Category Archives: USA

New York Became a One-Party State. What Did New Yorkers Get in Return?

Posted on by
Reply

New York voters went to the polls on November 3, 2026, and delivered another sweeping victory to the Democratic Party.

Governor Kathy Hochul won reelection. Democrats retained control of both houses of the state legislature, while candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won additional seats in Congress and Albany.

The Democratic dominance extends to local government. In White Plains, the capital of Westchester County, the mayor and all six Common Council members are Democrats. In the rest of Westchester, Democrats hold 15 of 17 county legislative seats and the county executive’s office. Statewide, Democrats run the largest ten cities, control the governorship, both legislative chambers, both U.S. Senate seats and most of the congressional delegation.

Twenty years ago, New York had competitive two-party government. Today, Democrats dominate virtually every level of government, while democratic socialists increasingly challenge the party establishment.

What has this political transformation delivered, and where will the 2026 election take the state next?

Twenty Years of Political Transformation

In 2006, Republican George Pataki was governor of New York. Republicans controlled the State Senate, Democrats controlled the Assembly, and Michael Bloomberg, elected mayor of New York City as a Republican, was serving his second term.

Divided government required negotiation and compromise. Republicans offered an alternative to Democratic leadership. No longer.

That year, Democrat Eliot Spitzer won the governorship, ending 12 years of Republican control. In 2018, Democrats captured the State Senate, giving the party unified control of state government beginning in 2019.

Another transformation was already underway.

In 2018, democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated Congressman Joe Crowley, one of the most powerful establishment Democrats in Congress. Her victory demonstrated that socialists could defeat entrenched Democrats in districts where winning the party primary effectively guaranteed election.

In 2025, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary and went on to win the general election.

The 2026 elections extended that transformation. DSA-backed Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier won congressional seats after defeating establishment Democrats in their primaries. Socialist-backed candidates also won additional seats in the State Assembly and Senate.

Political Transformation Became Public Policy

New York’s changing political leadership was accompanied by a substantial shift in government policy.

In 2006, the state’s minimum wage was $6.75 an hour. By 2026, it had reached $17 in New York City, Westchester and Long Island. The state’s highest marginal personal income-tax rate rose from 6.85% to 10.9%, excluding additional New York City income taxes.

New York expanded abortion rights, allowing abortions after 24 weeks to the moment of birth. The state legalized recreational marijuana, eliminated cash bail for many criminal offenses, strengthened tenant protections, expanded paid family leave and adopted ambitious climate mandates which contributed to rising electricity prices. It also imposed additional regulations on employers, landlords and businesses.

These changes were largely enacted by establishment Democrats, not democratic socialists. Yet the DSA’s growing influence suggests that the party’s internal opposition considers two decades of progressive legislation insufficient and wants to expand government’s role further.

Spending More, Learning Less

Public education provides one of the clearest measures of government performance.

New York public schools2005–06Latest
Students enrolled2.82 million2.53 million
Annual spending per student$15,240$31,130
Fourth-grade mathematics score238234
Eighth-grade mathematics score280271
Spending figures compare fiscal 2006 with fiscal 2024 in nominal dollars. Enrollment and academic assessment years differ slightly. Mathematics scores are from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

New York more than doubled annual spending per student, an increase substantially exceeding inflation, while enrollment fell approximately 10% and mathematics performance declined. The state now spends more per student than any other without producing superior academic outcomes.

Higher Costs and Greater Dependence

New York collects more state and local taxes per resident than any other state. Housing remains extraordinarily expensive, and homeownership is increasingly difficult for families facing high property prices, property taxes and living expenses.

The strain is visible in migration statistics.

In 2024, approximately 415,000 New Yorkers moved to other states, while roughly 285,000 Americans moved into New York from elsewhere in the country. The result was a net domestic loss of approximately 130,000 residents.

New York also relies heavily on high-income taxpayers, many of whom have the financial means to relocate. Their departures could place increasing pressure on the state’s ability to finance its commitments.

Those commitments are substantial. In February 2025, approximately 6.9 million New Yorkers, or 35% of the state’s population, were enrolled in Medicaid. Total Medicaid spending reached approximately $115.6 billion in state fiscal year 2025, including federal funding.

Medicaid and school aid have gone from 38.3% of the state’s budget to 50% over the past twenty years. It is going to continue to grow because of the leftward movemovement of government, squeezing out economic development, infrastructure and public safety.

The continued departures of residents and businesses will accelerate the pain.

A Change in Direction or an Acceleration?

The 2026 election did not produce a change in direction. It strengthened a political movement seeking to accelerate the state’s existing left-wing policies.

Higher spending requires greater revenues. Higher taxes and living costs may encourage more residents and businesses with the means to relocate to leave. Those remaining may become increasingly dependent on public assistance, requiring still more government spending.

The political cycle could reinforce the economic one. As the electorate changes, candidates promising expanded public programs may become more influential, while those advocating lower spending and taxes struggle to gain traction.

New York may be entering a political and economic cycle in which disappointing results produce demands for more of the same policies, while the residents most capable of financing them increasingly choose to live elsewhere.

The Devil Has a Winning Smile

Posted on by
Reply

The devil does not wear horns, a red cape and carry a pitchfork. That would make him far too easy to recognize.

In his 1942 book The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis imagined a senior demon, Screwtape, instructing his nephew Wormwood on how to corrupt an ordinary man. The secret was not some spectacular act of evil, but a succession of seemingly harmless compromises.

“Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.”

Lewis was particularly perceptive about politics. Screwtape advised Wormwood to encourage either extreme patriotism or extreme pacifism. The ideology was unimportant. What mattered was making political allegiance more important than moral conviction.

“Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man.”

Lewis wasn’t warning that people would choose the wrong political ideology. He was warning that they would make their ideology the measure of right and wrong.

In 2026, Screwtape might find his work considerably easier.

Consider Zohran Mamdani and Abdul El-Sayed. The winning smiles, easy confidence and appealing promises of affordable housing, healthcare and social justice. Their supporters feel they are participating in something noble, standing up for the poor and vulnerable, making the world a better place.

A diverse group of protesters holding banners that read 'Socialism Beats Fascism' and 'New York City Democratic Socialists' during a demonstration in an urban setting.

But what happens when the people delivering that appealing message embrace allies who traffic in antisemitism and use such language themselves?

In Michigan, El-Sayed campaigned with Hasan Piker, whose statements about Jews have drawn widespread condemnation. Cenk Uygur’s Rebellion PAC subsequently promoted an advertisement blaming American support for Israel for rising grocery prices and other economic hardships. Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens called the advertisement antisemitic and demanded that El-Sayed condemn it.

El-Sayed said the advertisement was produced independently of his campaign and that he disagreed with its contents. But when Stevens continued pressing the issue, she was told to stay away from campaign events. She ultimately endorsed Republican Mike Rogers.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called her decision a ““despicable betrayal,” and other Democrats joined the denunciations. The political establishment was more interested in punishing Stevens for breaking party ranks than confronting antisemitism.

That is precisely the danger Lewis identified.

First, supporters overlook objectionable rhetoric because they believe in the larger cause. Then they defend the politicians who tolerate it. Eventually, they attack the people who refuse to make the same exceptions.

Each compromise makes the next one easier.

This is not simply the familiar horseshoe theory, in which the far left and far right meet at the extremes. Tucker Carlson and Hasan Piker occupy different political worlds, yet both have promoted troubling rhetoric about Jews and become mouthpieces for El-Sayed. Lewis understood the deeper problem: political allegiance can corrupt moral judgment from either direction.

And here is where his story takes on a new dimension in 2026.

In The Screwtape Letters, Wormwood was assigned to corrupt one man. Today, political movements and social media can turn individual moral compromise into the mass propagation of moral compromise. Supporters rationalize objectionable rhetoric, persuade others to accept it and reward those who join them. Each newly persuaded follower can recruit thousands more.

Evil no longer advances one conscience at a time. It multiplies.

Lewis’s Patient ultimately escaped the demons. But in today’s politics, the danger is that the Patient never realizes he has become Wormwood himself.

When you support a Nazi, you are not clean when leaving the polling station. “Allegiance to party” has a ring of Nazi Germany for a reason.

Smiling Democratic politicians rally behind Abdul El-Sayed after fellow Democrat Haley Stevens endorses Republican opponent for Senate because El-Sayed’s campaign was awash in public antisemitism

Don’t Be Angry at Chuck Schumer for Being a Political Hack

Posted on by
2

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called Congresswoman Haley Stevens’ endorsement of Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s Senate race a “despicable betrayal.” Stevens refused to support Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed after he campaigned with Hasan Piker, a streamer who has spread antisemitic rhetoric, including comparing a heavily Jewish Michigan suburb to a KKK neighborhood.

Antisemitic influencer Hasan Piker campaigning with Abdul El Sayed

Stevens also condemned an antisemitic advertisement produced by Cenk Uygur’s Rebellion PAC that blamed Americans’ grocery bills on Israel and falsely suggested that American taxpayers finance Israeli health care. El-Sayed’s campaign disclaimed responsibility for the ad without condemning its message.

Schumer supported Stevens in the Democratic primary but rallied behind El-Sayed after his victory. Now he attacks Stevens for putting her principles ahead of party loyalty.

Don’t be angry at Schumer. He’s just doing his job – the real job that is not discussed in polite company.

Schumer’s business is electing Democrats, protecting Democratic seats and building a Democratic majority. He tells Jewish voters that he stands with them and New Yorkers that he fights for their interests. But when those interests collide with those of the Democratic Party, his priorities become clear. His loyalty is to his party. Voters are the means by which he keeps it in power.

NY Senator Chuck Schumer

By way of comparison, consider Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Weingarten speaks constantly about children and education. But she doesn’t run a children’s advocacy organization but an enormous and powerful teachers union. Her job is to protect teachers, increase their compensation and defend their working conditions. When the interests of teachers and students align, everyone benefits. When they conflict, nobody should be surprised which side she takes.

The problem isn’t that Weingarten advocates for teachers. It’s that she presents their interests as though they are necessarily the interests of children. They are not.

New York City public schools spend roughly $34,700 per student annually, yet only about half of students in grades three through eight demonstrate proficiency in reading and 57% in mathematics. A recent New York Post investigation revealed that 99.6% of students were promoted in the 2024–25 school year, despite enormous gaps in academic achievement.

Teachers find it easier to promote students rather than educate them. Parents receive reassuring report cards while children are denied the skills they need to succeed. Teachers get little pushback and the union protects their failures.

Don’t be angry at Weingarten for protecting incompetent teachers; that’s part of her job. Be angry at her for failing to educate millions of kids and denying them skills for the future.

The same applies to Schumer.

The Democratic Party has increasingly accommodated the Democratic Socialists of America and politicians aligned with its ideology, even as their positions clash with those of traditional Democrats. Schumer’s embrace of El-Sayed illustrates a party establishment willing to tolerate troubling political associations to preserve its coalition.

The handling of President Joe Biden’s decline exposed another failure. Democratic leaders defended his fitness for office while concerns mounted, prioritizing their political interests over a candid accounting of the president’s condition. Only his disastrous 2024 debate made the issue impossible to avoid.

Protecting the party has taken precedence over the nation’s leadership, diminishing public trust and leaving America more vulnerable. Joe Biden, Abdul El Sayed, teachers unions. They are all part of the rot of power and party loyalty over principles and patriotism.

Whatever Haley Stevens other political calculations, she refused to place party loyalty above her objections to El-Sayed’s antisemitic campaign. Schumer called that a betrayal because, from his perspective, it was. A betrayal of HIS job as a political hack.

But betrayal of a political party is not necessarily betrayal of the public.

Schumer’s success in electing Democrats is not the same as making Americans safer and more prosperous. Weingarten’s success in winning better contracts for teachers is not the same as educating children.

There is no question that America becomes weaker when its leaders protect political power rather than confront failure, and when voters reward loyalty instead of demanding results that you care about.

Schumer knows whom he serves. Weingarten knows whom she serves.

The question is whether voters and parents understand that they are not necessarily the ones being served despite the smooth talk and lies they are fed.

Related:

DSA Goes Full Antisemite (July 2024)

The New York Times Participates in Antisemitism as It Attempts to Whitewash It to Protect El-Sayed and the Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens did something extraordinary on November 1, 2026. Two days before the election, she endorsed Republican Mike Rogers over her own party’s Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, who had defeated her in Michigan’s Democratic primary.

She explained why.

“We have to stand with country. We can’t stand with hate. We can’t stand with Hasan Piker.”

Stevens specifically condemned Piker, warning about his influence on college campuses and the hatred being spread to young people.

Piker is no obscure activist. The internationally followed livestreamer reaches millions online, appears at universities and campaigns alongside prominent Democrats, including El-Sayed at an April rally at the University of Michigan.

Days before Stevens’ endorsement, Piker had compared West Bloomfield, a heavily Jewish Detroit suburb, to a Ku Klux Klan neighborhood. “It’s racial supremacy. It’s Jewish supremacy,” he declared.

This was the same community where a synagogue and preschool had been targeted in an attempted terrorist attack earlier in the year.

Piker has a long history of stoking Jew hatred and had previously described Israeli and Orthodox Jews as “inbred” and “psychopaths,” compared Jews in Judea and Samaria to the KKK and repeatedly invoked Jewish supremacy. His rhetoric had traveled well beyond Michigan, gaining enormous audiences and legitimacy through appearances alongside political candidates.

El-Sayed had proudly campaigned with Piker before distancing himself from some of his statements. Another controversy involved Cenk Uygur, whose advertisement linked rising grocery prices to American assistance to Israel, even though annual military spending to it is less than 5% of what America spends on its military abroad, and has sent six times as much money to Ukraine for its defensive war against Russia as the US sent to Israel for its defensive war against genocidal Palestinian Arabs. Stevens condemned the advertisement as antisemitic. El-Sayed only disavowed its message.

Stevens nevertheless concluded that she could not support him.

Then came The New York Times.

Its article, “Inside the Abdul El-Sayed-Haley Stevens Meltdown in Michigan,” explained in the subheading that the relationship had shattered partly because of Israel, “but also because of their sensitive egos and hurt feelings.”

Sensitive egos? Hurt feelings?

The newspaper described Stevens as “still absorbing her primary loss” and feeling “scorned” by El-Sayed’s failure to include her in campaign events. It quoted a Democratic operative blaming the spectacle on “one person”—Stevens.

One person? What about the Jews who were being attacked?

The Times declared that “at the root of the disagreement” was American policy toward Israel. It detailed AIPAC’s spending against El-Sayed, Stevens’ attachment to Israel, her Jewish fiancé, his donations to AIPAC and her consideration of converting to Judaism.

Yet it never named Hasan Piker, whom Stevens repeatedly condemned, or Cenk Uygur, whose advertisement had sparked another confrontation. Uygur became merely “an ally.”

Most remarkably, the only time the word “antisemitism” or “antisemitic” appeared was when this so-tarred overly sensitive person said that “she viewed” the ad as antisemitic when in fact it was widely viewed as antisemitic, even among Democratic politicians.

The newspaper had plenty to say about Stevens’ feelings, Israel, AIPAC and Jewish connections. It could not bring itself to name the hatred at the center of her objections.

Instead, the Times described the rupture as reflecting “a major fissure coursing through the Democratic Party about what its relationship with Israel and Jewish donors should be.”

Jewish donors.

Not Jews being attacked. Not the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric. Jewish donors.

Piker himself had accused Stevens of being “weirdly obsessed with Israel” and having been “paid handsomely for this strange obsession.” The Times did not repeat his accusation, but its framing likewise directed attention toward Jewish money and influence rather than the hatred Stevens condemned.

This is how antisemitism becomes mainstream. The New York Times did not need to endorse Piker’s hatred to reinforce its underlying prejudices. By reducing objections to antisemitism to hurt feelings and Jewish concerns about safety to money and influence, the newspaper helped normalize the very hostility Stevens was protesting.

The Times was no longer simply reporting on attacks against Jews. It had become a participant in perpetuating them.

Why Are Democrats Asking Jews to Sacrifice Themselves to Save Their Party?

Posted on by
1

What brings together a far-left streamer, a right-wing nationalist and a progressive Democrat running for the United States Senate? Hostility toward Israel and Jews.

Abdul El-Sayed calls his campaign Michigan First. A more fitting slogan would be El-Sayed First or Jews Never.

El-Sayed campaigned alongside Hasan Piker, the influential left-wing streamer who compared heavily Jewish West Bloomfield, Michigan, to a Ku Klux Klan neighborhood. Piker took aim at a Jewish community in a state already shaken by an attack on Temple Israel earlier this year, in which El Sayed dismissed the antisemitism of the attacker saying “hurt people hurt people.”

Two men standing in front of a campaign banner. One man, in a black suit, is speaking passionately with clenched fists, while the other man, in a brown blazer and red tie, looks on attentively.
Hasan Piker stumping with Abdul El Sayed

El-Sayed also featured Tucker Carlson, the right-wing nationalist who has promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and given a platform to Holocaust revisionism, in campaign advertising attacking Republican Mike Rogers.

El-Sayed received support from Imam Hassan Qazwini, who has claimed Israel created ISIS and praised a Hezbollah leader. Qazwini urged his congregation to vote for El-Sayed as a religious duty.

Cenk Uygur‘s Rebellion PAC produced an advertisement blaming Americans’ economic hardships on support for Israel, recycling the antisemitic conspiracy that Jews and their state are responsible for ordinary people’s suffering.

Different political camps, united by a common target – Jews and the Jewish State – urging voters to elect Abdul El Sayed to be a senator in Michigan.

Not every Democrat was willing to look away.

Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who endorsed El-Sayed after losing the primary, demanded that he remove the Carlson advertisement. Senator Elissa Slotkin condemned the PAC commercial. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi challenged El-Sayed’s opposition to a Jewish state.

CNN commentator Van Jones called the PAC advertisement anti-Jewish hate, warning of the historical consequences of blaming Jews for society’s problems. Jones refused to choose which minority deserved protection based on the politics of the moment. His standard was the same for both.

Yet Stevens was reportedly asked to stay away from El-Sayed’s campaign events. Supporting the Democratic nominee was apparently insufficient. She was also expected to remain silent.

Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan Democratic Senate primary winner, at a press conference in front of the Spirit of Detroit statue on August 5, 2026.
Split image featuring Abdul El-Sayed on the left, talking, and Haley Stevens on the right, speaking, with a headline about their political dynamics in Michigan.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, herself Jewish, went further. Speaking to Jewish Democrats, she invoked a moral obligation to sacrifice the comfort, safety, security and even the future of their own people for the opportunity to save humanity.

Who gave Democrats the authority to decide that Jews must sacrifice their security for the party’s political ambitions?

Democrats like Senator Chris Murphy have turned the argument upside down, branding criticism of El-Sayed as Islamophobia while failing to confront the antisemitism surrounding his campaign. The candidate becomes the victim, his critics become the bigots, and Jewish Americans are expected to remain silent.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell urged Democrats not to let the controversy surrounding Hasan Piker divide the party ahead of November. Party unity was apparently more important than confronting the rhetoric that provoked the controversy.

The burden has been reversed. Instead of demanding that El-Sayed answer for the extremists he embraces, Democratic leaders are asking Jewish Americans to explain why they cannot simply accept them. The candidate’s associations become secondary; the Jews who object become the political problem.

Democrats have spent years insisting that politicians are responsible for the extremists they embrace, applying that standard relentlessly to Donald Trump. Why should El-Sayed be exempt?

If a politician embraces / welcomes / ignores the notorious bigots to get elected, why should anyone vote for him? If a political party demands that Jews tolerate antisemitism to secure victory, why should any minority trust that party to defend its rights?

A party that unites around hatred of Jews is not a party worth defending, voting for or belonging to. It is not even a party worth preserving.

If saving democracy requires sacrificing the rights and security of Jews, what exactly is being saved?

Related:

Michigan’s Slide on Israel (April 2021)

A Republic Cannot Survive on Its Constitution Alone

Posted on by
Reply

Part 2 of Democracy Is Beautiful. Politics Is Ugly. What holds a divided society together when citizens lose faith in their future, their institutions and one another?

The United States has operated under the same Constitution since 1789. It has endured wars, depressions, assassinations, political scandals and profound disagreements over the meaning of freedom and equality. It also suffered a catastrophic Civil War that demonstrated how completely a nation can fracture.

What allows people with fundamentally different beliefs and interests to remain committed to the same country?

A constitution establishes the rules of government. It cannot guarantee that citizens trust those rules, believe they have a future within the system or feel any obligation toward people with whom they disagree.

For more than two thousand years, political philosophers have examined the conditions that sustain a republic. Their insights reveal five foundations that extend beyond constitutional design.

A Stake in the Future

Aristotle (384–322 BCE) warned in Politics that deep divisions between rich and poor could destabilize government. He believed a substantial middle class moderated competing economic interests and helped preserve political stability.

America has long been sustained by the expectation that hard work could produce a better life. Homeownership, entrepreneurship, education and the opportunity to provide more for one’s children gave people a personal stake in the country’s success.

But that confidence weakens when housing becomes unaffordable, healthcare and education consume family incomes, and younger generations question whether they can achieve the standard of living their parents enjoyed.

The problem extends beyond inequality. People can tolerate considerable differences in wealth when they believe advancement remains possible. Resentment grows when opportunity appears closed and economic rewards seem disconnected from effort.

A republic becomes vulnerable when citizens stop believing they have a future worth investing in.

Confidence in Fair Institutions

John Locke (1632–1704) argued that legitimate government exists to protect fundamental rights through established laws and impartial administration of justice.

Citizens can accept decisions they dislike when they believe the rules are fair. But when courts, elections, law enforcement and government agencies are viewed as instruments of political or economic favoritism, dissatisfaction becomes a challenge to the system itself.

Trust in Washington has fallen dramatically. Pew Research Center’s historical series shows that 73% of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right most or all of the time in 1958, compared with just 17% in September 2025.

The more troubling development is the tendency to judge institutions by whether they produce politically desirable outcomes.

A court is considered legitimate when it rules favorably and corrupt when it does not. Elections are celebrated when preferred candidates win and questioned when they lose.

The danger arises when citizens lose confidence that the rules apply equally to everyone.

The Bonds That Make a Nation

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859), writing in Democracy in America, admired Americans’ extraordinary willingness to form churches, charities, schools, local organizations and voluntary associations.

These institutions taught cooperation. Neighbors could disagree about national politics while working together to improve their communities.

Tocqueville feared that isolated individuals would increasingly depend upon centralized government as local associations weakened.

Today, political identity increasingly reaches into friendships, families, schools, religious institutions and businesses. Social media encourages people to surround themselves with those who share their opinions while regarding political opponents with suspicion.

The danger is that citizens begin to lose relationships that transcend politics.

A nation needs more than a common government. It needs communities in which people learn to live and work together despite their differences.

A Shared Understanding of Reality

Hannah Arendt (1906–1975), in her 1967 essay Truth and Politics, examined the importance of factual truth to public life.

People can disagree about policies, values and the interpretation of events. But meaningful debate requires some common understanding of what actually happened.

Today’s information environment offers unprecedented access to knowledge while allowing competing political communities to inhabit entirely different accounts of reality.

Traditional media, partisan commentators, social platforms and artificial intelligence can reinforce existing beliefs and spread misleading claims.

When citizens cannot agree on basic facts or recognize credible evidence, persuasion becomes difficult. Every disagreement can become another accusation of deception.

“In a world where facts are extraneous, we are only left with a clash of emotions.” – First One Through, “Eyes Wide Shut” November 2016

A republic requires more than freedom to express competing opinions. It needs a public capable of distinguishing facts from arguments about those facts.

The Character Required for Self-Government

John Adams (1735–1826) understood that republican institutions depended upon civic virtue as well as laws.

In Thoughts on Government (1776), he emphasized representative institutions, impartial justice and the responsibilities of citizenship.

No constitution can anticipate every circumstance in which citizens or political leaders must choose between immediate advantage and the integrity of the system. People must sometimes accept electoral defeat, respect unfavorable court decisions and defend principles that benefit their opponents. When political disagreement becomes moral hostility, such restraint becomes harder. Political victory may begin to appear more important than the rules governing competition.

The republic depends upon citizens willing to preserve institutions even when those institutions prevent them from getting what they want.

When the Foundations Begin to Fail

These five foundations reinforce one another.

  • Economic opportunity gives citizens a stake in the future.
  • Fair institutions give them confidence in the rules.
  • Community creates belonging. S
  • hared facts make disagreement manageable.
  • Civic virtue sustains the willingness to preserve the system.

Their erosion can create a dangerous cycle.

People who believe they cannot get ahead may blame institutions they consider unfair. Social isolation makes it easier to view other groups as responsible. Competing information environments reinforce hostility. Political leaders and citizens become more willing to sacrifice restraint in pursuit of victory.

America has endured such pressures before. The Great Depression tested confidence in economic opportunity. The civil rights movement challenged a system that denied equal rights to millions. The Civil War demonstrated the catastrophic consequences when competing visions of the nation could no longer be reconciled peacefully.

These crises also reveal that constitutional endurance depends upon reform, institutional legitimacy and the ability to rebuild a shared national purpose.

The Constitution remains in place today. The more important question is whether the conditions that sustain it are growing weaker.

What Makes the Republic Worth Preserving?

A nation cannot remain united merely because its citizens are governed by the same laws.

They must believe that opportunity remains possible, that institutions operate fairly and that their neighbors’ success does not require their own failure.

The deepest danger arises when citizens conclude that their future depends upon defeating, excluding, depriving or stealing from other Americans rather than building a society in which they can all prosper.

Jefferson Memorial, Washington DC

The ultimate test of a republic is whether its citizens still recognize one another as legitimate participants in a shared national future. When political opponents become enemies who must be defeated at any cost, elections cease to be a means of resolving disagreement and become battles over who has the right to govern.

A constitution can establish the rules of that contest. Only the citizens can decide whether those rules—and the republic itself—remain worth preserving.

Democracy Is Beautiful. Politics Is Ugly.

Posted on by
1

Why the American Founders believed that free elections were only the beginning of a free society.

Democracy is one of the great achievements of human civilization. The idea that ordinary people should select their leaders, determine the direction of their country and peacefully replace those in power represents an extraordinary departure from thousands of years of human history.

For much of that history, people lived under kings, emperors, military rulers and hereditary elites. Government was imposed upon them. Democracy introduced the revolutionary proposition that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

Yet democracy carries an inherent contradiction. While allowing people to choose their government is a beautiful principle, the political process through which those choices are made can be remarkably ugly.

Elections encourage competition, division, personal attacks and promises that cannot be fulfilled. Political parties organize people into opposing camps. Candidates exaggerate differences, question their opponents’ motives and convince supporters that the future of the country depends on their victory.

Ambrose Bierce (1842–1914), in The Devil’s Dictionary, offered a cynical definition of politics: “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.”

Democracy gives people the right to choose their government. It also gives political winners the opportunity to exercise power over those who voted against them.

The American Founders understood this danger. They sought to create a constitutional republic that would preserve popular government while restraining the political power that electoral victories conferred.

The Unavoidable Problem of Politics

People naturally disagree about the society in which they want to live.

Some favor higher taxes to fund public services. Others prefer lower taxes and greater private control over resources. People hold different religious beliefs, economic interests, cultural traditions and ideas about individual freedom.

These differences are inevitable in a free society. Indeed, the freedom to hold different opinions is among democracy’s greatest virtues.

But elections transform those differences into contests for political power.

Two neighbors may disagree about religion, education, taxation and immigration while maintaining a perfectly cordial relationship. Neither has the authority to impose his preferences on the other.

Politics changes that relationship. When one neighbor can enlist the power of government to advance his beliefs, their differences become much more consequential.

James Madison (1751–1836) recognized this problem in Federalist No. 10, published in 1787. He described competing groups organized around shared interests or passions as factions, and understood that they would always exist wherever people enjoyed liberty.

James Madison (1751-1836) by John Vanderlyn in 1816

Madison argued that eliminating factions would require destroying the freedom that allowed them to form. His objective was to control their harmful effects rather than eliminate political disagreement.

He distinguished between what he called a pure democracy, in which citizens govern directly, and a republic, in which elected representatives exercise governmental authority.

Madison believed that representative government, particularly across a large and diverse republic, could make it more difficult for any single faction to dominate the others. Representatives might refine public opinion through deliberation, while the diversity of interests would complicate efforts to assemble oppressive majorities.

The objective was to accommodate competing interests without allowing political winners to destroy the rights of political losers.

When the Majority Becomes a Threat

Democracy relies upon majority rule. When people disagree about public policy, voting provides a peaceful mechanism for reaching decisions.

But does winning 51% of the vote give a political majority the right to do whatever it wishes?

Suppose a majority decides to confiscate the property of a wealthy minority, prohibit the religious practices of an unpopular community or silence political opponents who challenge government policies.

Each decision might enjoy majority support. None would necessarily be just.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Cea Weaver of the Office to Protect Tenants, discuss plans to confiscate private real estate assets

The fundamental problem is that elections determine who exercises political authority, but they do not establish the moral limits of that authority.

A majority can be oppressive just as a king or dictator can be oppressive. The fact that political power is obtained democratically does not guarantee that it will be exercised fairly.

Furthermore, minorities are not simply the people who voted for the losing candidate. A citizen may support the winning party while belonging to a religious, ethnic or economic minority whose rights are threatened by the government.

Political coalitions change with every election. Individual rights must endure regardless of those changes.

The Founders understood that property rights, freedom of conscience, due process and equal treatment under the law required protections extending beyond ordinary electoral outcomes.

Democracy determines who has the authority to govern. A constitution establishes what government has the authority to do.

The challenge is to reconcile the right of the majority to govern with the right of every individual to remain free.

The Founders’ Constitutional Republic

The American Founders spent considerable time debating how to resolve this dilemma.

They had rejected the arbitrary authority of a monarchy but faced two competing dangers. A government that was too powerful could threaten liberty. One that was too weak could fail to enforce laws, maintain order or protect the nation.

Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) advocated a stronger national government capable of addressing national interests. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), writing from France, emphasized individual liberty and the dangers of centralized authority. The Anti-Federalists feared that the proposed Constitution did not adequately protect citizens against federal power.

Their objective was not the weakest possible government, but one powerful enough to govern and restrained enough to preserve liberty.

The resulting Constitution incorporated competing ideas rather than embracing any single political philosophy.

It established a representative republic in which the people would select their leaders, but those leaders would operate within defined boundaries.

Power was divided among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and between federal and state governments. Elections would provide accountability, while independent institutions and competing centers of authority would restrain abuses of power.

Madison captured the challenge in Federalist No. 51 in 1788: “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, added explicit protections for fundamental liberties, including freedom of religion, speech, assembly and due process.

The Constitution also made its foundational rules deliberately difficult to change. Ordinary legislation could be enacted by elected representatives, but constitutional amendments generally required approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Public policy needed to respond to changing circumstances, while fundamental constitutional principles required a much broader consensus to alter.

The Founders’ achievement was imperfect. The original Constitution accommodated slavery and failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. Subsequent amendments abolished slavery, established equal protection and expanded voting rights.

That history illustrates both the importance of enduring constitutional protections and the necessity of preserving a mechanism to correct fundamental injustices.

A constitution must be durable without becoming incapable of reform.

Making Political Defeat Bearable

Constitutional restraint serves another important purpose: it reduces the stakes of political competition.

The more authority government exercises over people’s lives, the more consequential every election becomes.

If political victory determines not only taxes and public spending but also religious expression, educational choices, property rights, business opportunities and personal freedoms, the consequences of winning or losing become enormous.

Political opponents may begin to view one another as existential threats. Compromise becomes dangerous because it might allow the opposing faction to gain power. Electoral defeat becomes frightening because the winners may fundamentally change the lives of those who opposed them.

“The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money, chasing all these political candidates, is a nightmare, and they’re right.” – Justice Elana Kagan, October 2026

George Washington (1732–1799) warned of this danger in his 1796 Farewell Address, describing “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.”

Washington understood that partisan retaliation could become a recurring feature of government, with each victorious faction seeking to punish or reverse the actions of its predecessor.

The incentives of campaigning and governing are also fundamentally different.

Campaigns reward candidates for distinguishing themselves from opponents, mobilizing supporters and emphasizing disagreements. Governing a diverse society requires negotiation, restraint and recognition that political opponents remain citizens with legitimate interests.

Politicians may campaign as though winning an election grants them a mandate to remake society. A constitutional republic places limits on how far that mandate can reach.

The objective is to give government sufficient authority to perform its legitimate functions while protecting citizens from arbitrary interference. Laws, national defense, public infrastructure and the protection of individual rights all require effective institutions.

Likewise, constitutional protections should allow elected representatives to make ordinary policy decisions. A government incapable of acting would frustrate democratic accountability.

The challenge is to distinguish matters properly decided through elections from fundamental freedoms that should survive every election.

When those boundaries are respected, political competition becomes a contest over the direction of government rather than a struggle for control over society itself.

The Greater Achievement of a Free Society

Democracy is often celebrated because it allows people to choose the government they want. But in a society of millions of people with different interests and convictions, no government can satisfy everyone.

The more ambitious achievement is creating a society in which people can live freely even when they disagree with those exercising political power.

A free society requires more than the ability to choose its government. It requires space for people to live their lives beyond the reach of government. When government becomes the primary means of resolving every social disagreement, differences that people might otherwise accommodate become battles for political control.

The constitutional republic offers a different approach. Elections determine who governs, while foundational rights establish boundaries around what government may control.

The greatest achievement of such a system is not that everyone gets the government they want. It is that people can disagree about government without having to fight for control over every aspect of one another’s lives.

As we enter elections season, we must acknowledge that politics is often a very ugly business in a process to continue our dream of a stable democratic republic. We owe it to our nation to focus on electing leaders who will preserve our laws and rights, and not dissolve our great republic in the pursuit of a fictional purely democratic utopia.

El Sayed’s Ad Is Designed To Be Antisemitic

Posted on by
2

A political ad backing Abdul El-Sayed tells Michigan families that America’s support for Israel is part of the reason they cannot afford groceries. It turns Israel into the culprit for economic pain and casts Americans who support Israel as politicians bought by a foreign power, choosing Israel over their own neighbors. That is the old dual-loyalty smear dressed up as a grocery-price argument.

“Even though the rage of the people sometimes flares high against the eternal blood-sucker [Jew], it does not in the least prevent him from reappearing in a few years in the place he had hardly left and beginning the old life all over again. No persecution can deter him from his type of human exploitation, none can drive him away; after every persecution he is back again in a short time, and just the same as before.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

The ad comes from Rebellion PAC, founded by Cenk Uygur. It links U.S. aid to Israel and the war in Gaza to the cost of food, while accusing Republican Mike Rogers of putting Israeli interests ahead of Michigan families. The Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt condemned the ad as scapegoating Israel.

The figures expose the absurdity of the accusation. The United States spends an estimated $80 billion annually to maintain its military presence abroad. Japan, Germany, South Korea, Qatar, Italy and the United Kingdom together account for tens of billions of that cost. Israel receives $3.8 billion in regular annual military assistance – less than five percent of the $80 billion estimate. The ad singles out Israel while ignoring the vastly larger cost of America’s global military posture.

The Ukraine comparison is just as revealing. Since the wars began, the United States has provided roughly $127 billion in assistance to Ukraine, compared with $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel—about six times as much for Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine war has caused an estimated 610,000 deaths, compared with roughly 77,000 in the Israel-Hamas war. That is about eight times as many deaths in Ukraine.

America’s own casualty record sharpens the contrast. More than 65,000 U.S. service members died in the recent direct wars: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf War and the U.S.-Iran war. In the wars Ukraine and Israel are fighting against America’s adversaries, three American soldiers were killed in Jordan by an Iran-backed militia.

The ad offers no evidence that aid to Israel drives grocery prices. Instead, it directs public anger at Israel and at Americans who support its right to defend itself. It turns pro-Israel sentiment into an accusation of disloyalty: if you support Israel, you are supposedly taking food from American families.

Dana Nessel, a fellow Michigan Democrat – who has endorsed El-Sayed – has already warned her party to stop making Israel and AIPAC the villains in every political story.

Cenk Uygur’s PAC turns grocery prices into an indictment of Israel. His nephew, Hasan Piker, supplies the online megaphone. Zohran Mamdani and El-Sayed give this politics electoral respectability. The message running through it is profound Jew hatred: Jews who support Israel are foreign agents, their loyalty is suspect, and their political participation is a threat to ordinary Americans.

Hasan Piker (right) campaigning with Abdul El-Sayed

“Trade and all money business he considers his very own privilege, which he exploits ruthlessly. Financial business and trade have become altogether his monopoly.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

If this was all about money to foreign countries, if it was all about military spending, if it was all about people being killed, the ad would have mentioned Japan and Germany and Qatar and Ukraine. But it only mentioned one conflict, one country, and featured one government: Israel, and targeted its supporters.

Nessel has told them to stop. Jewish groups have told them to stop. Instead, they are doubling-down as elections approach.

Every Democrat who stays silent while Zionists are cast as the cause of Americans’ financial hardship helps make antisemitism acceptable. Voting for these candidates and promoting their backers accelerates the demonization of Jews.

The Red Herring: While America Fights Over Gaza, China Advances

Posted on by
Reply

While Americans argue over Gaza, Beijing is watching Taiwan.

China wants to dominate Asia, control waterways carrying trillions of dollars in commerce, and bring Taiwan under its rule. Standing in its way is potentially the United States.

So as America commits military resources to Middle Eastern conflicts and Americans increasingly question their country’s overseas role, China is pursuing two opportunities: expanding its power abroad and exploiting political divisions inside America.

The Trillion-Dollar Prize

Taiwan produces much of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, approximately $2.45 trillion in goods passed through the Taiwan Strait in 2022, representing more than one-fifth of global maritime trade.

Bloomberg Economics estimated that a major war involving China and the United States could cost the global economy approximately $10.6 trillion in its first year, equivalent to 9.6% of global GDP. The modeled losses include 6.6% of American GDP and 11% of China’s. A Chinese blockade could reduce global GDP by approximately 5%. The consequences would reach American retirement accounts, employment, manufacturing, automobiles and everyday consumer prices.

Beijing has steadily increased military exercises, maritime patrols and operations around Taiwan and the South China Sea. China seeks the ability to impose its will on Taiwan while limiting American intervention.

China Sees an Opening

On October 7, 2023, Hamas invaded Israel, murdering approximately 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages. The ensuing war drew American aircraft carriers, missile-defense systems, intelligence resources and diplomatic attention into successive confrontations involving Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and the Houthis.

Within weeks, foreign-policy researchers identified the opportunity that Beijing will exploit.

On November 9, 2023, Emil Avdaliani of the Stimson Center published For China and Russia, the Gaza War May Be a Blessing in Disguise. He explained that the wars in Gaza and Ukraine interfered with America’s strategic focus on the Indo-Pacific, giving China greater freedom to maneuver and time to prepare for competition over Taiwan.

He compared the opportunity to the years following September 11, when American attention was consumed by the wars on terrorism. The Gaza conflict also threatened the proposed India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor, a potential competitor to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

Two weeks after the Hamas attack, Ahmed Aboudouh of Chatham House published China’s Approach to the War in Gaza Is Not Anti-Israel. It’s Designed to Contain the US.

Aboudouh described Beijing’s posture as anti-Western neutrality. China avoided condemning Hamas’s atrocities while criticizing Israel and portraying America as a destabilizing force. Beijing was using sympathy for Palestinians to undermine American credibility, cultivate support among developing countries and strengthen its diplomatic position on Taiwan and Xinjiang.

Beijing also maintains an enormous economic relationship with Iran.

In April 2026, the U.S. Treasury Department reported that China purchased approximately 90% of Iran’s oil exports. The U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission estimated that Chinese purchases generated approximately $31.2 billion in Iranian oil revenue in 2025.

Those revenues support the Iranian government, whose military establishment finances and arms Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Iran’s regional activities repeatedly demand American military resources and diplomatic attention.

China receives Iranian oil while Tehran’s confrontations with America complicate Washington’s ability to concentrate on Asia.

China’s American Information Campaign

China’s efforts to exploit the conflict have also reached American audiences.

In June 2024, Google’s Threat Analysis Group documented DRAGONBRIDGE, also known as Spamouflage, a vast online influence operation linked to the People’s Republic of China.

The network distributed videos, fabricated news-style broadcasts and social-media comments attacking American democracy and exploiting domestic controversies.

One of its targets was the American campus protests over Gaza.

Beginning in May 2024, Chinese-linked accounts circulated English-language material portraying American police actions against pro-Palestinian demonstrators as evidence of Western hypocrisy. The messaging contrasted the treatment of campus protesters with American support for demonstrations in Hong Kong.

The same network criticized American involvement in Ukraine and depicted American democracy as dysfunctional.

Google disrupted more than 10,000 instances of DRAGONBRIDGE activity across its platforms in the first quarter of 2024. During the first nine months of 2024, Google also terminated more than 22,000 YouTube channels linked to Chinese coordinated influence operations.

Although investigators found limited genuine audience engagement, the volume of fabricated content demonstrated Beijing’s capacity to manufacture political messaging and distribute it across thousands of accounts.

Follow the Money

An August 2023 New York Times investigation uncovered a sprawling financial network associated with Neville Roy Singham, an American technology entrepreneur living in Shanghai, with approximately $278 million in reported financial flows attributed to his broader network. Major organizations associated with the network include the People’s Forum, ANSWER Coalition, International People’s Assembly, CODEPINK and affiliated activist and media operations. These organizations have helped organize anti-Israel demonstrations, promote political campaigns and advance positions frequently aligned with Chinese Communist Party interests. The Times also documented Singham’s financial and operational connections to Chinese propaganda organizations. A July 2025 George Washington University study examined overlapping financial relationships, organizational cooperation and ideological alignment involving Singham-linked organizations and groups associated with Shut It Down for Palestine. The $278 million represents broader network financial flows rather than verified direct funding of each organization.

The People’s Forum’s organizing activities became visible immediately after October 7. It co-organized a Times Square demonstration the following day, helped mobilize the November 4 march in Washington, and joined the nationwide Shut It Down for Palestine campaign. On April 29, 2024, more than 100 activists, including Columbia protesters, reportedly gathered at its Manhattan headquarters, where executive director Manolo De Los Santos urged them to “give Joe Biden a hot summer.” These events demonstrate the organization’s participation in street demonstrations and campus-related organizing, alongside a much broader student-led protest movement.

Beyond activist organizations, Chinese government agencies, companies and associated entities have developed financial relationships with American universities, policy institutions, media organizations and Washington lobbying firms.

U.S. Department of Education disclosures identify approximately $4.9 billion in Chinese-source gifts and contracts across roughly 8,000 transactions, making China the second-largest reported foreign funding source. These relationships reach institutions responsible for educating future American leaders and developing advanced technologies. The funding includes research, education and commercial arrangements, while its scale raises questions about academic independence, research security and foreign influence.

Chinese financial relationships have also reached American think tanks and policy institutes, where donor disclosures are less comprehensive and researchers help shape congressional testimony, national security debates and foreign-policy recommendations.

China’s presence in Washington is more directly measurable. According to OpenSecrets, Chinese government and other China-related foreign principals accounted for approximately $563 million in registered foreign-agent spending from 2016 through 2025, including approximately $453 million attributed to the Chinese government. Much of this money supported Chinese state-media operations, while other expenditures financed lobbying and public relations. U.S. Justice Department records, for example, document the Chinese Embassy’s engagement of Squire Patton Boggs to advise on congressional legislation, defense appropriations and other matters before Congress. Chinese-owned companies have separately spent millions lobbying over trade, technology restrictions and federal regulation.

From Gaza to Taiwan: The Same Organizations

CODEPINK‘s activism extends far beyond opposition to Israel. Its China Is Not Our Enemy campaign opposes American military preparations in Asia and criticizes U.S. support for Taiwan. Following Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit, CODEPINK characterized the trip as a dangerous escalation. Its Reject the US Militarism in the Pacific campaign challenges American military infrastructure and partnerships involving Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Guam and Australia.

The ANSWER Coalition similarly opposes American military expansion in the Pacific, including military bases and exercises involving Okinawa and South Korea. Both organizations describe their positions as opposition to militarization and overseas intervention.

The overlap is striking. Organizations mobilizing against American support for Israel also oppose military commitments and partnerships central to American deterrence in Asia. Beijing has its own reasons for welcoming those positions: weakening America’s regional alliances would make coercion of Taiwan easier. The alignment of these policy positions is documented; whether Chinese funding or direction caused them is a separate question.

The Real Strategic Contest

American deterrence around Taiwan depends on naval forces, regional bases, military cooperation with Japan and the Philippines, defense spending and the political willingness to confront Chinese coercion.

China’s military buildup raises the cost of American intervention around Taiwan. Its influence operations exploit the political divisions that could make such intervention harder to sustain. Meanwhile, conflicts involving Iran and its proxies continue to consume American resources and attention.

A Taiwan war could destroy $10.6 trillion in global economic output in its first year. China’s disclosed financial relationships with American institutions and media operations amount to billions of dollars across multiple years, much of it spent on activities unrelated to political influence. Even a relatively small, effective influence campaign could matter enormously if it altered America’s willingness to defend Taiwan.

For a few billion dollars spent influencing Americans to be anti-Israel and pro-Iran, China is targeting several TRILLIONS of dollars in Asia.

Sources

  1. Stimson Center — For China and Russia, the Gaza War May Be a Blessing in Disguise, November 2023.
  2. Chatham House — China’s Approach to the War in Gaza Is Not Anti-Israel. It’s Designed to Contain the US, October 2023.
  3. U.S. Treasury Department, April 2026, reporting on China’s purchases of Iranian oil.
  4. U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, March 2026, research on Iranian oil revenues.
  5. Google Threat Analysis Group, June 2024, research on DRAGONBRIDGE.
  6. Google congressional testimony, 2024, coordinated Chinese influence operations.
  7. George Washington University Program on Extremism — CCP Influence in U.S. Pro-Palestinian Activism, July 2025.
  8. The New York Times — A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul, August 2023.
  9. CODEPINK — China Is Not Our Enemy.
  10. CODEPINK — Reject the US Militarism in the Pacific.
  11. ANSWER Coalition — Islanders Unite to Resist a New Pacific War.
  12. Center for Strategic and International Studies — Taiwan Strait maritime trade research.
  13. Bloomberg Economics — The $10 Trillion Fight: Modeling a US-China War Over Taiwan, February 2026.
  14. Congressional Research Service — Section 117 of the Higher Education Act: Reporting of Foreign Gifts and Contracts, March 2026.
  15. OpenSecrets — Foreign Lobby Watch, 2016–2025.
  16. U.S. Department of Justice — FARA semiannual reports, including Squire Patton Boggs’ representation of the Chinese Embassy.
  17. Harvard/University of Connecticut Crowd Counting Consortium — U.S. protest and campus encampment data, 2023–2024.
  18. The People’s Forum — October 2023 statements and protest mobilization announcements.
  19. Reporting on the People’s Forum’s April 29, 2024 organizing meeting in Manhattan.

The Revolution Is Local. It Waves a Foreign Flag.

Posted on by
Reply

On February 20, 1939, more than 20,000 Americans packed Madison Square Garden beneath enormous swastikas, American flags and a portrait of George Washington. The German American Bund called its rally “Free America,” while its leader, Fritz Kuhn (1896–1951), promoted Nazi ideology, denounced Jewish influence and envisioned a radically different American society.

The crowd looked admiringly toward Hitler’s Germany, but its ambitions were directed toward America.

A large crowd gathered in an arena for a formal event, with a stage at the front featuring a prominent figure and decorative banners.
Crowd at Madison Square Garden allied with Nazi Germany, February 1939

On October 17, 2026, France erupted in demonstrations over living costs, public services and economic inequality. Rioters burned vehicles, looted businesses and attacked public buildings. In Paris, protesters climbed the monument to Marianne, symbol of the French Republic, and raised the French tricolor alongside a Palestinian flag.

The grievances were French. The revolutionary symbolism was international.

A person holding a Palestinian flag while walking through a foggy protest scene.
Crowd of protesters holding Palestinian flags and other banners, gathered near a monument with 'FREE PALESTINE' graffitied on it.

A Palestinian flag at a demonstration about Gaza represents a foreign cause. At a demonstration about French economic policy, it suggests something more: a foreign struggle adopted as a symbol of domestic upheaval.

Across different eras and ideologies, foreign struggles have supplied the symbols for movements seeking to remake their own countries.

A Generation Looking for a Different Future

Revolutionary politics becomes attractive when people lose faith in their institutions and their prospects for a better life.

The Great Depression shattered economic security for millions of Americans. The German American Bund exploited the resulting insecurity, offering national renewal, authoritarian certainty and enemies to blame for the country’s troubles.

Nearly a century later, Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign mobilized younger Americans disillusioned with an establishment they believed protected wealthy donors and political insiders. Revelations about Democratic National Committee favoritism toward Hillary Clinton reinforced those suspicions, while subsequent political upheaval deepened distrust of established leadership.

COVID disrupted education and livelihoods, inflation and housing costs eroded economic opportunity, and artificial intelligence raised fears about the future of employment. The concealment of Biden’s decline and Harris’s selection without a new nationwide primary reinforced perceptions of political decisions controlled by insiders. Harvard’s 2026 Youth Poll found that only 15% of young Americans trusted the federal government.

For people who believe established institutions protect the wealthy and powerful while their own opportunities diminish, promises to redistribute wealth, ownership and political authority become increasingly attractive. That dissatisfaction is producing electoral victories.

The Revolution Enters City Hall

The Democratic Socialists of America have translated economic frustration into electoral power, most visibly through Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 election as mayor of New York City.

A group of diverse protesters holding red signs and a banner that reads 'NEW YORK CITY DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS' during a rally advocating for socialism and against fascism.

Celebrating his victory, the DSA described a defeat for billionaires, corporations and the Democratic Party establishment. Its agenda connected housing, public transportation, childcare, policing and for some bizarre non-local reason, “Palestinian liberation,” within a campaign for what the organization explicitly called a “political revolution.”

The DSA advocates public ownership of major industries, higher taxes on wealth, stronger tenant protections and a larger government role in housing and essential services. These proposals would change who owns economic resources, who makes investment decisions and how much authority government exercises over everyday life.

The movement also reaches younger Americans through influential online broadcasters. Hasan Piker, one of the most prominent socialist commentators on the internet, combines criticism of American capitalism with outspoken support for Palestinian Arab violence. He promoted Mamdani’s successful mayoral campaign, hosted him on his livestream and appeared at campaign events. In April 2026, Piker extended his electoral involvement to Michigan, campaigning alongside Abdul El-Sayed in his U.S. Senate race.

Four men posing together with smiles at an event, with a microphone held by one of them, brightly lit stage in the background.
Anti-Israel influencers of the alt-left Mehdi Hasan, Hasan Piker and Jamaal Bowman celebrate Zohran Mandani’s victory for NYC mayor in November 2025

The revolution has an economic program, a political organization, influential broadcasters and elected officials. It also has a flag.

Why Palestine Became the Revolutionary Symbol

Palestine offers a ready-made narrative for movements organized around the struggle between privilege and liberation. The popular revolutionary image casts wealthy, technologically advanced, Western-backed White Israelis against poorer, brown Palestinians fighting dispossession. That imagery translates readily into American arguments about racial inequality, colonialism, policing and economic power.

The narrative fictionalizes history and present. Jews are indigenous to Israel, and its “white” Ashkenazi population is less than one-third of the Israeli population. But Israel’s prosperity makes the image of privileged rulers and dispossessed subjects politically compelling.

Pie chart illustrating the demographic composition of Israel, showing percentages of different ethnic groups: Arabs (21.1%), Mizrahi Jews (33.2%), Ashkenazi Jews (32.7%), Mixed Jews (5.8%), Black Jews (2.2%), and Others (5.0%).

Representative Rashida Tlaib and former Ohio state senator Nina Turner made the domestic connection explicit in their 2024 essay Black Liberation and Palestinian Liberation Are Interconnected, linking Detroit, Cleveland and Gaza through a common struggle against injustice. Others have done the same like CNN’s Marc Lamont Hill back in 2015.

The anti-Israel organization Within Our Lifetime has combined “Globalize the Intifada” with slogans including “Land Back,” “Kill Capitalism” and “Defund the Police.” The vocabulary connects Palestinian nationalism with American disputes over property, policing and political authority.

On October 8, 2023, one day after Hamas massacred Israeli civilians, demonstrators gathered beneath Palestinian flags in Times Square. A speaker mocked the victims of the Nova music festival, while protesters chanted slogans including “Resistance is justified” and “Globalize the intifada.”

The latter slogan called for extending a Palestinian Arab slaughter beyond its original geography, invoking a violent history which included suicide bombings and attacks on civilians.

Across Western democracies, Palestine has become more than a foreign policy cause for many revolutionary activists. It offers a common identity for movements seeking substantial changes to established economic and political institutions.

Canary Mission video on the socialist-jihadi alliance coming for the United States

The Old Accusation Returns

Every revolutionary narrative needs an explanation for why some people possess wealth and power while others struggle. When that explanation turns into a search for a privileged group supposedly responsible for everyone else’s suffering, an ancient accusation becomes available: Jews control the system.

The German American Bund accused Jews of exercising illegitimate influence over American finance, politics and public opinion. Father Charles Coughlin (1891–1979) brought similar conspiracies into millions of American homes through radio, presenting Jewish power as an explanation for the economic suffering of ordinary Americans.

The accusation survives across otherwise opposing political camps. On the far right, Nick Fuentes promotes conspiracies about Jewish control of American institutions. In entertainment, Ye has accused Jewish executives of controlling and exploiting Black performers. In a different context, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten described American Jews in 2021 as part of the “ownership class,” arguing that Jews were keeping minorities down.

The danger intensifies when the language of liberation is used to excuse violence against people assigned to the category of oppressor.

Protesters march on a city street holding a large banner that depicts a masked figure with the word 'Revolution' written on it, alongside Palestinian flags and other protest signs.
“No Kings Rally and March” in Chicago on June 14, 2025 featured Palestinian flags and call for “Revolution” (Photo by The TRiiBE)

Following October 7, Cornell professor Russell Rickford described Hamas’s breach of the Gaza barrier as “exhilarating.” CAIR executive director Nihad Awad invoked Martin Luther King Jr.’s observation about riots on the morning of the massacre and later expressed happiness that Palestinians had broken through the barrier.

Quote from Martin Luther King Jr. stating 'A riot is the language of the unheard,' alongside a profile image of King.

The consequences of importing a foreign conflict into American life became terrifyingly tangible in March 2026, when an attacker drove a vehicle carrying incendiary materials into Temple Israel in suburban Detroit while children and adults were inside. Abdul El-Sayed, then campaigning for the United States Senate, condemned the attack but also discussed the attacker’s family losses in Lebanon, explaining that “hurt people hurt people.”

Abdul El-Sayed speaking with a microphone at an event, discussing the impact of trauma and violence.

The attacker brought a foreign war to an American synagogue. The political explanation brought the grievances of that war into the response. The victims were Americans, including children gathered in a place of worship who had nothing to do with a war thousands of miles away, yet the socialist-revolutionary lens pivoted longingly to the attacker.

The Stakes Extend Beyond Jews

The German American Bund’s vision in 1939 threatened far more than America’s Jews. Its members admired an authoritarian foreign power and sought to transform the political and social character of their own country.

Today’s movements pursue different visions through different means, including democratic elections. Their ambitions to change ownership, wealth distribution, policing, education and government authority will shape the lives of Americans far beyond those attending demonstrations.

“there’s plenty of money in the world… it’s just in the wrong hands” – NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio address in 2019

Jews have particular reason to recognize the danger when political movements portray them as privileged beneficiaries of an unjust system. History has shown how readily that accusation becomes collective blame. But the consequences of sweeping transformations of political and economic power extend far beyond the Jewish community. Jews will suffer twice – first as Jews and then as Americans – regardless of whether they refer to themselves as American Jews or Jewish Americans.

The revolution is local. It waves a foreign flag. And the country it seeks to remake is our own.