X Close

AIPAC is driving out the Democrats’ pro-Palestine Left

Jamaal Bowman, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rally supporters in New York on Saturday. Credit: Getty

June 23, 2024 - 7:45pm

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has long been known as a powerful broker in American politics, shaping pro-Israel policies and swaying elections through its substantial financial clout. In the process, it has fuelled more than its fair share of antisemitic conspiracy theories. While many argue that this lobbying is a natural part of political advocacy, its increasing influence over the Democratic Party, including ousting candidates such as recently-censured Jamaal Bowman, raises serious concerns about the party’s direction.

Bowman’s primary race for New York’s 16th congressional district against Westchester County Executive George Latimer has just been reported as the most expensive House primary ever, with over $23 million spent on ads. The race was marked by a deluge of outside spending, primarily from AIPAC and a cryptocurrency Super PAC, funding ads that attacked Bowman and supported Latimer.

A high-profile member of the progressive “Squad”, Bowman has faced significant backlash for his criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, drawing the ire of the pro-Israel lobby and putting his re-election in jeopardy. On Saturday, at a campaign event in the Bronx alongside fellow Squad member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, he claimed that “my opponent and AIPAC are the ones destroying our democracy.” More than that, he accused Latimer of “support[ing] genocide” in Gaza.

In contrast, Representative Summer Lee’s race in Pennsylvania showcased a different outcome. An outspoken progressive and critic of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, Lee faced a well-financed opponent backed by significant outside spending from Republican donor Jeff Yass — the single largest individual funder of this year’s election cycle. Despite this, Lee secured a convincing victory back in April, demonstrating that grassroots support and strong local backing can counteract the overwhelming financial power of pro-Israel lobbyists who have bankrolled the likes of ardently Zionist Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman. Lee’s victory not only reaffirmed her position but also highlighted the potential for progressive candidates to overcome the influence of well-funded opposition, even when it comes from influential lobbies such as AIPAC.

Of course, AIPAC’s influence isn’t just about policy stances: it extends to the very core of political campaigning. By pouring millions into races, the group gives credence to the time-tested idea that political success can be bought, diminishing the value of grassroots support and democratic engagement. This has been evident in Bowman’s race, where outside spending from Super PACs  ($18 million on behalf of Latimer, against $3 million in support of Bowman) significantly outpaced either campaign’s direct contributions from individuals, skewing the democratic process.

Critics have long argued that AIPAC has outsized influence in Congress, pointing to the significant number of lawmakers who align with its positions. As AIPAC continues to spend lavishly on primary races such as Bowman’s, it shapes not just election outcomes but the very nature of political representation in the United States.

The backlash against AIPAC’s influence is palpable — as seen in the reactions of progressive leaders such as Ocasio-Cortez, there’s a growing call for a Democratic Party that better reflects its diverse base. This includes advocating for Palestinian rights and critiquing Israeli policies when necessary. Such voices are crucial for a balanced and fair political discourse, ensuring that the party doesn’t become more of an echo chamber for pro-Israel lobbyists than it already is.

AIPAC’s continued dominance threatens this balance, as does bipartisan support for Israel’s aggressive campaign in Gaza more generally. In turn, this poses a significant challenge not just for the future of the Democratic Party but for American democracy as a whole.


Oliver Bateman is a historian and journalist based in Pittsburgh. He blogs, vlogs, and podcasts at his Substack, Oliver Bateman Does the Work

MoustacheClubUS

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

44 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago

The author is right about one thing – big money has seeped into every pore of the American political system. Why he singles out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is bewildering though. It’s no different than the hundreds of other lobby groups out there doing the exact same thing.

Bowman is a performative schmuck. He’s on the wrong side of almost every issue. Maybe that’s why he lost the primary. And how much does $23 million in ad buys actually sway the vote?

The most fascinating thing about the Bowman primary was the reaction of pro-Palestinian activists. A mob of them attacked the campaign buses of Dem politicos the other day. A little karma there. lol. Apparently, Bowman is not pro-Hamas enough. Good to see the left eating its own.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Isn’t AIPAC considerably more influential and well funded than other lobby groups doing the same thing?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

I have no idea. I would be shocked if it is, but the legislative branch is so infected by money that lobbyists write most policy. The problem isn’t one particular group. The problem is the overall pervasiveness IMO.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

That certainly seems to be the case, and the susceptibility of legislators to well funded pressure groups is increasing in all Western “democracies”.

aaron david
aaron david
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

When you have absolute freedom of speech, are in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and have a rather large split in the politics of the country, you are going to have a ton of money sloshing around in the system.
Until one political paradigm wins out, this is going to keep going.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

18 million versus 3 million. Bowman is on your wrong side, and your side is giving his opponent alot of money. You really dont think that matters? I dont care about Bowman, but your logic is disingenious and contradictory. You have no idea about AIPAC’s relative influence, and question whether spending on ads really matter, but you start off complaining about big money in politics.
Maybe you should find out more about AIPAC before throwing up a smokescreen for them.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

What am I missing? I didn’t approve of the spending disparity. It’s a problem in the U.S. But this is no different than any other campaign in the U.S.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I think your question of whether or not 23 million in ad buys would sway the vote in a congressional district or not was dismissive of effects of money on politics in general and specifically you are discounting the effect of AIPAC money on Bowman’s race. Maybe you are right, but you didnt provide any info.
My sense is that the impact of AIPAC is difficult to gauge because it is actually a wide umbrella of groups and individuals and since they aren’t considered a foreign lobby, they dont have to register. Am I right about that? Also AIPAC doesnt just operate off of money, it has potent connections in the media and among politicians that operate in sync with them. Same as LGBTQ and many other identity politic lobbies. I dont mean to imply they are illicit just that their effect is more than meets the eye. I dont think AIPAC is just another lobby. Between Christian and Jewish Zionists, the American relationship with Israel is unique. There is a great deal of religious motivation to control and maintain that relationship in Israel’s favor. It can seem quite manipulative of our domestic politics in a way that we have seen alot of in recent years.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
25 days ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

Bowman was behind 17 pts in polling when AIPAC started its campaign. And he lost by 17 pts in the vote.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

This is from Michelle Goldberg’s column today.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/opinion/bowman-primary-latimer-israel.html
Given that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC has poured more than $14.5 million into the race, a Bowman loss will probably serve as a warning to other politicians about the cost of breaking with Washington’s pro-Israel political consensus.
“This is, in my view, one of the most important elections in the modern history of this country,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said at a rally for Bowman on Friday, speaking about the obscene sums being marshaled on Latimer’s behalf. I think Sanders was exaggerating, but the contest is probably the most important congressional primary this year. It’s setting a precedent for big money interference in local politics and tearing at the longtime progressive alliance between Black people and Jews.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
25 days ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

“It’s setting a precedent for big money interference in local politics and tearing at the longtime progressive alliance between Black people and Jews.”

This is an unserious comment. Do you need me to explain why?

David George
David George
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

No.
“A nonprofit founded and funded by billionaire George Soros donated $60 million in January to Democracy PAC, a super political action committee he uses to support Democrats, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.” Bloomberg.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
1 month ago
Reply to  David George

Thanks for the information, much appreciated.

Andrew Vanbarner
Andrew Vanbarner
1 month ago
Reply to  David George

The wealthiest family foundations in America – including the Ford Foundation, but also the Soros’ – give enormous sums of money to far left causes.
Traditionally an income and estate tax avoidance vehicle, family foundations in the US fund enormous “nonprofit” organizations that in turn fund raucous protests, demonstrations, and the occasional fiery but mostly peaceful looting, all in the causes of the far left.
Printed signs, legal counsel, tents, political strategies, transport, and other expenses – which for a large crowd of travelling, professional protestors can be considerable – are all paid for by someone.
Those someones are the scions and trustees of our wealthiest citizens.
Identitarian progressives and the hard left appear to blame Jews for holding back their revolution, as evidenced by the anti-Semitism of the Squad, and by last spring’s campus protests.
This is upsetting but unsurprising, as Marx viewed the bourgeoise, capitalists, and Jews as all nearly synonymous, a view also shared by the government of Germany from the 1930s through 1945.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to  David George

Indeed. In terms of size the catch all foundations of the left and right are usually the biggest players but they spread their money and influence around the country and put their finger on just about every political issue. Most lobbying organizations are not as narrowly focused as AIPAC and every election and primary will see a whole constellation of these organizations large and small, general and specific, supporting one candidate or the other, and occasionally both as it’s common for organizations to support particular primary candidates on the other side for reasons of overall strategy. I guarantee you that both candidates in both the primaries the author mentioned had some combination of outside lobbyist groups in their corner for these primary contests. That’s how American politics works. Picking out one of them as decisive in these contests is just rubbish. The author greatly oversimplifies what is a deeply important but highly complex issue, which is why I consider this article somewhat deceptive in its framing of this issue (see my longer comment above).

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
1 month ago
Reply to  David George

Actually Soros is mostly far left, meaning progressive, and he has contributed to the division and decline of the democrats mightily, He gets credited for bankrolling the no bail, no arrest prosecutors on the West coast that turned into tent cities and cop free zones.
Kind of like in 2020 when Bernie the Vermont socialist ran from the left and then Bloomberg the republican tried to buy the nomination. Most moderate democrats are wary of Soros and Bernie. And AIPAC is like Bloomberg and Soros combined.

Phil Re
Phil Re
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

Not really. The Qatar Lobby works by getting everyone on the Qatar Foundation’s payroll. They have the wealth to do that. They have a vast network of major think tanks and quasi-academic institutes that promote Qatari interests. There’s also the Democratic Super PAC ActBlue, which has several times the financial clout of AIPAC.

Danny Kaye
Danny Kaye
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

According to this site, AIPAC spent $3,059,885 in 2023
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-israel-public-affairs-cmte/summary?id=D000046963
To put that in perspective, the top 20 spenders in 2023 spent from $69 million (US chamber of commerce) to $ 14 million (Lockheed Martin).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/257344/top-lobbying-spenders-in-the-us/

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 month ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

More than most if we’re talking about particular individual organizations. The AIPAC is somewhat unique in that it’s captured almost all the funding and lobbying efforts around support for Israel as a foreign policy issue. Most industries and issues have a whole host of lobbyist organizations surrounding them. Their individual power as an organization is far less than AIPAC but collectively these lobbying clusters centered around issues like agriculture, healthcare, technology, automobile manufacturing, etc. exercise far greater influence over far more important policy decisions. Further, the largest corporations within industries often put their fingers directly on the scale to the extent possible with their own lobbying efforts.

Putting the focus on a single organization is thus somewhat misleading on a couple of levels. Primarily, this is not how lobbying works in the US. Rarely is there one overarching all powerful group advocating for a single narrowly focused issue. Usually there are clusters of lobbying organizations and companies with overlapping areas of interest. Secondarily, there’s the usual picking of sides going on here, portraying the issue as a one sided case of a super powerful super wealthy Israel lobby against the grass roots voters, which isn’t the case. The other side has its own lobby as well. Clearly there’s a disparity in lobbying power here, but it’s not at all clear that this disparity represents a difference in funding and organizational power or a difference in actual support by the voters. It can be both.

Overall, I agree with Jim that this is a mildly deceptive hit piece against AIPAC, and Bowman is a terrible example to stand any argument upon, as these “Squad” members take controversial positions to garner media attention to enhance their perceived political influence. They tend to use this to compensate for the lack of big donor/big money support. They’re the closest thing Democrats have to populist candidates at the moment but their ideology is so toxic to most Americans that they can’t gain much traction beyond a handful of deep blue political districts. There’s really no telling what controversial statement, radical policy, or combination thereof that soured the voters on Bowman and I strongly suspect AIPAC was not the only big lobbyist group trying to oust him in favor of a more agreeable politician.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Michelle Goldberg’s column today said the number from AIPAC was 14.5, The author above says overall spending for ads was 23 million. Bowman accounted for only 3 million. I dont know how much other spending there may have been apart from ads, but it sure seems like AIPAC money was a huge part of this election, Like a majority of the ads against Bowman were probably from AIPAC. And it was one of most expensive congressional races ever. AIPAC sent a message to other pols. Same message the donors sent when they got university presidents fired for slightly defending free speech rights of student protestors while being interrogated by Elise Stefanik.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
29 days ago
Reply to  Mark Carpenter

Don’t know if you’re an American or UK commenter, but I’ll assume the latter. Three million is a large number for a primary, especially if it’s out of a total of 23 million nationally. Then again, we’re talking about a single issue lobby group. There aren’t that many overtly anti-Israel politicians to unseat and Bowman was among the most visible and outspoken. He’s obviously going to be high on their list of targets.
Ad buys will almost always constitute the bulk of a lobbyist group’s spending on any given campaign for this reason. Campaign finance laws limit how much any one person or organization can give directly to a single candidate’s campaign in a single election cycle (primary included). There was a bipartisan campaign finance law passed in 2003 to establish this. I don’t have that number off the top of my head but it’s well under a million, let alone three million. The courts have ruled that the government can enforce these laws, but in the Citizens United decision from 2010 basically neutered the law by ruling that the government could not prevent private organizations from running their own ads independently of the candidate’s campaign. Basically all the government can do is police the campaign and the organizations to prevent them from coordinating their advertising, which they always manage to do anyway. This is why advertising spending is always reported. There’s not much else to report. The limited campaign contributions they can legally make can be assumed. There may be spending on various people whose job is simply to talk to and keep in touch with various Senators and Representatives but that’s usually more of a general expense. Those people are going to be there and do their lobbying regardless of who wins what election in what district.
Further, I’m not saying they weren’t an important player in this election, but to assert that their lobbying was a decisive factor seems a bridge too far. The author openly states that a similar candidate that AIPAC also opposed won their primary. Elections are complicated, public opinion is not something that we can know with much certainty, and to assert that a particular set of ads from one lobbyist group turned an election is simply an unsupportable claim. It’s absurd, and the people that assert such things usually end up being partisans or media shills for whatever lobbyist group or groups are on the other side of the relevant issue/policy. I’m not saying AIPAC didn’t affect the election. I’m saying claiming their influence was the sole factor that turned the election is a ridiculous claim given the nature of American politics. There’s all sorts of corporate and nonprofit group interference. It’s a constant, unending, huge problem, and it’s a primary cause of the cynical mood of American voters. We’ve seen the media stretch the truth and lie enough that we don’t expect any better. We just assume the worst. The skepticism becomes instinctive. I don’t support Trump because I think he’s a fake and a conman, but I recognize the validity of the distrust his supporters have for the establishment and media. This is why Trump has been successful and why nothing the media and establishment does can put a dent in his political support. In such a toxic political environment, singling out one particular lobbyist group leads one to suspect the motives of whoever is doing said singling out, though this is a UK publication so perhaps I’m misjudging the situation. Even so, I’ll stand by my claim that the author is oversimplifying complicated issues.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
29 days ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

What? It wasn’t 23 million nationally. That is completely misleading. AIPAC spent at least 14.5 million on ad buys in this race. That word you use- “nationally”, what do you mean by that? Apparently, AIPAC deluged this primary with a record setting amount of cash used in anti Bowman ads. At least 4 or times amount of money that Bowman had. Do you really think that doesn’t matter to the election? How do you think this reads to the rest of country who are not Zionists. I am a moderate democrat who doesn’t like the Squad, but this stinks. How much of the money in this primary came out of Black pockets? And how many Blacks versus Jews are there in Bowman’s district, and how many Black votes versus Jewish votes did Bowman win?

B. Timothy S.
B. Timothy S.
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Maybe that’s why he lost the primary.

Believe the vote is tomorrow, so if you’re in Westchester please show up to send this guy packing

marianna chambless
marianna chambless
1 month ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

AIPAC has a far greater influence than any other lobbying group. It defies belief that any of our Congress people would invite an accused criminal like Netanyahu to address the Congress, or that senators and representatives will attend in the numbers that they will, were it not for the influence of AIPAC. I’m not sure that even the defense industry has as much clout.

Victor James
Victor James
1 month ago

‘Democracy’ = billionaire activists doing their best to undermine democracy.

Andrew Vanbarner
Andrew Vanbarner
1 month ago

Representative Bowman recently made the news for having plagiarized much of his EdD thesis in “education.”
The parts he didn’t plagiarize reveal an almost incoherent “educator” that struggles with grammar, literacy, and the most basic principles of academic research.
Plagiarism is the theft of another’s work, so he’s of questionable character. But his own education seems to be very limited, and his paper betrays a very superficial, if not completely absent, knowledge of basic social science research.
He’s also hate-crazed, and seems to suffer from psych disorders. He’s harangued other legislators in the House lobby, pulled a fire alarm to delay a crucial vote, and endorses an ideology indistinguishable from that of a Black Panther splinter group. I would say he’s roughly as erudite as Tupak Shakur, but without Shakur’s other talents.
AIPAC did the Democrats a favor.

Right-Wing Hippie
Right-Wing Hippie
1 month ago

I think if you’re getting an EdD you’re required to plagiarize your thesis.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 month ago

Leading one to ask, “Is it true that there’s only one original EdD thesis, and all the others are copies, of varying quality?”

Phil Re
Phil Re
1 month ago

A little context: It’s only relatively recently that AIPAC has donated to political campaigns. Their financial footprint, as measured in revenue and spending, is dwarfed by the Democratic Super PAC ActBlue, which has shadowy ties to ani-Israel advocacy efforts, some of which are also funded by Qatar.
Turning to Jamaal Bowman, he is vulnerable to his primary challenger because his performance in office was a disappointment to his constituents. Many people who voted for him before will be happy to see him go, and it won’t be because of AIPAC’s shadowy control. In fact, his scapegoating of AIPAC instead of taking personal responsibility may well be indicative of the traits that voters dislike.

El Uro
El Uro
1 month ago

The driving motives behind this article are quite primitive.

Danny Kaye
Danny Kaye
1 month ago

I will suggest a more prosaic view of New York’s 16th congressional district primary:
An incumbent congressman has alienated a large part of his electorate because of his meager achievements and his extreme views on many topics, not least the Israel-Hamas war (he expressed doubt about the rapes committed by Hamas, before walking it back).
This gave the chance to a solid centrist candidate to challenge him.
The majority of the Democratic party apparatus supports the challenger, because the stridency of the “progressive”, pro-Palestinian wing taints the whole Democratic party, causing it to lose the moderate, centrist voters, who are crucial for the general election. A win in this district might reduce this impression and staunch the losses.
So all this is just normal politics. Why then did the author choose to attribute Bowman’s predicted loss to the nefarious activity of the “dominant” AIPAC lobby, which “poses a significant challenge … for American democracy as a whole”, no less? Why is it that the author automatically equates pro-Palestinian views with “grassroots support” and pro-Israel views (“ardently Zionist” in his words) with nefarious outside influence?
Rather than a dispassionate analysis of an interesting race, what the author gave us is a reflection of the biased view of the pro-Palestinian “progressive” herd, complete with a little conspiracy theory thrown in.

marianna chambless
marianna chambless
1 month ago
Reply to  Danny Kaye

Referring to the progressive wing of the Democratic party as pro-Palestinian sounds to me as if you believe that you are either for Israel or you are against it. But that is a false dichotomy. As a child of immigrants, I was taught to defend the rights of the poor and the downtrodden – that was considered a virtue.  Born in 1942, I grew up very aware of the Holocaust and the confiscation of Jewish property, the torture and humiliation of Jewish people, their expulsion from their homes, and, eventually, their murder. My family was not Jewish, but we could still identify with what they were experiencing, and the injustice of it all. Why do Jewish Israelis not understand how people, regardless of their ethnicity, can empathize with the plight of the Palestinians?  For more than 60 years they have lived in a country where they were denied the same rights and privileges as Jewish citizens. How can you bear witness to what is happening in Gaza, listen to Netanyahu and his cabinet speak, read about the percentage of Israelis who are ok with driving the Palestinians out of land that they were occupying before Jewish settlements appeared there, and who are not troubled by taking the next step if they don’t leave willingly, without feeling something for the wanton death and destruction? Rather than call the progressive wing of the Democratic party pro-Palestinian, I would call them pro-humanity and praise them for standing up to defend the poor and the downtrodden, even when they are pilloried and threatened with political defeat.

Ian_S
Ian_S
1 month ago

But the thing is, all that suffering by Palestinians was and is entirely avoidable. The Palestinians voted for and then supported Hamas’s religious war against Israel, a war in which even their war leader Yahyah Sinwar admitted that they use civilians as dummies to drive up the death toll — and they do that as the main feature of their propaganda war against Israel. The long term strategy is to get well-meaning but emotive Westerners to agree Israel is an illegitimate state. So the more Westerners emote and wail, the more Hamas feeds civilians into the firing line, because it works; in fact it’s their main weapon. None of this is in the interests of Palestinians in their quest for parallel statehood, which actually Hamas does not want. All this was laid out very well in a Spiked article a few days ago,

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/23/hamas-is-the-enemy-of-the-palestinian-people/

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
28 days ago
Reply to  Ian_S

Well, your logic is same in reverse. October 7th was avoidable if Israel had years ago begun negotiating in good faith toward a 2 state solution. Israel, especially Netanyahu, has been conning America for a couple decades, at least. Now Israel is viewed by most of the world as guilty of at minimum ethnic cleansing and mass murder. We don’t trust AIPAC’s manipulation of our politics. And your propaganda doesn’t not cover for the reality in Gaza. America already went through this with Iraq. Everyone had sympathy for us after 9/11. We started doing our Shock and Awe on Bhagdad and we lost stature in the world. No matter how bad Hamas is, they were not a state government with an army and the ability to issue passports. They were and are a ragtag resistance group in an occupied zone run by Israel.

Ian_S
Ian_S
1 month ago

I replied, but you know, naughty words like H*m*s, w*r, we*pon, so UnHerd censored it.

Ian_S
Ian_S
1 month ago

I’m skeptical of the authors claim that the Democratic Party is an echo chamber for Jewish interests. Perhaps it was once, and perhaps in some corners it still is; but for the most part, as we all know, it’s become the DEI party.

aaron david
aaron david
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian_S

IE the party of Anti-Semitism.
DEI separates “oppressors” from “oppressed” by racial classification, and Jews are put into the former, while Palestinians are put int he later, no matter what the circumstances, or end effects.

Mark Carpenter
Mark Carpenter
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian_S

As a moderate democrat from Texas, i can say that the author is correct. Jewish tribe has a huge effect on the democratic party because we are a bunch of disparate groups easily divided. And the Jewish left has by far the most money and cultural power, which they have used to push the ivy league progressive agenda despite the fact that traditional dems from south and center and rural dems are not onboard. And then Bernie the Vermont socialist blew up the democratic party. All this is fairly obvious to southern moderate dems, we just arent allowed to say it because Jews are protected by DEI. Talking about Jewish Power or overrepresentation is taboo and will get us censored and cancelled. But you can trash Whites, men and Christians in the NYT or reddit or anywhere, no problem. Jews might not like DEI now, but we weren’t hearing anything but support for BLM in 2020 when anti-White fever was rioting in the streets.
The perspective from middle America is that DEI, BLM, CRT, trans ideology and all the other Culture War came out of the Ivy League NYT progressive left and that it was imposed through their media and institutional control of the cultural narratives. The South and Center are just flyover country with minimal national media voice and had no say. Judith Butler, Rachel Levine, the NYT, and others They pushed the narratives and vocabulary of trans ideology onto America. Only now after October 7th are we hearing alarm from jewish community about DEI, after years of antiWhiteness was poopooed in the NYT and WAPO. The difference is that Jewish donors can get elite university presidents fired. The only thing moderate democrats can do is turn republican.

John Lammi
John Lammi
1 month ago

I’m reminded of America’s “aggressive “policy during WW2 in Europe.controversial?

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 month ago
Reply to  John Lammi

Go back farther, to Unconditional Surrender Grant.

John Taylor
John Taylor
1 month ago

Why is this article on Unherd? It properly belongs on The Nation or The Guardian sites. It is nothing but tired “progressive” talking points.

Phil Re
Phil Re
1 month ago

Bateman’s thesis is a mirror image of reality. It’s the “progressive” hard left that’s been working to drive mainstream Jewish voters out of the Democratic Party. There’s a clear parallel with the Soviets: institute purity tests around “Zionism” to marginalize and stigmatize mainstream Jews, then point to prominent party members who are Jewish to deflect criticism.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 month ago

Lobbying happens all over the place, all the time. It’s quiet advertising, when quiet conversations happen in hallways and outside buildings, when people discuss matters of importance and make their views known, argue specific points, support specific candidates with words, with money, with time.

This author, apparently, only supports this coming from his side of the aisle. Anything else is illegitimate, I guess.

Bernard Brothman
Bernard Brothman
1 month ago

“This poses a significant challenge … for American democracy as a whole.” How so a challenge for American democracy? Let we won’t vote any more?