In a field with many great candidates, I think she aligns closest to both my ideological values and my practical considerations for what a good President needs. To wit: she's a smart, New Deal liberal technocrat with good ideas and good instincts for finding and managing talent. I think she has the smarts to inspire good policy innovations and the savvy to actually move the ball forward in implementing them.

But when it comes right down to it, there are things I like and dislike (or at least am concerned about) for all the candidates. So if you want to follow my logic in making your decision, here's my current appraisal of the major remaining players in the Democratic field (with the important caveat that my main commitment is to vote for the Democratic candidate, no matter who it is, and be happy about it).

Elizabeth Warren
Likes: I already mentioned it above: smart, wonkish New Deal-style liberal with technocratic instincts. That's my jam. She has experience both as a thought leader coming up with ideas and a practical leader implementing policies on the ground -- a good President has to have a good handle on both. I also think that, of all the candidates, she's best positioned to unite the "progressive" and "establishment" wing of the party after the primary is over.

Dislikes: Many of the things I liked about Warren are the same things that attracted me to Hillary Clinton. And I'm obviously feeling a bit burned about how that turned out. She's going to face a boatload of misogyny (e.g., the assumption -- ludicrous if you listen to her -- that she's "shrill"), and that's on top of the easy "Massachusetts liberal" attack line.

Bernie Sanders
Likes: I actually do think a lot of his policy proposals are realistic -- at least in concept (getting them through the Senate, on the other hand....). He wrote a pretty darn good essay on Jewish issues in Jewish Currents. And I think he has more general election viability than a lot of other pundits believe -- his brand of anti-establishment fire is definitely on trend right now, and it is a myth that "independent" and "centrist" are coterminous categories.

Dislikes: All candidates have bad actors among their supporters, but Sanders definitely stands out here and not in a good way. A Sanders victory will embolden a cadre of actors who've embraced a leftist iteration of the paranoid style in American politics, a development I think would be outright dangerous for the future of American progressivism. And while Sanders can't be held fully responsible for the actions of his supporters, he's also shown shaky judgment on the people who he, personally, has decided to surround himself with. That's actually a big voting issue for me, since a large part of what a President does is picking other people to elevate to positions of power.

Amy Klobuchar
Likes: There's something to be said for a purpling-state Democrat who has utterly annihilated her Republican opposition every election she's faced. My lean-Republican midwestern in-laws love her, for what that's worth. I think she's smart and competent -- and if those sound like backhanded compliments, I don't mean them to be.

Dislikes: I may chuckle at some of the abusive boss stories, but it really is inappropriate and raises questions about how she'll attract good talent as President. The fact that she's been bragging on the campaign trail about a conviction of a kid who may well be innocent is not the best look. Plus, I think we can push in a more progressive direction than what she's offering.

Joe Biden
Likes: The ultimate "return to normalcy" candidate. 95% of his campaign pitch is "don't you miss the Obama years?", and I won't lie -- that sings to me a bit. He's also another person who I think will do will on the "staff positions with good people" metric.

Dislikes: He's just a bad campaigner. I'm sorry, but it's true. Any time he's run a national race he's imploded, and I think he'll do it again. His Iowa strategy of "repeatedly tell people they should vote for someone else" was a predictable disaster. Biden just feels like someone whose time has passed.

Pete Buttigieg
Likes: Another entry in the "basically smart guy" camp. Twitter notwithstanding, a lot of people seem to find him quite likable, and a fresh face. Fresh faces can be good.

Dislikes: Call me crazy, but I think politics is a job and I don't think one should jump from "Mayor of South Bend" to "President of the United States." Also, as a coastal-born American, I cannot stand this whole "real American heartland guy" shtick. Utter lack of support in non-White communities also is a turn-off -- though it'll be interesting to see if that changes after Iowa.

Mike Bloomberg
Likes: He seems to scare Trump, and genuinely get under his skin. I don't know if infinite money = unstoppable election campaign, but Bloomberg certainly could test the hypothesis. He's shown leadership on a couple of issues that matter to me -- guns and the environment, mostly. And again, I think he's someone who would pick competent people to surround him.

Dislikes: Not really interested in backing a random billionaire. And -- as one would expect from a recent Republican -- he's got a lot of problems on the issues. Stop and frisk is the obvious one, but he hasn't been good on trans rights either. Oh, and he has a history of harassing women, which the country may not care about but I do.

Tom Steyer
Likes: Of the billionaires, he seems to be better on the issues. So as against Bloomberg, he's a more progressive way of having "infinite money" to spend on the race.

Dislikes: More so than any other candidate running -- even Bloomberg -- Steyer is clearly just buying his way into political viability, and that makes me feel he's a bit of dilettante. For example, unlike Bloomberg, he has no actual political experience. Again, politics is a job, and I want a candidate who has experience holding office.

Thursday, February 06, 2020

If Sanders Wins...

I think Bernie Sanders has to be considered the front-runner for the Democratic nomination right now. Not prohibitively so, but a moderate favorite. So what if he does win the Democratic nomination? This is what:
If any of you don’t vote for Bernie in November, you are as bad as any Nader voter, any Bernie Bro who wouldn’t pull the lever for Hillary. You are saying you are OK with fascism if the guy you don’t like is the nominee, as if voting for the Gore-Lieberman or Clinton-Kaine ticket was some kind of great thing for a whole lot of people who did it. If you spend the next six months after he wins the nomination whining about it, you are just as bad as all those guys who complained and whined and undermined Hillary’s candidacy before maybe finally voting for her.
I really don't have anything to add. There's no hemming and hawing here. If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, and you're a Democrat, or an independent, or anyone halfway decent, you vote for Bernie Sanders, and you do it without any hesitation or caterwauling. Same goes for any Democratic nominee. Nothing more to it than that.