Berl Falbaum
Question: What do El-Sayedites have in common with Trumpites?
Nothing, you reply; they could not be more different.
Sorry, wrong. Sadly, just as Trumpites ignored (and continue to ignore) the lies, hate, bigotry, and corruption of the president, much of the Michigan Democrat Party refuses to acknowledge the stoking of antisemitism by its candidate for the U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed.
In supporting El-Sayed, the party has embraced a level of antisemitism not seen in this country since the days of Father Charles Coughlin, the so-called “radio priest” who, in the 1930s, had, at one time, as many as 30-40 million listeners (about a third of the U.S. population) for his show broadcast from the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak.
He wrote his own version of the infamous antisemitic invective, “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” praised Hitler, and ranted weekly against Jews.
Coughlin would have been happy to devote a show or two to the call to destroy Israel because it has no right to exist.
He probably would also frequently have invited Hasan Piker, who campaigns with El-Sayed and spews ugly antisemitism.
Here is the bottom line on El-Sayed and Piker: Never was the ancient proverb — a man is known by the company he keeps — more apt, especially when he doesn’t repudiate the views of his company.
Case in point: In New York, where its Democratic mayor, Zohran Mamdani, provided a virulent anti-Israel script for El-Sayed, 70 percent of all hate crimes were directed at Jews last month.
Mamdani appointed an 18-member judiciary advisory committee with members reportedly representing all of New York. One minor omission — no Jewish members in a city of almost 800,000 Jews or 12 percent of NYC’s population.
True, the Republican Party has its own antisemitic problem, but, at least for now, it is still relegated to the far-right. Unlike Dana Nessel, Michigan’s Democratic Jewish attorney general, a Jewish Republican officeholder does not have to fear attending his or her own party’s convention.
(Unrelated to Israel and Jews, Piker also said that America deserved 9/11 and while he backpedaled the remark, Nolan Finley, editorial page editor at The Detroit News, observed Piker displayed a framed photo of the collapsing Twin Towers as a prop for his podcast.)
Some recommended reading for many Democrats: Hannah Arendt’s classic, “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” in which the world-famous intellectual conducted an autopsy on antisemitism and discussed how political forces, including Jewish ones, by closing their eyes to the dangers and rationalizing fatal threats, helped the Nazis with their intended goal for a “Final Solution.” (Arendt died in 1975).
Let’s move on and address the conundrum many, particularly, Jews, are having in deciding whom to vote for in the mid-terms.
I learned of a proposal from a scholar in American politics whose name I will not mention since he might want to remain anonymous, and I would not want to be responsible for the ugly feedback he might receive. But he strongly favors Democrats.
He said he would vote for El-Sayed’s opponent, the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. Why? He speculates that if El-Sayed loses, the Democrats may begin looking for more moderate candidates and position themselves better for the 2028 presidential election.
He believes that the country is not yet ready to elect a far-left candidate such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) who, in Democratic Party polls, is the favorite to be the party’s presidential candidate.
If she or another Democratic potential presidential candidate who shares her politics that run parallel to El-Sayed, is the nominee, it almost assures, my scholarly friend contends, that we will have Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or another Republican with Trump credentials as president for four, if not, eight years. Thus, he suggests think long-term, not short-term.
Moreover, if El-Sayed wins, it may embolden him to adopt even more extreme positions via Israel and Jews and the party may nominate more candidates that mirror El-Sayed’s politics.
Yes, winning control of the Senate, future Supreme Court appointments, etc., are all important. But they do not equate to “endorsing” the globalization of the intifada.
Admittedly, voting not to reject antisemitism to defeat Republicans is not a particularly virtuous position, but given the choice, the scholar obviously believes we need to accept the “lesser of two evils” at this point. The danger to Jews is simply too great.
Another possibility for Democrats who are agonizing over the dilemma is for them to contribute to more moderate Democrats in close contested campaigns in other states.
So, El-Sayed voters might give supporting Rogers some consideration. It is food for thought. Hold your emails; I am not endorsing the “vote for Rogers” scenario for two reasons:
The political landscape, at times, changes by the hour; what may be true today, may not be so tomorrow;
In my role, as a political columnist (aka kvetcher) — a role I enjoy — I do not presume to know what is in a specific voter’s best interest. I kvetch — a lot — but don’t suggest. Voting is a very personal matter, and I leave that decision to the individual who, I always hope, will not only vote in support of specific Issues, but will do so with a commitment to high standards of integrity, decency, honesty, truth and, most important, moral values that are not complicit with hate.
Since I mentioned “truth,” some extra reading recommended for Trumpites: Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics.”
Nothing, you reply; they could not be more different.
Sorry, wrong. Sadly, just as Trumpites ignored (and continue to ignore) the lies, hate, bigotry, and corruption of the president, much of the Michigan Democrat Party refuses to acknowledge the stoking of antisemitism by its candidate for the U.S. Senate, Abdul El-Sayed.
In supporting El-Sayed, the party has embraced a level of antisemitism not seen in this country since the days of Father Charles Coughlin, the so-called “radio priest” who, in the 1930s, had, at one time, as many as 30-40 million listeners (about a third of the U.S. population) for his show broadcast from the Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak.
He wrote his own version of the infamous antisemitic invective, “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” praised Hitler, and ranted weekly against Jews.
Coughlin would have been happy to devote a show or two to the call to destroy Israel because it has no right to exist.
He probably would also frequently have invited Hasan Piker, who campaigns with El-Sayed and spews ugly antisemitism.
Here is the bottom line on El-Sayed and Piker: Never was the ancient proverb — a man is known by the company he keeps — more apt, especially when he doesn’t repudiate the views of his company.
Case in point: In New York, where its Democratic mayor, Zohran Mamdani, provided a virulent anti-Israel script for El-Sayed, 70 percent of all hate crimes were directed at Jews last month.
Mamdani appointed an 18-member judiciary advisory committee with members reportedly representing all of New York. One minor omission — no Jewish members in a city of almost 800,000 Jews or 12 percent of NYC’s population.
True, the Republican Party has its own antisemitic problem, but, at least for now, it is still relegated to the far-right. Unlike Dana Nessel, Michigan’s Democratic Jewish attorney general, a Jewish Republican officeholder does not have to fear attending his or her own party’s convention.
(Unrelated to Israel and Jews, Piker also said that America deserved 9/11 and while he backpedaled the remark, Nolan Finley, editorial page editor at The Detroit News, observed Piker displayed a framed photo of the collapsing Twin Towers as a prop for his podcast.)
Some recommended reading for many Democrats: Hannah Arendt’s classic, “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil” in which the world-famous intellectual conducted an autopsy on antisemitism and discussed how political forces, including Jewish ones, by closing their eyes to the dangers and rationalizing fatal threats, helped the Nazis with their intended goal for a “Final Solution.” (Arendt died in 1975).
Let’s move on and address the conundrum many, particularly, Jews, are having in deciding whom to vote for in the mid-terms.
I learned of a proposal from a scholar in American politics whose name I will not mention since he might want to remain anonymous, and I would not want to be responsible for the ugly feedback he might receive. But he strongly favors Democrats.
He said he would vote for El-Sayed’s opponent, the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. Why? He speculates that if El-Sayed loses, the Democrats may begin looking for more moderate candidates and position themselves better for the 2028 presidential election.
He believes that the country is not yet ready to elect a far-left candidate such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) who, in Democratic Party polls, is the favorite to be the party’s presidential candidate.
If she or another Democratic potential presidential candidate who shares her politics that run parallel to El-Sayed, is the nominee, it almost assures, my scholarly friend contends, that we will have Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, or another Republican with Trump credentials as president for four, if not, eight years. Thus, he suggests think long-term, not short-term.
Moreover, if El-Sayed wins, it may embolden him to adopt even more extreme positions via Israel and Jews and the party may nominate more candidates that mirror El-Sayed’s politics.
Yes, winning control of the Senate, future Supreme Court appointments, etc., are all important. But they do not equate to “endorsing” the globalization of the intifada.
Admittedly, voting not to reject antisemitism to defeat Republicans is not a particularly virtuous position, but given the choice, the scholar obviously believes we need to accept the “lesser of two evils” at this point. The danger to Jews is simply too great.
Another possibility for Democrats who are agonizing over the dilemma is for them to contribute to more moderate Democrats in close contested campaigns in other states.
So, El-Sayed voters might give supporting Rogers some consideration. It is food for thought. Hold your emails; I am not endorsing the “vote for Rogers” scenario for two reasons:
The political landscape, at times, changes by the hour; what may be true today, may not be so tomorrow;
In my role, as a political columnist (aka kvetcher) — a role I enjoy — I do not presume to know what is in a specific voter’s best interest. I kvetch — a lot — but don’t suggest. Voting is a very personal matter, and I leave that decision to the individual who, I always hope, will not only vote in support of specific Issues, but will do so with a commitment to high standards of integrity, decency, honesty, truth and, most important, moral values that are not complicit with hate.
Since I mentioned “truth,” some extra reading recommended for Trumpites: Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
