Wreckers Gonna Wreck

There's an ad going around in Michigan, nominally in support of Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed, that's generating quite its share of controversy in a race where there's concern that El-Sayed may not be able to lock down support from the normally stalwart-blue Jewish community.

The ad comes from Rebellion PAC, which is fronted by left-wing political commentator Cenk Uygur. It depicts a couple in a supermarket saying they cannot afford groceries because they have to set money aside “for killing Palestinians.” It concludes by stating that the Michigan Democrat’s GOP opponent “is for they/them,” referring to Israelis.

The ad actually apparently is a "repurposed" piece from Uygur's absurdist vanity run for President, with the bonus content at the end attacking Mike Rogers. Both Uygur and Rebellion PAC spokeswoman Kara Eastman* took a similar line on the controversy, which was to accuse their critics of mental illness:

“If you think this ad is antisemitic, you’ve lost your mind and you don’t know it,” the Rebellion PAC spokesperson, Kara Eastman, told JTA. “It’s saying we’re giving too much money to a foreign nation — and they’re misusing it. There’s nothing more normal than that. But when someone criticizes the government of Israel, and you hear ‘they hate all Jews,’ get clinical help.”

Shortly after Eastman’s response to JTA, Uygur himself added on X, “If you think this ad is antisemitic, you’re in a cult and don’t know it. You think Israel is owed all the money it wants from US and if Americans don’t hand it over — without complaint — they’re antisemites. That’s insane, but you don’t realize it because you’ve lost your mind.”

For his part, El-Sayed has disavowed the ad.

This is obvious wrecker behavior -- which makes sense, since it's, you know, Cenk Uygur. Indeed, apparently Rebellion PAC is spending a whopping $1,000 (no, I'm not missing any zeros) on this advertisement -- effectively nothing. It's not actually going to be seen by Michigan voters. Its only purpose is to stir up antagonism and controversy, of a sort that I'm confident neither the Jewish community, the Democratic Party, nor El-Sayed have any desire to deal with a week out of election day. Which again, is entirely in line with Uygur's whole MO.

So to be clear -- this ad is trash, and it's designed to be trash. But we shouldn't make it out to be a bigger investment in trash than it is. It's a known wrecker trying to wreck things. Don't give him the oxygen, and don't pretend it's some prominent intervention.

* That name rang a bell, and it is indeed the same Kara Eastman who was the 2018 and 2020 Democratic nominee for the swingy 2nd Nebraska District House seat currently held by Don Bacon. Eastman defeated Brad Ashford, a Democrat who had held the seat for a term in 2014 (he lost it in 2016), in the 2018 primary, then proceeded to lose to Bacon by an even larger margin than Ashford did despite 2018 being a much better year for Democrats than 2016.

AIPAC Ends Direct Contributions, Endorsements

The big news in money and politics is AIPAC's announcement that it will no longer issue endorsements or make direct contributions to candidates. This marks a substantial retreat -- AIPAC only began giving direct donations in 2021. (AIPAC will continue to operate its SuperPAC however).

Needless to say, this decision is generating plenty of crowing on behalf of AIPAC's adversaries, who've labored hard to turn it into a toxic brand amongst Democrats (and, to a lesser but not negligible extent, Republicans). That crowing is certainly justified, and I have no doubt that the degree to which AIPAC has become a boogeyman (and thereby hurting the politicians it nominally wishes to help) is playing no small role in the organization's decision. But I'll do my own crowing here as well, as from the outset of AIPAC's foray into direct contributions (so well before it became super toxic) I was telling anyone who'd listen that it was a dumb strategy that would backfire on them in spectacular fashion. AIPAC made the choice to initiate an unprecedented foray into partisan politics at the precise moment such an intervention was most fraught -- it's no accident that the just months into the program AIPAC crashed into a PR buzzsaw by endorsing a slate full of insurrectionists. 

Worse, from AIPAC's vantage point, is that their choice to join hands with the most vile Republicans imaginable irreparably damaged their credibility in Democratic primaries even though probably the most important bang-for-buck AIPAC could get is in protected moderate pro-Israel Democrats from leftier challengers. Again, I called it:

The most likely place where we're liable to see a contested race where one candidate has (from AIPAC's vantage) a much worse Israel record than their competitor is in Democratic primaries where a strong pro-Israel Democrat might face a challenge from their left that AIPAC would want to fend off (the reason this doesn't apply to Republican primaries is that I doubt there is any rightwing position on Israel -- at least that which nominally drapes itself as "pro-Israel" -- that is too extreme for AIPAC to accept. But remember, they support a two-state solution!).... But it's far from clear that AIPAC's endorsement is even beneficial these days in a Democratic primary, and associating AIPAC with GOP insurrectionists makes the brand even more toxic. If the top priority is keeping pro-Israel Democrats secure against flanking attacks, the main effect of AIPAC's endorsement list is to kneecap their own credibility.

Used to playing the game on easy mode, AIPAC proved almost comically inept at effectively interceding in progressive the moment the political waters grew choppy. And that's the generous interpretation -- the more cynical one is that they purposefully sacrificed solid pro-Israel Democrats who weren't willing to completely kowtow to a Bibi-or-bust line in favor of more radical antagonists because the latter made for better fundraising foils. Even in the brief window where AIPAC's interventions were not completely toxic amongst Democratic voters, their net effect still was to strengthen overt anti-Zionists at the expense of liberal Zionists, and it's not to see that as intentional. Either way, the lesson liberal Zionists in particular learned loud and clear was that "if you at all think of yourself as in the lane of 'I care about Israel but they, and we, need to change course substantially to align with basic liberal values', AIPAC is your mortal enemy trying to destroy your movement."

Let's Kill Domestic Spam/Scam Texters

I hate scammers. And I hate spammers. I know, controversial opinion. But seriously, I do think I harbor an outsized rage towards them, at least for someone who's never been a victim of a serious scam (save that one time with Lego).

My understanding is that many of the various scam phone and text operations operate out of organized criminal compounds in southeast Asia, making them relatively impervious to American law enforcement (germane to the aforementioned hatred, I'd mostly-earnestly support orienting our entire foreign policy towards those countries towards finding and decapitating these scam operations).

But some seem to be U.S. based. A few years ago, I alluded to the "jury service" scam call I received, where the caller on the other end of the line claimed to be from the sheriff's office. His accent was decidedly southern-American in character, which I guess doesn't preclude it coming out of a Cambodian compound, but I think more likely suggests the culprit was based somewhere in the United States (it was, I think, a little early for AI-generated deep faking, though of course that's on the horizon). More recently, I've been hit with a flurry of spam texts offering roof repairs; reading up on the angle, it seems that the perpetrators offer a deceptively low rate to "fix your roof", then do intentionally shoddy work while identifying more and more "problems" to try and drain more money out of you. That, too, is a scam which cannot be done entirely remotely, which means the operators have at least some American boots on the ground.

So if there is at least something of a domestic American spam/scam text industry, why does it not seem law enforcement is going after it with any vigor? If I were a DA, I'd answer all those texts and try to arrange meet ups where I'd toss as many people as possible in jail (this is a domain where I am 100% carceral and punitive in character). This seems like such an obvious quality-of-life "win" -- everyone hates these calls -- that any politician or public attorney that was able to really take a high profile crack at it would I think get a ton of positive attention and accolades.

Tell Me Who To Vote For (Portland Edition 2026)

I'll confess, I haven't been following local politics as much as I should. Like many, I'm frustrated with the gridlock and dysfunction on the city council, which seems to be a majority view (though of course, fracturing badly on the "who is to blame" question). But I don't have big opinions on many of the local issues of the day. And since everyone is a Democrat (at least at the municipal level), I don't even have that heuristic.

So I'll do my best, but I'm still quite persuadable. Have at me in the comments.

Governor: Tina Kotek

I guess I can understand being underwhelmed by Tina Kotek, though I think the issues in Oregon's government go well beyond her. What I don't understand is the appeal of Christine Drazan. I guess some people never get tired of thinking "things aren't great now -- maybe if we elect someone worse, they'll get better!" They won't. They'll get worse. That's how it works.

Congress: Janelle Bynum

She's doing fine. I live in a swing district now, so I couldn't do the purity-politics thing right now even if I wanted to, which I don't.

County Executive: Julia Brim-Edwards

Probably the race I'm most unsure about. Last time around, I voted for Sharon Meieran, who lost to Jessica Vega Pederson. Given how much everyone thinks JVP has been a trainwreck, I'm feeling pretty good about that call. But despite that, I'm less keen on Meieran now than I am the first time around. What once was a useful penchant for hard-truth-telling now seems like a near-Joker-like desire to burn everything to ground in a cleansing fire. There's no way that doesn't turn out to be a disaster.

So that leaves Brim-Edwards, who has locked up most of the institutional Democratic endorsements, and Shannon Singleton, who is occupying the left lane and is seen as the closest thing to JVP's successor. The latter gave me a lot of pause, and that pause coupled with the aforementioned endorsement parade for Brim-Edwards almost made this a walkover. But I was surprised to see Singleton earn the endorsement nod from the Willamette Week, and they make a good case for her both as a leader and as someone who really shouldn't be seen as JVP 2.0. That reverted what was an easy pick back into a hard one.

Ultimately, what's driving me right now is I've heard the "yes, she's aligned with X faction, but she's actually thoughtful and independent!" spiel before, and it keeps on breaking apart once people occupy higher office. Maybe Singleton will be different -- after all, she has shown more of an independent streak in her current role on the county commission. But I'm not sure it's a risk worth taking.

City Council (District 4): Olivia Clark, Eric Zimmerman, Eli Arnold

The city council race is weird. Everyone seems to hate how the council is performing, and yet our shiny new electoral system seems tailor-made to ensure all the incumbents will win again. So I don't know why I'm stressing about this.

The last time around -- which is to say, the first time we got to vote under the new city government system -- there were approximately six trillion candidates vying for three seats. Nonetheless, all three of the eventual winners -- Clark, Zimmerman, and Mitch Green -- were in my top six. Since then, the council has been effectively deadlocked between a mainline liberal faction (including Clark and Zimmerman), and a DSA-aligned left faction (including Green) known as the Peacocks (short for "progressive caucus"). The two factions are not friends, and both blame the other for the animosity.

As far as animosity goes, I'm sure there's blame to go around. But despite ranking Green last time, I'm loathe to do so again. A lot of attention has centered around some poor choices Green has made outside the council chambers -- setting a fire in his yard in defiance of a "burn ban", missing some taxes, and some pretty vitriolic anti-police social media posts from before he was elected. I'm more concerned about some of his grandstanding in the room. As an academic freedom guy, I'm particularly incensed about his threat to withhold funds from Portland State unless they bent their school conduct disciplinary process to his political will -- a move taken directly out of the Trumpist playbook. That's just unforgivable to me.

Of course, none of this will matter. The system is designed to promote "pluralism", and I have no doubt there is at least a substantial minority of D4 voters who like Green's style of politics and want more of it. In concept I guess he could be replaced by a different DSA-aligned politician. In practice, none of them seem especially viable. As for Clark, Zimmerman, and Arnold; I ranked them all last time and I've been satisfied with how the former two have performed on the council (Clark more than Zimmerman). The pro and con of Arnold is that he's viewed as essentially a Zimmerman clone, which isn't a sterling recommendation as far I'm concerned, but it beats the alternative (except, it won't actually beat the alternative).

Ballot Measure 26-267 (Community Budgeting): No

Seems like a classic Portland case of "this issue is far too important to care about doing it well." First, it's far from clear to me that budget decisions should be devolved to direct democracy (a position I've held since back when I lived in California). Moreover, in practice, it's almost assured that this fund will not be especially democratic at all be taken over by an opaque mix of lobbyists and hardcore activists with bizarre and embarrassing hobbyhorses. When even the Portland Mercury can't bring itself to give it a nod, you know there's a problem.

Consistent Enforcement of Campus Speech Rules? No, Disparate Treatment!

David Bernstein replies to an Amnesty International/ACLU report decrying crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech on campus. The report particularly hangs its hat on the issue of double-standards: many of the "rules" pro-Palestinian activists were alleged to have broken were ones the university rarely if ever enforced when flouted by other activists and protesters.

Bernstein concedes that there "is some truth to that conclusion," but ultimately dismisses the "claim that alleged viewpoint discrimination required universities to stand down, for three interrelated reasons." But of these three reasons, two are manifestly unpersuasive. The third, by contrast, has some force but is considerably more limited in scope than he lets on.

Here's objection number 1:

First, arguing some sort of estoppel for cracking down on rule-breaking is a bad legal argument. "But your honor, the government did not prosecute the last ten rapists" isn't going to get you far.

This is a baffling argument to make in the context of free speech in particular. The entire point of the rule against viewpoint discrimination is that it nullifies government actions* even in circumstances where a content-neutral rule, evenly enforced, would be perfectly justified. Bernstein's objection is tantamount to saying that entire doctrine against viewpoint discrimination should be jettisoned.

It's notable that to make this argument even marginally plausible, Bernstein has to reach to an extreme example (rape), one where we cannot imagine a well-ordered society permitting the conduct and "leveling down" is not an option. Of course, the overwhelming majority of speech-rule violations are more analogous to civil infractions or misdemeanors at most, for which systemic under- or nonenforcement is an entirely plausible policy choice. If we adopt the hypothetical to a more analogous example -- a "no parking" sign that is routinely ignored, but suddenly gets resurrected to only tow away cars at the Trump or Harris rally, then I think the "estoppel" argument might get you pretty far indeed. And all the more so in the core speech-regulation context, where the rule demanding viewpoint neutrality is about as central a lodestar as exists in First Amendment law.

Now objection number 2:

Second, the failure of universities to properly punish misbehavior by, say, climate activists was itself viewpoint discriminatory. One can hardly imagine, say, Columbia University, acting with equanimity if anti-abortion or anti-affirmative action protestors engaged in the illicit shenanigans that leftist protestors have engaged in.

This argument drives me nuts, because it asserts as fact something it admits is speculation. The failure to regulate climate activist speech was viewpoint discriminatory because we can't imagine the same administrators wouldn't have punished conservative activists for similar behavior. A version of this argument was trotted out by the conservative judges advocating an academic boycott of Columbia, and I hated it there too: 

It has become clear that Columbia applies double standards when it comes to free speech and student misconduct.  If Columbia had been faced with a campus uprising of religious conservatives upset because they view abortion as a tragic genocide, we have no doubt that the university’s response would have been profoundly different. 

Again, note the assertion that Columbia flatly has adopted a double-standard, based not on anything it actually did, but on how its critics imagine it would have behaved in a hypothetical-but-not-actually-real scenario ("if ... we have no doubt"). Columbia is being punished for a story the judges literally invented so they can be mad about it.

Of course, since the argument by its terms doesn't require grounding in reality, it is absolutely impossible for a university to rebut it. And I'll say flat out that I'm not at all convinced that universities have applied or would apply a "double-standard" in such cases. When David Horowitz started plastering campuses with flyers targeting student pro-Palestinian activists as "Jew-haters" (cf., recent posters at the University of Oregon assailing the campus Hillel director), I don't recall there being any attempt to impose consequences on campus constituents who may have taken part, even though I have no doubt that a diligent administrator could've dug up some rule or another they were violating. Why not? Well for one, had they done so Horowitz and his backers would've thrown a fit about liberal censorship yadayadayada. But for two, if campuses hadn't historically enforced whatever rules limiting flyering in other cases, they'd be in choppy waters if they tried to suddenly start enforcing them against the likes of Horowitz. Which is to say, they abide by a rule against viewpoint discrimination.

Now, the final objection:

And finally, civil rights law require[s] universities to take action against illicit hostile environments. Climate change activists may have broken university rules, but they did not intimidate, harass, and engage in violence against any identifiable group protected by civil rights laws. 

This is the one objection that has some purchase. I agree with it insofar as I agree that otherwise-protected speech can nonetheless be probative of motive with respect to non-protected conduct. And I also agree that some defenders of the campus protesters have undersold or been apologists for aspects of the protest that were not simply inflammatory or offensive speech but were violent, harassing, or otherwise destructive.

But the reality is that the vast majority of campus pro-Palestinian speech -- even that which was understandably offensive, even that which formally may have violated university rules -- was not violent or harassing in a legally-cognizable way. The defense of universities cracking down on actual instances of actionable harassment is fine as far as it goes, but the more numerous instances of universities cracking down on non-harassing speech cannot justify itself via stolen valor. And while I'm not so naive as to think that people would stop being fair weather friends of free speech if universities didn't try to cloak the latter in the aura of the former, there's little doubt that the draconian hyperpolicing of protected speech did more to delegitimize legitimate university interventions than the instances of legitimate intervention did to justify the hyperpolicing.

* For purposes of this post, I'm treating all colleges as if they are akin to government actors, as many private universities at least purport to extend First Amendment-inspired free speech protections that are meant to guard against collegiate administrative overreach.

The Disappointment of a Man-Child

Last year, as I approached forty years old, I mused about one of the things I missed most about being a kid -- enthusiasm. Not having it, but people being responsive to it. Everybody loves when a kid is excited about something, and they'll often go out of their way to indulge in that excitement. The kid who loves flying gets a tour of a cockpit; the kid who loves cooking might get some tips from a chef. Adults don't get that. That's not wrong -- it's wholly understandable why not -- but it is something I miss.

The other day, I was reflecting on a corollary to that thought, which is as an adult, people don't typically care if you're disappointed. For example, I think the Supreme Court is doing a lousy job. Worse than that: I'm heartbroken at how they have, in my view, being downright cruel and capricious, wrecking lives in pursuit of a narrow partisan agenda. I also know that John Roberts does not care that I think that. Even if I were in a position to confront him (and I swear I was thinking about this before the NYT posted that article about John Roberts getting protested at his vacation island), he wouldn't really care. He'd think I was a schmuck. By contrast, if a child expressed disappointment, or fear, or grief -- "you made my friend's mom disappear" -- I think that would cut different. I'm not saying his heart would grow three sizes that day, but knowing that a kid sees him as their monster-under-the-bed would I bet affect him in a materially different way than knowing that I see him that way.

One of the shortfalls of modern democracy is that, even when we have (deservedly) big feelings about things, it is very hard to feel heard. We feel like we're screaming "this is hurting me", and it's impossible to get anyone to care. In the legal space, I'm more qualified and connected than 99% of Americans, and it's still impossible for me to imagine that my opinions could ever influence anyone with influence one whit. That's incredibly draining. It's also, again, largely unavoidable. This a problem that's been addressed by everyone from federalism enthusiasts to Michael Sandel's "Democracy's Discontent". But it's hard not to miss the sense that people care when you hurt.

Harris Be Harris

For folks of a certain age, it was a bit amusing watching the post-retirement revival of longtime ADL chief Abe Foxman as a progressive mensch. In his dotage, he became unsparing in his criticism of a Jewish establishment that had (in his fabulous coinage) "Washington Post syndrome" (a maddening refusal to take on mainstream conservatives no matter how extreme they get, coupled with hyper-policing of the mainstream left). You loved to see it.

Sadly, if this article on J Street's newly emergent clout amongst old-school Jewish establishment "heavy hitters" is any indicator, ex-AJC chieftain David Harris will not be undergoing a similar redemption arc.

An influential vote against J Street at that meeting [on whether to admit J Street to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations] was the American Jewish Committee, which nullified the nod J Street had received from other mainstream groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Reform movement. 

David Harris, then the AJC CEO, said he doesn’t regret the way his group voted then and that he would recommend the same vote now. 

“I don’t believe it is the role of American Jews — who live thousands of miles from Israel, reject aliyah, don’t face life-and-death military service and don’t have to take their children and elderly to bomb shelters day and night — to seek to influence existentially important issues affecting Israel and its vital link with the United States,” he said. 

He added that such lobbying for U.S. pressure on Israel is “inappropriate and, yes, harmful.” The same goes, he said, for right-wing groups that seek U.S. pressure on Israel for their favored outcomes.

Ah yes, a principle that applies exactly same for right-wing and left-wing groups, with the small exception of it absolutely never applying to right-wing groups.

Anyway, as much as I enjoy one last opportunity to be cranky at David Harris, the article is actually one of general good news, in that Harris position is increasingly an outlier, and other bigwigs with impeccable "establishment" credential are stepping up to give J Street their hechsher. Long past due, of course, but progress is progress.

The Power of Positive Thinking

My wife and I are finally watching Season 4 of Ted Lasso. Much has been written about the show's relentless positivity, and the degree to which it is or isn't an appropriate message for the present moment (even with Season 3's attempt to complicate the roots and results of Ted's positive affect, I still do think the fundamental message of the show is pro-positive).

It did feel to me like, as a show Ted Lasso was the apex of a particular type -- the response to the anti-hero era of Peak TV television that wanted to show the virtues of optimism and doing the right thing without being hokey about it. But now that I think about it, was that ever really a "trend"? What other shows fall into the category (one can't have an "apex" of category with only one member)?

The obvious answer, and what I'd deem the inaugurator of the style, is Parks & Rec. And another I'd argue for is The Good Place, whose underlying ethos did seem view trying to be good as a force which, if persistent and relentless enough, could conquer all things. But what else? Community? It's a sweet show at root, but I think its core is less human decency and more the joy of whimsy and absurdism. Brooklyn Nine Nine? Maybe -- one could argue that its positive core is what made the show "work" as a cop show in the middle of the Black Lives Matter era. But still, I feel like I must be missing something -- more than one something, in fact. But I'm drawing a blank.