Malinowski Warns About AIPAC Malinowski-ing Other Malinowskis

A few weeks ago, there was a shock upset in the Democratic special election primary for New Jersey's 11th congressional district. The frontrunner, former U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski, was long regarded as a pro-Israel moderate. But he faced an avalanche of AIPAC-funded opposition because he signaled willingness to condition aid to Israel.

As is AIPAC's wont, its spending against Malinowski did not generally relate to Israel -- they funded ads attacking him from the left (as allegedly pro-ICE), for instance. But the result of their intervention was perhaps unexpected -- it did not elevate a more orthodox pro-Israel contender to the top of the polls, but rather resulted in a further-left and far more Israel-critical Democrat (Analilia Mejia) surging to victory.

I've written quite a bit about this outcome on Bluesky, of which the basic summary is that AIPAC's conduct will have the effect of (and may be intended to have the effect of) squeezing out moderate pro-Israel Democrats who nonetheless find Bibi-or-bust to no longer be tenable, and the main beneficiaries of that squeeze-out will be more Squad-like progressive critics like Mejia. That AIPAC has defended its spending spree in the NJ-11 notwithstanding this result suggests that they are actually fine with sacrificing mainstream pro-Israel Democrats in favor of more sharp Israel critics. 

Why? My speculation is that someone like Malinowski represents a more immediate threat to AIPAC's monopoly over "pro-Israel" politics. A Jewish individual who is very attached to Israel, but is repulsed by the extremism that typifies the current Israeli government, is more likely to be willing to defect from AIPAC to a Malinowski type than to a Mejia. Way back in my Tablet Mag days I wrote about how Jewish conservatives had an incentive to shrink the pro-Israel tent if it meant solidifying its control over the content of that tent, and this is an example of that. So while I don't think AIPAC believes the NJ-11 outcome is a positive, exactly, it isn't as much of a negative as one might think. More than anything else, AIPAC wants to sabotage the emergence of any political movement that couples care and concern for Israel, its legitimate security needs and democratic prerogatives, with care and concern for Palestinians, their legitimate democratic aspirations and human rights entitlements.

And so my ultimate takeaway was pretty simple: "[I]f 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." And while they "will not succeed in stemming the tide of Democrats who no longer are willing to kowtow to any and all Israeli abuses," they "may succeed ... in ensuring that the new Democrats who win elections don’t have any residual affinity for Israel at all."

Anyway, that was my perspective. But I was pleased to see today that Malinowski has published an essay suggesting he basically endorses my view.

Late last year, an AIPAC official told me that the organization was concerned by a statement I had made that the United States should make case-by-case judgements about Israeli requests for military aid, based on what is happening on the ground (a standard I would apply to all U.S. partners, including Ukraine and Taiwan). He added: “Some of our members are also concerned you’ll be influential in Congress” because of my past foreign policy experience.

The implication was that AIPAC considered a small challenge to its hard line of unconditional support for the current Israeli government from someone like me to be scarier than electing a person hostile to the very concept of Zionism, but to whom Democrats might not listen.

But if AIPAC’s definition of “pro-Israel” now demands blind a embrace of and funding for policies that even most Americans with a lifelong commitment to Israeli security cannot in good conscience support—like the violent expulsion of West Bank Palestinians from their homes—and if it requires smearing even the most moderate elected officials who ask questions about those policies, the number of Americans (and the number of members of Congress) who pass its test will be too small to sustain any kind of relationship with the Jewish state.

And he also suggests what I suggest, which is that Democrats need to be explicit in treating AIPAC as what it is -- part of the opposing MAGA coalition. 

But Democrats are not without leverage here, if they have the guts to use it. For one thing, these special interest organizations need to maintain at least the illusion of bipartisanship. AIPAC is a case in point. Its biggest donors are pro-Trump billionaires, but most of its members are Democrats. If Democratic leaders collectively were to refuse its support, instead of letting it pick off candidates one by one, AIPAC would face a crisis of identity and legitimacy. Democrats running for Senate and for president, who will have the resources to match whatever super PACs throw at them, should lead the way in rejecting endorsements and telling these groups they don’t want their help.

On that note, retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) -- another venerable Jewish Democrat occupying the pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, pro-peace lane -- has pulled her endorsement of a fellow Democrat running for a (different) Illinois House seat because she's accepted AIPAC money. It's taken a couple cycles, but AIPAC's brand is increasingly toxic amongst Democrats -- and that's a problem wholly of their own making.

Jews Against Jews Who Discriminate

This is an interesting story about a New Jersey kosher bakery who refused to bake rainbow-frosted cupcakes because the baker decided Pride-themed events violated his conception of Jewish values. This decision, in turn, has led to a furious backlash from the rest of the local Jewish community, who are livid that the baker is citing Jewish values as justification for homophobic discrimination:

Multiple rabbis have accused the baker of bigotry, and some local Jews are boycotting his shop. The area’s Jewish federation privately said it would stop buying from Mittel before publicly walking back its position. And Eshel, an advocacy group for LGBTQ Orthodox Jews and their families, announced an “ally training” in West Orange this coming Sunday in response to the incident.

[....] 

The issue blew up as other rabbis in the area learned about what happened and commented publicly.

“When we refuse basic Jewish services to members of our community who are articulating who they are, we are excluding and dividing,” wrote Robert Tobin, rabbi of the Conservative B’nai Shalom in West Orange, in a blog post on June 22. He highlighted the Conservative movement’s recent strides toward LGBTQ inclusion, and an interpretation of the Torah that holds “humans are created in the image of God with a variety of potential gender identities and with the possibility of gender fluidity.” Tobin also reportedly addressed the incident in a sermon, according to the New Jersey Jewish News.

David Vaisberg, senior rabbi at the independent Temple B’nei Abraham in Livingston, New Jersey, tweeted that he was “so disappointed” in the bakery, which is located in a strip mall next to a kosher Chinese restaurant.

“They make great baked goods but have shown themselves to be against the LGBTQ+ in canceling orders of rainbow baked goods in Pride month,” he wrote, adding that he was letting the bakery know why they had lost his business and advised followers to “please do the same.” 

This reminded me of a working paper I heard about from years back (which I don't believe has been published, unfortunately), where the author asked Jewish, Christian, and Muslim respondents to give their views regarding government accommodations for Jewish, Christian, or Muslim business owners who for religious reasons did not want to serve gay customers. The most fascinating finding, as I recall, was that Jews were least likely to support an accommodation if they were told it was a Jewish business seeking to discriminate.

At one level, that was a surprising finding -- we'd naturally expect Jews (like all other groups) to display some level of in-group bias, being more sympathetic to claims made by their coreligionists. But on another level, this result made perfect sense to me. Ask me in the abstract about whether business owners can claim a religious exemption from having to serve gay customers, and I'll generally answer no, but I'll acknowledge the important religious freedom and pluralism concerns blah blah blah. 

But if somebody asks to do that while carrying my flag and representing my people? Oh, hell no. Screw that guy. You get your ass back into line and stop embarrassing the tribe with your homophobic nonsense. And I suspect something similar is going on in this community of New Jersey Jews.

Nuke Jersey! (In the Best Way)

I am a big booster of nuclear power. It's probably the single issue I've moved furthest on over the past five years (from "not caring about it one way or the other" to "big booster"). The reason is simple: nuclear power (which is carbon emission-free) is an essential part of moving to deep decarbonization in the electricity sector, and deep decarbonization in the electricity sector is essential to stopping global warming.

On this score, recent (good) news out of New Jersey provides a compelling illustration. A new energy package offers subsidies that will keep nuclear power plants operational for the foreseeable future, while also supporting new renewable power resources. Why does that matter? Well, consider the alternative we're witnessing in Ohio and Pennsylvania:

[T]here are four nuclear plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania that are slated to close prematurely. Last week, the research consultancy Brattle Group released a report analyzing the impact of those retirements, which are all taking place in the PJM regional energy market. 

The results are startling. Closing those four nuclear plants would wipe out the carbon emissions benefits of all the renewable energy installed in the PJM energy market in the past 25 years. 

Simply replacing the lost nuclear power with renewable energy would cost $2 billion a year, and that enormous investment would not replace or prevent any fossil fuel generation.

The emphasis is mine, but read it again. In terms of carbon emission cuts, losing nuclear power is equivalent to losing 25 years worth of renewable energy installation. Without these nuclear plants, just getting back to even (not replacing any new fossil fuel plants) would cost $2 billion/year.

If the nuclear plants in New Jersey closed, the same thing would happen. New renewable installations would simply be replacing lost nuclear energy -- which means no net reduction in carbon emissions. With the nuclear plants still operating, by contrast, new renewable resources will knock out natural gas plants -- providing a genuine reduction in carbon emissions.

As the linked article concedes, the New Jersey package isn't policy optimal (a carbon pricing scheme would be best). But given politically feasible options, it isn't bad. Importantly, when states treat nuclear power as a linchpin of deep decarbonization, that's a major net win for climate policy hawks.

So kudos, New Jersey. Nuke away.

Booker Saves the Day

How does a rising superstar mayor who already has uncountable superlatives attached to his name up the ante? By rescuing a woman from a burning building, Spiderman-style.

UPDATE: Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin (D) tries to imitate by attempting to chase off four bears raiding his property, but was unsuccessful (and nearly devoured).

No, I'm not making any of that update up.

NJ Senate Votes To Legalize Gay Marriage

The New Jersey State Senate has passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage by a 24-16 margin. Governor Chris Christie (R) is promising a veto, and right now the votes aren't there to override it. But nonetheless, this is yet more evidence of growing democratic momentum on the subject. New Jersey, of course, won't have a Republican governor forever. The tide has turned, and sooner or later, these laws will pass into the dustbin of history.

New Jersey Rejects Gay Marriage Bill

The state senate just voted it down, 20-14.

I wonder what went through the minds of the 20 nay votes? I hope, for their sakes, that theirs was a vote of conscience. They have to know that in 20-some years, they will be regarded as some of the great political villains of our time. That's a rather high price to pay for mere political expediency or populist demagoguery.

Election '09 Recap

I had a bad feeling about yesterday, and it looks like my intuition was right (when folks start trumpeting a victory in a city ordinance measure in Kalmazoo, Michigan, that's a sign the night isn't going your way).

Obviously, the defeat of Maine's gay marriage law, again by a tantalizing close margin, is the biggest blow of the night. The cycle-to-cycle political jockeying -- a governor's seat here or a house seat there -- pales in comparison to a state's decision to strip a contingent of its citizens of equal rights and human dignity. Andrew Sullivan says to keep hope, and I have no doubt that this is a battle we will win in my lifetime. But I can't say it isn't frustrating when we keep falling right at the crest of the hill.

As for the political fallout from yesterday, I think the conventional wisdom pretty much has it. First and foremost, "an economic catastrophe is not a good time to be an incumbent elected official." Second, obviously, this is a good result for Republicans, flipping two governorships, if only because it shows that their brand is no longer entirely poisonous. Third, mediocre candidates lose elections (Deeds), unless their opponents are widely loathed incumbents (Corzine), in which case its a toss-up of which house voters want to see the pox fall harder on. Fourth, Republicans, it turns out, can't run psychopathic right-wingers in districts Obama won and expect to hold House seats.

The net upshot is this: objectively, little has changed -- Republicans netted two governorships, Democrats bagged a new House seat. Subjectively, Republicans are probably emerging from their nadir, but are going to have to grapple with the fallout from the NY-23 "purge the middle" decision which came close enough to working that it probably is going to cause quite a bit of consternation for the party. As for Democrats -- they're a gun shy bunch to begin with anyway, so last night's events probably won't help. But they need to wake up -- they've been sleepwalking this past year, and that just doesn't work in the political game.

I Have a Bad Feeling About Tomorrow

Tomorrow is the 2009 off-year election day, and I have a bad feeling about it. Too many close races, nothing important for the good guys that feels secure.

There are three high-profile races going down tomorrow: The Virginia Governor's race, the New Jersey Governor's race, and the special election to fill the NY-23 Congressional district (vacated by John McHugh, who became Obama's Secretary of the Army).

The Virginia race, everyone seems to agree, is done. Poll after poll has given state Attorney General Bob McDonnell a double digit lead over state senator Creigh Deeds, whose campaign was lackluster and never seemed to take off. This takes some of the shine off of my own gloating to my political operative friends when Deeds won the Democratic primary in a bit of an upset (I had told them he was the real thing). This will snap a sustained Democratic winning streak that started with Mark Warner winning the governor's seat in 2001, saw Tim Kaine hold in in 2005, and culminated with Democrats securing both Virginia Senate seats and an Obama victory in 2008.

In New Jersey, by contrast, we have a complete toss-up that strikes me as being akin to last cycle's Minnesota Senate race. Why? Because voters seem to loathe both candidates in roughly equal measure. Incumbent Jon Corzine was widely seen as dead in the water, skirting around (and even below) 40% in all the early polls. He didn't so much claw his way back as his opponent, former US Attorney Chris Christie, immolated himself, going from tough prosecuting corruption-buster to typical New Jersey GOP schmoe in seemingly an eyeblink. Now both candidates are stuck in the low forties (with an independent sucking up the rest of the vote), and nobody knows what will happen. New Jersey does have a history of breaking Republican hearts, so this might be the best shot of the night.

Then, there is the wild saga that is the NY-23. The Republicans nominated relative moderate Dede Scozzafava, who was expected to coast against unknown Democrat Bill Owenws in a district that voted for Obama but has been Republican at the Congressional level for ages (parts of it have been represented by a Whig more recently than a Democrat). But the tea-bag wing of the party hates her social moderation and puts up a Conservative Party challenger by the name of Doug Hoffman. Amazingly, Hoffman's campaign takes off, Scozzafava bows out then endorses Owens, and now nobody knows what the terrain is. This all happened the weekend before election day, and everything is in flux, but it looks like Hoffman might have a slight advantage. Some Democrats are excited by the prospect of a Hoffman victory, arguing that it will encourage the extreme right to nominate unelectable nuts countrywide. I, on the other hand, agree with Nate Silver, in that I think it is unambiguously bad when a psychotically right-wing nutcase with poor campaign skills and essentially no local ties wins in a swing district. If nothing else, the media spin will be horrific. And Congressional Democrats are already too gun shy for my liking.

Finally, Maine also will be voting on a referendum to overturn the state's democratic decision to legalize gay marriage. The polls on that also show things all locked up -- which is what they showed in California before that heartbreaking loss.

I'm pessimistic. Very pessimistic.

This is New Jersey

A conservative pollster has GOP gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie's numbers crashing after a series of damaging revelations have given him a full news cycle of bad press.

This is what always happens in New Jersey. Let's be clear: NJ voters do not like incumbent Jon Corzine (D). In fact, NJ voters tend to harbor a dislike for most of their statewide incumbents (mostly Democrats). But the entire state is so twisted from top to bottom that it will be incredibly difficult for Republicans to find a candidate who can actually capture disaffected votes. Instead, it's a pox on both their houses -- but since New Jersey leans liberal, Democrats win the tie-breaker.

I don't mean to imply Corzine is out of the woods yet -- his numbers are a fair flight worse than you virtually ever see for an incumbent this side of Bob Taft. Not to mention this is but one poll, with some legitimate methodological issues to grapple with. But Republicans may have to prepare for yet another Lucy-and-the-football experience in the Garden State.

The Peril of the Tempting Target

In the wake of California's recent ruling legalizing gay marriage, Rick Hasen wonders if the state supreme court might have done John McCain a favor (via Volokh). The ruling almost definitely will place an initiative on the ballot seeking to overturn the decision. Hasen argues that

This helps John McCain because those conservative voters may not have come out in great numbers for him, but they will come out now to vote for this amendment, and they are more likely to vote for McCain than for the Democrat once they are already voting. That's not to say that California will go red, but it is to say that the Democratic nominee will have to devote more resources to this very expensive to campaign in state.

And I admit, this was my first thought too.

But thinking about it more, this might actually prove dangerous for McCain and his cash-strapped campaign. California is, as was mentioned, a very expensive state to campaign in. Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't surprise me to see McCain write it off entirely as a waste of resources. The gay marriage ruling might mobilize conservatives enough so as to convince McCain to make a play there. But if he does, he'll have to devote resources too -- and he has far less to spare than the Democrats do.

I'm reminded of Republicans investing in the 2006 New Jersey Senate race in a year where they also had their backs against the wall. Like California, New Jersey is pretty blue and very expensive to campaign in. Republicans were convinced that Robert Menendez was a beatable Democratic candidate though, so they decided to contest it. They ended up losing (just as they still likely will in California), and the resources they put into the Garden State would have been invaluable in states that were objectively much closer fights: Virginia, Missouri, and South Dakota. Had they not been tempted by New Jersey, they might well still have control of the Senate today. Similarly, if the gay marriage ruling tempts McCain to make a play for California, he might regret if it draws desperately needed campaign resources away from true battleground states. Democrats can afford to play the 50-state field -- Republicans this year can't.