Following the breaking news on Wednesday was like drinking from a firehose. There were so many significant stories that it was impossible to keep up with the flow, let alone understand the significance of what was happening. But somehow, the news media managed to force a story above the din by claiming that President Biden has abandoned Palestinians and turned his back on young progressives in his party. Neither is true, and both are dangerous myths that we promote (or accept) at our peril.
To be clear, we are experiencing a moment of intense disagreement in the Democratic Party that demands serious consideration of countervailing views—even if doing so causes us great discomfort. But there is nothing at this moment that justifies relenting in our steadfast support for President Biden and for progressives in the Democratic Party who disagree vehemently with Biden.
If we allow Israel’s war on Hamas to divide the Democratic Party, the loser will be democracy in America—and, by extension, every single person in America. We cannot let that happen—but the industrial-political-commentary-complex has agreed on a negative narrative that asserts that the Democratic Party is irretrievably broken because of internal disagreements over Israel. See NPR, Some Democrats split from the party on Israel, a divide decades in the making; Axios, Deep split erupts between Democrats on Israel-Hamas war; Fox News, Democrats could be split for a ‘generation’ as left tears ‘itself apart over Israel’.
It is true that those disagreements exist. It is not true (yet) that those disagreements will result in Democrats abandoning Joe Biden in 2024—unless we surrender to the media narrative that strong disagreements over policy will inevitability sunder the party. To put the false narrative in its starkest, most brutal formulation, it is this: Because Democrats disagree over Israel, Donald Trump will be re-elected.
Is that the outcome we want when we disagree over Israel’s war on Hamas? Does that formulation even make sense as a logical thought process? It does not. Consider the following facts:
In a development largely ignored by the press, President Biden’s press secretary announced the creation of a “national strategy to counteract Islamophobia in the US.” See WhiteHouse.gov, Statement from White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on President Biden’s Establishment of First-Ever National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia. The statement said, in part,
Today, [President Biden] and Vice President Harris are announcing that their Administration will develop the first-ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia in the United States.
We look forward to continuing our work with community leaders, advocates, members of Congress, and more to develop the strategy – which will be a joint effort led by the Domestic Policy Council and the National Security Council – and counter the scourge of Islamophobia and hate in all its forms.
For too long, Muslims in America, and those perceived to be Muslim, such as Arabs and Sikhs, have endured a disproportionate number of hate-fueled attacks and other discriminatory incidents.
By comparison, Trump was a proponent of Islamophobia with his “Muslim travel ban.” In his second year in office, he canceled $200 million in aid to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. See Reuters (8/24/18), Trump cuts more than $200 million in U.S. aid to Palestinians.
For those who are unhappy with Joe Biden’s management of the US’s response to Israel’s war on Hamas, abandoning Biden means handing the election to Trump, which will bring a renewed assault on Muslim Americans and abandonment of Palestinians.
Even worse, Trump will seek to establish an autocracy far more antidemocratic and dictatorial than the reactionary rule imposed by Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel. As the NYTimes revealed today, Trump's advisors are seeking to ditch the ultra-conservative Federalist Society lawyers who were the mainstay of his administration because they were “too timid” in pursuit of Trump's agenda. See NYTimes, If Trump Wins, His Allies Want Lawyers Who Will Bless a More Radical Agenda.
Per the Times,
People close to the former president say they are seeking out a different type of lawyer committed to his “America First” ideology and willing to endure the personal and professional risks of association with Mr. Trump. They want lawyers in federal agencies and in the White House who are willing to use theories that more establishment lawyers would reject to advance his cause.
This new mind-set matches Mr. Trump’s declaration that he is waging a “final battle” against demonic “enemies” populating a “deep state” within the government that is bent on destroying America.
Got that? Trump views his second administration as a “final battle against demonic enemies of the deep state.” If that isn’t enough to put every Democratic disagreement in perspective, nothing is. Trump wants nothing less than to be a dictator who will crush his enemies and prohibit dissent.
So, as we disagree among ourselves over the right foreign policy regarding Israel’s war against Hamas, do not threaten to pull support from Joe Biden. Do not suggest to others that Biden is responsible for things he cannot control on the battlefield in a war waged by a sovereign nation that believes it is fighting for its survival.
Do not attack or threaten to primary incumbent progressives in the Democratic party who have every right to vehemently oppose Biden’s foreign policy or vote against it. And do not abandon or alienate young voters engaging in their first passionate disagreement with a party they believe has made wrong or immoral choices.
Instead, invite them to run as new leaders in the party so their voices and viewpoints can be heard. We should welcome their engagement while helping them understand that even as they disagree with Joe Biden, he is supporting causes they support, offering aid to Palestinians, and calling for the protection of Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, and Jews in America.
We have one job staring us in the face: defeat Donald Trump. If we fail in that job, calls for a cease-fire will not matter, demands to support Gaza and the West Bank will be rejected, and Muslims, Arabs, and Sikhs will be stigmatized by government policy. And reproductive liberty will be banned nationally, same-sex marriage will be at risk, the rights of LGBTQ people will be under attack, fossil fuel will be prioritized over green energy, educational freedom will be subordinated to religious nationalism, science will be replaced by Biblical teaching, and white supremacists will be pardoned, embraced, and welcomed into an administration run by a wannabe dictator.
That is why Democrats must remain united even in the face of passionate disagreements over Israel’s war on Hamas.
It is not your imagination. Congress is a mess.
Congress is a mess. It would all be better if Democrats could increase their margin of control over the Senate and win back a strong majority in the House.
In both chambers, the disarray is due largely to dysfunction in the Republican Party. In the Senate, GOP patience with Senator Tuberville’s blockade of military promotions erupted on the Senate floor as Republican Senators rose to call for approval of individual promotions by unanimous consent—only to be met by Tuberville’s, “I object.” Under the Senate’s antiquated, anti-democratic rules, that is enough to stop the promotions in their tracks. See Washington Post, Senate Republicans erupt in anger over Tuberville’s military freeze (This article is accessible to all.)
Senator Tuberville is not a serious person, let alone a serious Senator. He has no respect for the Senate as an institution, the sacrifice of members of the US military, or the national security of the American people. And yet, that is just swell with Republican voters in Alabama, who apparently believe that “burning it all down” is a better alternative than trying to change the system according to democratic rules and norms.
The House was no better on Tuesday. It was scheduled to consider two motions to censure members and one motion to expel. The first censure motion was directed against Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib for her participation in an anti-war protest and her comments condemning Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Twenty-three Republicans joined most Democrats to defeat the censure motion. See The Hill, House defeats Rashida Tlaib censure vote.
The censure motion against Rep. Tlaib was defeated, in part, because it was drafted by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has a difficult time thinking, writing, and comprehending words of the English language. Greene’s motion accused Rep. Tlaib of engaging in “insurrection” for participating in an anti-war protest organized by a pro-Palestinian Jewish group where 300 activists were arrested for staging a “sit-in.” Greene is also apparently unaware of the role that civil disobedience played in the civil rights movement.
After the censure of Rep. Tlaib was defeated, the motion to censure Rep. Greene for making antisemitic and Islamophobic remarks did not proceed to a vote. (Not clear to me why it did not; I assume Republicans were able to table the motion, but I can’t find anyone reporting on that detail.)
And then the House defeated a motion to expel GOP Rep. George Santos, who is under indictment for lying about his campaign finances and stealing personal information from donors to make fraudulent charges. See PBS Newshour, House rejects effort to expel Rep. George Santos. The motion required a two-thirds majority to pass; it did not receive a simple majority.
Santos remains in the House because the GOP margin of control is so narrow that his Republican colleagues need Santos to pass “must-pass” legislation that Democrats will not support. In addition, the motion gave political cover to Republicans in New York who won in vulnerable districts where Biden won in 2020. So, the vote to expel Santos was a public relations stunt to protect a handful of Republicans.
It was a shameful day in the House. But Republicans will likely surpass themselves shortly—if they can get their members to show up for a vote on the Israel supplemental spending bill that cuts IRS funding.
Judge Cannon suggests delay in Trump defense secrets trial may be justified.
In a disappointing development, Judge Aileen Cannon appeared sympathetic to Trump's request to delay his trial for retaining defense secrets. The trial is currently scheduled for May 2024. If Judge Cannon delays the trial, it is possible that she will set the trial after the November 2024 general election. See The Guardian, Judge signals she could delay key dates in Trump’s classified documents trial.
Judge Cannon took the matter under submission after a hearing on Wednesday. That is usually a bad sign. Judge Cannon—or her clerks—prefer to deliver bad news by written order. If Judge Cannon delays the trial beyond November 2024, she will personally deprive nearly 200 million voters of vital information about a presidential candidate. Of course, because the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, that might be Judge Cannon’s goal in granting any delay in the trial.
Trump will be tried and (likely) convicted in the D.C. election interference trial before November 2024. But it is possible that an appeals court (or the Supreme Court) could delay the D.C. trial pending a ruling on Trump's presidential immunity motion.
The suggestion of delay by Judge Cannon makes clear that the criminal prosecutions of Trump are not a substitute for beating him at the ballot box in 2024. If he is re-elected, he will dismiss the cases pending against him or grant a self-pardon.
Yet another reason that Democrats must remain united despite the difficult issues they face in this fraught moment.
Concluding Thoughts.
If we focus only on the challenges and disagreements in the Democratic Party, we will succeed in making ourselves feel bad. As always, a bit of perspective helps.
Two key GOP members of Congress announced that they would not run for re-election because they have been beaten down by the extremists in the party (Ken Buck and Kay Granger).
The knives are out for Senator Tuberville and Mitch McConnell, both of whom are losing support among their colleagues.
Indeed, McConnell had to warn Senator Josh Hawley that he would receive “incoming from the right” if he proceeded with a bill opposed by McConnell.
And nearly two dozen GOP House members refused to support Marjorie Taylor Greene in a censure motion against the only Palestinian-born member of Congress—a vote that should be red meat to Trump's base.
There is more, but you get the point. Whatever problems Democrats face, they pale in comparison to the discord and disunity faced by the Republicans. As always, we cannot count on Republicans to defeat themselves. But neither should we ascribe to them superpowers or exaggerated unity they do not possess. We can beat them. We beat them in 2018 and 2020. We can do so in 2024. We just need to stick together by focusing on the goals and values that unite us—which far outweigh our disagreements over Israel and Gaza.
Talk to you tomorrow!
“In a development largely ignored by the press...” has been an ongoing problem for quite some time. We have stories about Ron DeSantis wearing lifts in his boots taking precedence over President Biden’s handling of multiple crises at once. Biden is also in the unenviable position of being blamed for things that are essentially out of his control, while not being given adequate credit for his remarkable accomplishments. It’s just infuriating.
Civil discourse is breaking down. This week, I read an exceptional, but very long, article that is essentially a meta-analysis of details available about the rocket or missile that hit the hospital in Gaza, causing hundreds of casualties. The article was published on Substack late last week by Seth Abramson, an independent journalist and former journalism professor. Because his analysis leads to the conclusion that it was an IDF missile or rocket that hit the hospital, while IDF continues to dismiss this, he received an abundance of hate male, including comments on his Substack site that said he, a Jew himself, was cheering on the deaths of Israelis. He continues to stand by his analysis, and I respect him for that.
There is SO much to think about in today’s post. At the moment, I have one simple question as the rest seems overwhelming and impossibly difficult. Why did some Democrats vote to not expel Santos? I can’t begin to understand that they think he should keep his seat in the House.