Who's Heard of Tim Walz's H. Res. 11 Vote? (Not You)

In December of 2016, the UN Security Council passed resolution number 2334, affirming the view that Israel's settlements in occupied Palestinian territories were unlawful. The United States abstained from voting -- the first and only abstention on an Israel-related vote during Barack Obama's entire tenure in office.

Shortly thereafter, Congress passed H. Res. 11, condemning this Security Council resolution. In doing so, the resolution specifically denounced "politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel" and expressed opposition to the resolution's insistence on distinguishing "between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."

The vote tally on H. Res. 11 was 342-80. Among those voting in favor was Tim Walz, then the Democratic representative from Minnesota's first congressional district.

I do not reveal this detail to undermine Walz's case for joining the Democratic presidential ticket. I like Tim Walz. I liked him as a congressman, and I certainly liked him better than the antisemite who succeeded him representing my in-laws' home congressional district. And I've liked him even more as Governor. As far as I'm concerned, he'd make an excellent addition to the ticket.

Moreover, while this vote was not great, I don't think it suggests that Walz is some uniquely bad figure on matters of Israel/Palestine. Certainly, if one framed it the right way and possessed the right priors one could easily make the case: He openly attacked BDS! He was opposing even condemning Israeli settlements! He can't even claim the defense of "well, everyone was doing it back then" -- Walz was to the right of the Obama administration on this, and seventy-six Democrats voted against the resolution he supported! If one was looking to attack Walz on matters of Israel/Palestine, H. Res. 11 offers a very viable angle of attack. If one's primary concern regarding Harris' VP pick is avoiding Democratic politicians with a history of hostility towards either BDS or a record of unblinking support for Israel, then H. Res. 11 generates a very valid reason for concern.

But as far as I know, nobody has taken this angle. In fact, as best I can tell, nobody has even raised Walz's H. Res. 11 vote before I wrote this blog post. This is despite the fact that, as we know, questions about Israel policy have been front and center in why many have rallied aggressively against Josh Shapiro as a potential VP pick.

So here's the question that does motivate this post: how do you think it came to be that we learned about Josh Shapiro's collegiate op-ed columns written as a 20 year old before we started considering Tim Walz's actual voting record?

The position I took last week on Shapiro as VP nominee remains the position I'll take this week: I think Shapiro would be fine as VP, and I don't think he should be picked. On the former side of the ledger, I don't think his positions on Israel are substantially different from those of other potential members of the Democratic ticket (Harris included) -- the differences that exist are matters of degree, not kind (see also: Mark Kelly supporting police breaking up pro-Palestine protests). In that post, I argued that 

the congealing anti-Shapiro backlash smacks of a very predictable and unlovely hyperpolicing of Jews-qua-Jews on Israel, whose every jot and tittle on the matter will be pored over with exacting and unforgiving scrutiny in a manner that just isn't imposed upon non-Jews. Non-Jews can have unacceptable positions on Israel, but only Jews become unacceptable for things like "her book has an Israeli in it." Shapiro is getting heightened scrutiny here not because his positions on Israel are significantly different from those of Kelly or Beshear or Cooper, but because he's a very visibly Jewish politician and so is presumed to need greater scrutiny.

The fact that Shapiro is having his college views scrutinized while nobody even bothered to look at what Tim Walz actually voted for as a congressman I think pretty emphatically proves the point. Noting that Shapiro really has done X Y and Z potentially problematic things vis-a-vis Israel cannot explain why one didn't even think to look at Walz at all.

My point is not, to be clear, that Walz is actually "worse" than Shapiro on Israel/Palestine. It's not even that they're identical. While I don't think it is clear-cut, I have zero problem with someone who is highly motivated by pro-Palestine/anti-Israel sentiment looking at Walz's H. Res. 11 vote, and the remainder of his record in Congress and as Governor, comparing it to that of Shapiro, and say "on net, I think Walz is comparatively better on the issue, and so I prefer him to Shapiro."

But the difference in affect we're seeing directed towards Walz (and all the other plausible Democratic contenders) versus Shapiro, centered around Israel, is not one of "I think so-and-so is comparatively better." What differences exist between Shapiro and Walz cannot bear the weight of justifying being ecstatic about Walz, or even just thinking of Walz as adequate, and viewing Shapiro as cataclysmically unacceptable. If what Shapiro's done on Israel while in office is outright unacceptable, then it's hard to argue that Walz's objecitvely similar record is hunky-dory. They might be different, but they're not that different, and the only reason they're viewed as that different is because of an instinctual suspicion of Shapiro that is largely based on his identity. And I'm further saying that the reason why people immediately fixated on digging into the deepest recesses of Shapiro's Israel record while being completely uninterested in learning the first thing about Walz's is because Shapiro is vocally and publicly Jewish, and so became a target.

Does any of this change my opinion on whether Shapiro should be selected as VP? No. Why not? Because even if it is the case that some of the attacks Shapiro has faced are unfair, vice presidential selection is not about "fair". It's about maximizing one's chances to win, and fairly or not Shapiro seems to be a problem for some important swaths of voters. Harris also doesn't seem to be considering any women for her running mate, presumably because it is thought that having two women on a ticket will turn off certain voters. Is that "fair"? No, any voter who thinks that way is indulging in rank misogyny. And yet, it would be facile to suggest that Harris should pick a woman just to vindicate that these voters are wrong. They are wrong, but the purpose of a vice presidential candidate is not to even justifiably say to certain influential voting blocs "you're wrong."

But we shouldn't delude ourselves as to what's happening here. Everybody reading this has seen a slew of commentary analyzing Josh Shapiro's Israel record from top to bottom. Nobody reading this had seen a droplet of ink spilled on Tim Walz's H. Res. 11 vote. Likewise, it is quite clear that what is an unforgivable heresy for Shapiro will be easily (and quite literally) overlooked when it comes to Walz. That difference is not random. It manifests for exactly the reason you'd expect it to.

Josh Shapiro Would Make a Fine VP and Probably Shouldn't Be Picked

There's a job opening for the position of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, and a list of possibilities is beginning to emerge. The main names I've seen floated are Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz.

As far as I'm concerned, all of these are fine choices. None of them are blue dog quasi-GOPers. None of them are DSA-adjacent fire breathers. They're all solid, mainline Democrats with a lot to offer. Anecdotally, the name that seems to get the most enthusiasm in my circles is Senator Kelly; a poll of DNC delegates gave a plurality to Shapiro (albeit lagging significantly behind "undecided").

With respect to Shapiro, the case in favor is pretty obvious. He stomped to victory in the keystone key swing state of Pennsylvania in 2022, and remains quite popular in what is still a battleground state. He's generally done a good job a governor, and his out-and-proud Jewishness not only helps dissipates bad faith GOP grandstanding about protecting the Jews, it has also provoked plenty of "show us how you really feel" antisemitism on the part of Republicans whose love for "Jews" is matched only by their hatred for (actual, real-life) Jews. Plus, he provides a model of liberal religiosity which helps challenge the monopoly right-wing conservative Christians have sought to claim over the mantle of faith. It will not surprise you that I like Shapiro a lot, and his was the first name that came to mind for me when I thought of my preferred VP choice.

Unfortunately, Shapiro also seems to be getting the most amount of pushback of any VP contender from the single-issue (anti-)Israel voter crowd, who have tagged Shapiro has having an especially problematic pro-Israel outlook.

The entire dynamic surrounding the Biden-to-Harris switch and how it relates to the burbling pro-Palestinian sentiment amongst many younger Democrats is interesting. Over the past few months we saw quite a few people loudly aver they could never bring themselves to vote for "genocide Joe" because of the way in which he and his administration have enabled Israel's assault in Gaza. The closer we got to election day, the higher stakes this game of chicken became -- will they blink or will they actually usher in Trump 2.0 -- but now that Biden is off the ballot many of these persons seem to be happy to return to the Democratic column. Now, objectively speaking, Kamala Harris is part of the Biden administration and, minor rhetorical gestures aside, has not meaningfully separated herself from Biden's Israel policy -- if you genuinely believe that the Biden administration's policy regarding Israel is monstrous and unforgivable, Harris, as the second-highest ranking official in that administration, should be tainted too. Practically speaking, though, not having Biden be the name on the ballot has offered people who had perhaps overindulged in self-righteous chest thumping and consequently talked themselves into a corner a face-saving offramp. If they were fully genuine in what they say they believe about the Biden administration's choices being "unforgivable",* they'd be equally indignant about voting for Harris. That they're not suggests there was no small measure of performance going on, but for my part, I'm happy not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Welcome back.

But while this cadre may be willing to let bygones be bygones with Harris, many of them have seemingly decided that Shapiro is going to be the stand-in for the type of pro-Israel Democrat they cannot stand. Part of me recoils at this. Shapiro's positions actually don't seem that far off-line from those of his peers (he enforced an anti-BDS law that also exists in 37 other states?!?), and the effort to try and draw distinctions from how he has spoken of, e.g., antisemitism at pro-Palestine protests compared to how other analogous Democrats have spoken about it feels very thin. To be honest, the congealing anti-Shapiro backlash smacks of a very predictable and unlovely hyperpolicing of Jews-qua-Jews on Israel, whose every jot and tittle on the matter will be pored over with exacting and unforgiving scrutiny in a manner that just isn't imposed upon non-Jews. Non-Jews can have unacceptable positions on Israel, but only Jews become unacceptable for things like "her book has an Israeli in it." Shapiro is getting heightened scrutiny here not because his positions on Israel are significantly different from those of Kelly or Beshear or Cooper, but because he's a very visibly Jewish politician and so is presumed to need greater scrutiny.

That's not good. But even though it's not good, I think that for better or for worse it does give a good reason not to pick Shapiro as Harris' VP. Under circumstances where there are many good choices for the VP candidate, the fact that one in particular runs the risk of cheesing off a substantial contingent of wavering Democratic voters is reason enough not to choose him, regardless of whether the reason he runs that risk is "fair" or not. It'd be different if we were in a situation where there was a dearth of good options, or Shapiro was somehow the obvious best choice, or if the "anti-Shapiro" cadre was declaring itself ready to fight to the death over every remotely plausible mainstream Democratic choice or trying to sabotage any potential VP who wasn't all in on BDS. But we're not in that situation. The other Democratic alternatives to Shapiro are also good. Their positions on Israel are probably not that meaningfully distinct from Shapiro's. If I'm happy with a lot of people, and some people whose votes matter are particularly unhappy with one person, there's little reason not to pick someone that makes us all happy.

Throughout this electoral cycle, people in my position have insisted to fellow progressives that the importance of winning in 2024 is too important to take one's ball and go home the instant things don't go your way. That applies here too, but what it means right now -- when no VP has been picked -- is that it'd be unreasonable for me to die on the hill of picking Josh Shapiro for VP, even if I think he'd be a good pick, and even if I think the rationale upon which people are anti-Shapiro is wrongheaded or even pernicious. I may well be right. But winning in 2024 is more important than vindicating my correctness is. If Shapiro gets picked, I'll happily rally behind him and I hope everyone else does too. But there's no shame in Kamala Harris picking someone else if she thinks they will do a better job uniting the progressive community towards the goal of winning this November.

* On that note, I'll give, if not credit, then at least points for consistency to Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who is one of the few Democrats who self-consciously declined to endorse Harris following Biden's withdrawal. Agree with it or not, her position was not a performance.