As readers will know, I’ve been a lifelong Democrat, and though we don’t have to register by party in Illinois, I’ve always voted solidly Democratic, as I just did (it isn’t hard in Illinois). However, “liberal” Democrats like me, who are more towards the center than are “progressives” like AOC or “the squad”, are starting to face a dilemma, especially if they’re Jewish or sympathetic to Israel. (A hallmark of “progressive” Democrats is their demonization of Israel, sometimes flirting with anti-Semitism.)
I started to face this dilemma in the last Presidential election, which pitted Trump, who I see as an odious and unstable egomaniac, against Kamala Harris, a Democrat who I see as inexperienced, not overly bright, and a disser of Israel. I couldn’t vote for either of them, so I wrote in the Democrat Gretchen Whitmer (now I’d probably write in Democrat Pete Buttigieg). I wasn’t worried that that would promote a Trump victory, because Illinois is a reliably Democratic state and my vote wouldn’t affect the outcome. But were I in some other state, I’d have been a bit more hesitant to write in a Democrat rather than vote for Harris.
But were I voting in Michigan now, I would certainly not vote for Abdul el-Sayed, nor would I vote for Mike Rogers, even though Haley Stevens, el-Sayed’s opponent in the Democratic primary, who was defeated, has endorsed Rogers and said she’ll vote for him. Stevens withdrew her support for her fellow Democrat because he refused to condemn the odious ad (made by Cenk Uygur’s PAC) blaming Israel for the rise of grocery prices in America. And El-Sayed has a history of anti-Israel actions and statements.
Now I’m not a one-issue voter, casting my ballot only for pro-Israel candidates, but up until recently Democrats have been pro-Israel candidates and were aligned with my values on most other issues. But the party is moving leftwards towards “progressivism”, espousing policies that irk me—not just anti-Israel views, but open-border policies, defunding the police, emphasizing equity as opposed to equal opportunity, eliminating all private health insurance in favor of “Medicare for all” (I do favor healthcare for all, just not solely a government system), allowing trans-identified men to compete in women’s sports (and again I emphasize that this is one of the very few areas where I see women’s rights trumping trans rights), promoting drastic income distribution, like what Democratic Socialists favor, and so on.
On the other hand, I still differ—usually more seriously—with Republicans, who tend to be against abortion (I’m a full-on pro-choicer), against gun control (I favor strict regulation), in favor of more drilling and usage of fossil fuels, more willing to curb trans rights (like banning trans people from the military, a ban I oppose), historically less supportive of civil rights for minorities, and so on. The widespread Republican support for Trump—who I see as a narcissistic and unstable demagogue who, while he has done a few things that had good results, has damaged America—is something I cannot stomach, and I could never vote for a Republican who supported Trump.
Thus I can’t vote for nearly any Republican, and I won’t vote for Democrats who hold positions that oppose. El-Sayed, for example, is not only a probable anti-Semite, but favors universal health care with the eventual abolition of private health care, which he sees as “redundant and unnecessary”, broader wealth taxes, and defunding the police. His antisemitism and demonization of Israel—epitomized by his refusal to condemn Cenk’s “blood libel banana ad”—would alone erode my support for him, and, since I haven’t studied Rogers’s positions, were I to vote today I would probably write in a Democrat. This is worrisome because, of course, the Senate is at stake here because Michigan is more evenly divided politically than is Illinois. But my principles would prevent me from voting for an antisemite.
This post was prompted by two things. The first is the leftward move of the Democratic party, so that Stevens’s withdrawal of support from El-Sayed led Chuck Schumer, Democratic minority leader of the Senate, to denounce Stevens as committing a “despicable betrayal”, as if all Democrats are obliged to vote for El-Sayed. (And Schumer used to be a strong supporter of Israel.) Here’s Schumer’s tweet from yesterday.
This is a despicable betrayal from Rep. Stevens.
Senate Democrats are united in our support for Abdul El-Sayed, because we know he will fight for the economic interests of working families in Michigan, unlike Mike Rogers, who is a tool of Donald Trump and billionaire donors.
— Chuck Schumer (@chuckschumer) November 1, 2026
It’s as if party must always override principle, and when it doesn’t, as in Stevens’s case, it’s a “betrayal.”
The second reason I’m writing this is an email I received from a friend urging me to stop saying I’m a diehard Democrat and start supporting Republicans. I said that the GOP in general, and Trump in particular, was so offensive to me that I couldn’t contemplate that, even though the Democratic Party is becoming a party I can’t support in toto. I wrote that to my friend, who responded with this email (reproduced with permission):
I’ve been holding my breath on this issue forever. The straw that broke my back was the guy who commented that Michiganders should hold their noses and vote for Al Sayed. Why? Because he’s not a Republican. Now Chuck Schumer agrees. The Democrats have become the party of antisemitism. Like Amit Segal (and others) are saying: When the Democrats come into power they will recognize a Palestinian state; they will curtail (if not eliminate) arms sales to Israel; they will promote international financial sanctions against Israel, isolating the country internationally. In short, they will be an existential threat to the State of Israel. I get it that Trump provokes a certain visceral repulsion. But he is the only president we’ve had to stand up to Iran, he has stood up to DEI, he has stood up to campus antisemitism, he got Europe on the road to paying its own way in NATO.
I was a lifelong Democrat. We haven’t changed sides. The Democratic Party has. They’re the baddies now.
There’s a lot of sense in this, and a lot of things I agree with. I’m not quite as much a one-issue voter, but my friend is correct: the Democratic Party is isolating classical liberals by moving away from them, chugging inexorably towards the “progressive” Left.
I decided that from now on that I will simply study harder the positions of candidates (realizing that what they say may not wholly reflect how they feel, which I think is true in El-Sayed’s case), and then vote for the candidate whose values align better with mine. Some readers will disagree, as this stand, if adopted by everyone, may lead to Republican victories in some swing areas. It could also do that by prompting people to write in candidates who don’t stand a chance. Yes, you may disagree, but never in a million years would I vote for Abdul el-Sayed simply because he’s a Democrat.
Schumer, AOC, and Pelosi are, by this point, just a bunch of hacks. In New York, Mamdani is the worst thing to happen since 9/11 and in Kathy Hochul, we have a cipher as governor. There are no good candidates that I can vote for, so I will just vote against the worthless ones we have here. I wish I could vote against El-Sayed in Michigan.
“. . . never in a million years would I vote for Abdul el-Sayed simply because he’s a Democrat.” Your stance reminds me of my stance in New York: never in a million years would I vote for Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand after her role in unjustly taking down Al Franken.
Same here. That was when I first seriously questioned the Democratic party’s methods and principles, and have moved farther away ever since. Critical theory and trans ideology (excepting of course civil rights which everyone should have), which seem to be a denial of biological realities, pushed me farther. The Democratic Socialists’ platform calling for blatantly anti-constitutional policies would, i fear, destroy the country. And the rabid antisemitism/antiZionism have just about sealed me off from the party.
I get it. I’m also in a position where I’d feel “dirty” if I vote for either party. I used to be straight ticket Democrat. For me, it’s not only Free Palestine and DEI, but the astonishing decision that replacing sex with “gender” is a universal truth and a human right which needs to be rammed through the educational and legal systems. It’s not just sports. I consider Trans Rights the homeopathy of social justice, in that it not only lacks substance and contradicts science, but indicates an absurd disconnect with, and lack of concern for, reality. The less they want to talk about it during the campaign, the more likely it will be the first thing on the agenda after election.
“The homeopathy of social justice.” I’m stealing that.
“I consider Trans Rights the homeopathy of social justice, in that it not only lacks substance and contradicts science, but indicates an absurd disconnect with, and lack of concern for, reality.”
Yes exactly. This is why “Trans Rights” has become my single voting issue: it clarifies whether the candidate has a working connection to reality and a commitment to say what’s true (e.g., transwomen are men).
The Democrats’ spiral into hate-based tribalism is a disastrous, terribly depressing development. It’s with a combination of disgust and moral fortitude that I will probably quit the party–after 45 years of membership–when they announce their next presidential candidate. And that they call themselves “liberal” and “progressive” as they ex-communicate their own for standing up to race-hatred, well, it’s downright Orwellian.
”I wasn’t worried that that would promote a Trump victory, because Illinois is a reliably Democratic state and my vote wouldn’t affect the outcome.”
I admire your change of heart. The reason the Democrats could become so woke in the first place is that they could rely on people like you voting for them no matter what they do. Glad to see that is changing.
But with regard to the write-in vote, which has zero effect on anyone, what’s the point? Why vote at all? It doesn’t matter if there is a no-chance write-in candidate, no vote at all, or a spoiled ballot.
I fail to understand your opposition to state-run healthcare with no private healthcare. That’s the case in many of the European countries you otherwise admire (except when they’ve become too woke). What are the arguments in favour of private healthcare?
While one cannot expect to agree with any party on all issues, in the past there was one party (or sometimes two parties) where there was a lot of overlap with my positions. I considered the discrepancies to be flukes and thought that I might be able to change some opinions through debate. I even considered joining a party. (The parties in Europe play a much larger role than in the US.). Now, that is no longer the case. While there are still parties that I would never vote for, that doesn’t mean that they are wrong on everything, not even that they are wrong on things about which they disagree with all other parties. But I no longer feel at home everywhere, and each election means weighing up the issues and deciding based on those issues (with occasional tactical voting if I favour one coalition over another). In practice, recently that has meant one party at the federal level and another at the state level.
A write-in or leaving the race blank shows that you cared enough to show up and none of the available candidates earned your vote. That sends a much stronger message than not voting.
Since the 1970’s the only time I didn’t vote for a Democrat was when I couldn’t vote for Jimmy Carter’s second term and instead voted for Anderson, the independent. I’ve also donated at sufficient levels to get direct calls from Dem leaders regularly. This year: one donation to one Dem candidate, a donation to Mike Rogers, and tomorrow I’ll be voting D twice and the rest R. Had a long and impassioned call from a Dem Senator who said many of his major donors have made this switch. I didn’t leave the party, the party left me.
The most difficult decision to make is Country over Party
Why didn’t you want Carter to have a second term?
I had a visceral reaction to the botched hostage rescue attempt in Iran. Not justifying that decision now, but that’s how I felt as an 18 year old.
You have now posted three of the ten comments on this thread. Remember the posting rule is about 10% of comments before you’re dominating the thread, which you are doing now. Please put a lid on it until you can abide by that guidelines.
“I didn’t leave the party, the party left me”, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan. Strange how history isn’t supposed to repeat. But it does.
“I didn’t leave the party, the party left me”
I keep hearing this quite a lot recently. Even on this side of the Atlantic.
Which party will be the first to return to sanity, selecting a sensible, capable and moderate leader who appeals to the centre ground?
A nascent Third Party ???
El Sayed refused a demand that he condemn an antisemitic ad, but there is the background issue of Stevens issuing a demand, when she was not in any obvious way in a position to issue such a demand. The ad was vile, but it was not an ad put out by El Sayed’s campaign, and he could reasonably say he was not answerable to her for his views about Israel, and that he stands by what he has said.
What he has SAID is a nonstop litany of criticisms of Israel, saying that it was “evil” and of course banging on about Israel’s apartheid and genocide repeatedly. He also made the “hurt people hurt people” remark, for which he apologized–but I don’t accept his apology. I see el-Sayed as an antisemite who keeps his Jew hatred somewhat under wraps. He is answerable to all voters for his history of remarks and positions.
I find it interesting that a defining element or term in political discussions up until fairly recently has not been mentioned even a single time in this thread thus far: class, or working class.
The Democrats, of course, used to see or present themselves as the party of the working class, but, for better or worse, no party really presents itself as standing up for the working class anymore.
To add my 2 cents to this conversation: do take notice that IRGC is urging Americans to vote democratic:
https://voicesagainstantisemitism.substack.com/i/214182027/the-irgc-says-the-darndest-things
That is — those who called “Death To America” now changed the slogan to “Vote Democrats.” They really did. Just that should cause a reasonable person to pause and re-asses their reflexive party alliances.
The Democrats lost their way on many issues — not just on Jews and Israel. This is documented by many previously staunch Democrats, for example Evan Barker–her book “Nothing Left” is must read.
Thank you Anna..I was going to ask in my post today if anybody knew of a book that tries to explain how we got into this mess…and it is a mess. (Book arrives tomorrow). Just a few years ago, my wife and the other mainstream Dem committee delegates to the regional and state Dem caucus conventions carried on about the nasty, my way or the highway bernie bros….now all of these people are of the cult! My support for Israel and condemnation of pali terrorism makes me an unabashed racist in their eyes…and it goes back as far as Michael Brown and Coates and Kendi copyrighting the well-intended idea of social justice as “Social Justice”. As far as Israel and antisemitism are concerned my approach has been to study hard and try to provide a true middle east history to anyone who cares to listen. I am afraid the cult is beyond redemption right now, but there are plenty of people, often anti-trump republicans who are hungry for facts…and a number of them have engaged with me.
And yes John D. The ousting of Al Franken was a singular WTF performative action for me too! Just fucking stupid!
Maybe … vote for the party that wants to get rid of that terrible winner-takes-it-all (and effectively 2-party) system?
El-Sayid’s nomination is very troubling. I could not vote for him if I lived in Michigan. I don’t know what I would do, but not el-Sayid. The Democrats spent a lot of money in this campaign because he is a bad candidate. They could have used that money elsewhere in other campaigns. I’m expecting to hear a lot about Islamophobia as the reason some didn’t vote for him.
On the east coast where I grew up, one had to be a member of a political party in order to vote in primaries. So, most people chose a party. Party affiliation was a big deal, and it was emotionally taxing to cross party lines. Where I live now, we have open primaries, so declaring a party affiliation is not required.
Yes, many Washingtonians are rabidly Democratic (west of the Cascade Mountains) or Republican (east of the Cascades), but I have no party affiliation. My votes are based on stated policy positions, past performance (for incumbents), personal and professional integrity (to the extent that I can tell), and sometimes other factors—but not on party affiliation. It’s liberating to have no party affiliation. I will never vote for someone I don’t really like simply because he or she is on “my side,” and its not emotionally taxing in the slightest to vote for someone from “the other side.” Party free, there is no “other side.”
I’m right there with you for all the same reasons. Because I am an archaeology professor in California, I am of course immediately branded as “MAGA” for even daring to bring up any of these issues (my personal favorite is a comparison of me to Alex Jones). So yes world, it is time for me to be honest. While I am pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-union, and never voted for Trump, I am MAGA. I guess I just didn’t realize the MAGA tent was so big!
Bravery on the part of Stevens. She likely was closer to knowing El Sayed than what his public persona provides as an outcome of being entrenched in the party in MI, and she also had to know the cost of her decision. Considering this information, I see her as a person of integrity. Country over party.
Agreed. Yesterday morning, as the news broke, the CNN anchor and her interviewees were falling all over themselves in feigned puzzlement, claiming that they don’t understand why Stevens made the decision she made. They talked about her confused “messaging” and her “shocking” change of heart. I didn’t believe a word of it.
Despite CNN’s pretending, there is no mystery as to why Stevens is supporting Mike Rogers. After all that has happened, after El Sayed wouldn’t condemn that blatantly antisemitic ad, and after El Sayed told Stevens that she is no longer welcome at his campaign events, Stevens decided that she had to speak out. She simply could not in good conscience support an antisemite for U.S. Senate.
This is not just a response to Stevens withdrawing support from El-Sayed. It’s a response to her endorsing Mike Rogers. If she had simply said she cannot support El-Sayed, I would have agreed with you that this response is too harsh. But for her to be actively campaigning for the Republican to win, especially a Republican who now supports Trump’s Big Lie and refuses to acknowledge that Biden was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election, is a pretty big betrayal of her party. Especially when Democratic control of the Senate is on the line.
Yes. Mike Rogers is a vile person. What a mess! Fortunately I don’t live there and don’t have to decide who to vote for.
This is my Great Problem, as a resident of Michigan.
I do agree with everything you said. For the first time in my life, I might vote Republican for that seat in order to play a small part in the needed emigration of moderate Dems in order to signal that the far left has made the Democratic Party the Stupid Party. I would hope that this infusion of “us’ would signal to the Republicans to move to the center, but of course they probably won’t take the hint.
Personally, I’d probably vote for Al-Sayed because the most important issue in this whole thing is neutering Trump. Thankfully I don’t need to make such a vote. However, I do find it repellant from Schumer (my current Senator) that he, as you state, seems to think that having a D in parenthesis by your name means you have an obligation to vote for the Democrat. The leftists like Al-Sayed and his DSA back-patters don’t have that same feeling. They routinely demand that the Democrat EARN their vote. So when a centrist says F-this, it’s an act of betrayal, but when a leftist does it, it’s something that has to be understood and their concerns need to be addressed. No no no. If I was Stevens, I wouldn’t have full-on endorsed Rogers, but I would have openly revoked my endorsement of Al-Sayed and I’d have said, “you gotta earn this endorsement, chum.”
I’m a life-long Democrat but I donated to Mike Rogers campaign because it would be a disaster if El-Sayed wins. There are only two possibilities. You support El-Sayed or Rogers. Voting for a third person is voting for El-Sayed.
And also: if El-Sayed wins, let’s not forget to also blame the Republicans for their own extremist candidate. They could have stopped the Islamist dead in his tracks if they had run a moderate.
I agree. Everyone is bashing the Democratic party for abandoning them. What about the Republican Party moving away from their principles, such as a free market, in order to support the worst president in my lifetime? Where are the moderate Republicans that provide a reasonable alternative? In NY, if I don’t vote for Hochul, I have to vote for Bruce Blakeman; a MAGA clown that created a militia in Nassau County, and who gives ICE free rein. I guess I will continue supporting mostly Democrats until I see a reasonable alternative from the right.
Definitely! This is not your father’s Republican Party. Extremists seem to be in the ascendant on both sides.
I do hope this does not reflect some trend in younger people (I’m over 70).
Even if El-Sayed is fundamentally antisemitic, how much would his one vote influence policy regarding Israel? IDK. I do know that defanging Trump is of existential importance. Having a democratic senate majority will prevent him from further stacking the Supreme Court with radical right-wing ideologues. That is enough for me to hold my nose.
It’s not just one vote, it’s the first vote, and opens the door towards normalizing hatred of Israel. Would you say the same thing if the candidate were anti-black rather than anti-Israel? “It’s just one vote for the Klan.”
It always starts with one candidate. We already have a mayor in NYC and at least six Israel haters in the House.
How many antisemitic Senators would it take before you wouldn’t want to vote for one more?
Your concern is legitimate of course and I do not in anyway defend El-Sayed’s more noxious views on Israel or any of his other positions. I see your argument as slippery-slope whereas my primary concern is about more immediate consequences of continued Republican control of the Senate, especially enabling Trump’s reshaping of the Supreme Court, with consequences for our country that could last generations. Either way, it’s a terrible choice to have to make.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has already been reshaped by Republicans in a way that will last for generations. The USSC was already on the edge in 2000, when the thin majority put in place during the Reagan/Bush I era gave the election to Bush II. McConnell helped further ensure ultra-rightwing dominance of the Court through his power plays. I’m age 64 now and don’t expect to see the USSC return to actually siding with the rights of the actual people vs corporations and fundamentalist Christians before I shuffle off this mortal coil. If that does happen, I’d be pleasantly surprised, but I’m not counting on it.
Respectfully, what existential threat does Trump present? He’s had almost 6 years in office and I still don’t see death camps for trans kids or coal power plants belching black smoke. Many of the policy changes have been positive (removing DEI training, greatly reducing illegal immigration, reduction of the transmen = women agenda), while the things I don’t like are not existential (tariffs, weak support for Ukraine, his personal boorishness). I think the Iran war would have happened even if Dems were in control.
In my opinion, the only existential threat re US politics is the potential for the Jew haters within the Democratic party gaining enough control to force US policy changes that would severely limit Israel’s ability to defend herself and thus present a very real threat to her continued existence, and potentially to the US via enhanced ability of Islamists to harm us.
The dangers of Trump and the MAGA movement are not only disagreements over this policy or that. Policies can be changed by subsequent administrations. The erosion of institutional integrity, constitutional safeguards, and democratic norms however are what’s most worrying. The threats Trump poses to our democracy are too many to list here. I’m most concerned about election interference, the unitary executive, and the erosion of the rule of law. We need functioning institutions to confront extremism on both sides, including antisemitism and other forms of bigotry. Once institutions are compromised and broken protecting those rights becomes much harder.
I’m 100% with you both on the positions (surprisingly!) and on feeling lost as Dems move left. As your discussion of the issues clarify and advance my own thinking, I urge you to keep at it. Keep plugging away, in hopes that rationality prevails (returns?) to more and more candidates of the Democrats. Your readers improve their ability to do the same.
For many years, I have been in a position like that of our host and many commenters. Back in the old days, there were sometimes admirable or at least reasonable Republican candidates, so an Independent position was feasible. One of my few donations to a politician was to Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont (with which I had a slight connection), who held commendable positions on environmental issues, and on benefits/education for the disabled. He was also the last of the “liberal” Republicans, a species which went extinct when Jeffords officially left the GOP in May of 2001. Could we interest George Church and Colossal Biosci in de-extincting this species?
My hope is that MAGA destroys the GOP and the DSA destroys the Democrats, giving principled conservatives and centrist liberals an opportunity to reset the political landscape.
I’d also like a pony.
I have been a lifelong Democrat, and like some others here, I am glad I am not a Michigan resident. I could not vote for El-Sayed. But while I abhor what the Democratic party is becoming, but the current Trump/MAGA version of Republicanism is absolutely unsupportable. Not everything Trump has done is completely bad, but even when he actually pursues a good policy, the manner in which he does so is often revolting. The ends do not justify the means.
Living in very blue Seattle, it is considered almost criminal to say anything positive about Trump, and the pressure to accept whatever far-left madness the progressives come up with is suffocating. When I say something that goes against current progressive orthodoxy, even friends occasionally look at me with a flicker of alarm, as if I might be turning into a mutant Republican. It’s depressing.
I frequently see silly yard signs here that say “No Hate in WA State”. This is generally in reference to the initiative on the ballot that would ban “trans girls” from playing girls sports. But of course when I say, without rancor or animosity, that I simply don’t think it is fair for a biological male to play women’s sports, suddenly hating me is acceptable. The hypocrisy is almost laughable.
I am being left without a party, and for the first time in my life feel as though I’ve been essentially stripped of my vote, at least in certain races. I cling on to the “faith” (sorry for using that word) that things will even out again, and that a reasonable and sensible center will reemerge. Until then, strap in…
I had the experience of listening to a female family member in Oregon during our visit earlier this year with a “Hate Has No Home Here” yard sign and a “Love Is Love” bumper sticker saying how much she hated Trump and all Republicans, and gleefully wishing to see some of them “Kirked”. I pointed out the hypocrisy – she didn’t see it. She explained her sign meant was support for those disadvantaged by society, not for those in power, i.e., deserving of hate. In her words, “it’s ok to hate those who hate”.
As a lifelong runner and someone who has spent a lot of time coaching and training kids and adults in other sports, I find people who say that males have no advantage over females in sport to be complete idiots on the level of flat-earthers.
Bumper stickers all over the car often = room temperature IQ. Insipid slogans are not arguments; in fact they are often the antithesis of cogent arguments.
If I wanted to subject my fellow motorists to crucial or interesting information, I’d put up bumper stickers of things like Hamilton’s Law, the Rule of 72, or the Slope-Intercept form (y = mx + b).
I have to confess that, long ago, I was part of a Republican campaign for a Washington state office. Our official platform, distributed to every voter, called for ceding all of eastern Washington to Idaho— and, if Idaho refused, to invade to force Idaho to take it. We also demanded that if a bridge across Puget Sound were to be built, it should be a covered bridge, because of the rain. We identified our political tendance as “Warren G. Harding Republicanism”; and we asked that a domed sports stadium, then only in the planning stage, be named the Teapot Dome in honor of our 29th President.
I think your mate is spot on but that could be because he/she sounds like he’s/she’s taken the same journey I have. I’m 65 and for 55 – 60 years I, too, was left leaning. Shit, I even voted for the Greens at one time🤦. In the last 5 or so years I’ve moved right for similar reasons as your friend. Reminder – I’m writing this from Australia but exactly the same thing is happening here with the ALP that has happened to the Dems. And I’ve also discovered what a bunch of anti-Semitic swine the Greens are. That seems to be a common problem with all Green parties.
I get the problem with voting on one issue but I’d vote GOP because the issue at stake here is not just Israel’s survival but the threat that Iran and Islamists pose to Western civilisation. The Iran regime and their ilk are apocalyptically minded lunatics whose idea of progress is to turn the world into a medieval Islamic caliphate. I don’t doubt that they will not succeed but that doesn’t stop them from trying and the end results of their efforts have resulted in an ocean of blood being spilt. And that’s only so far. Now imagine a nuclear armed Iran.
Of all the existential threats to our existence we’re constantly being warned about – AI, global warming, pandemics, etc. – the one clear and present threat is of a nuclear armed Iran and that is the only one that genuinely worries me. But in Trump and Bibi we finally have two guys who not only understand the danger but have the balls to do something about it. And what do they get for their efforts? Nothing but abuse and vilification and that from the very people who live in the civilisation and enjoy its massive benefits that Israel and the US are fighting to defend. Personally, I am (metaphorically) on my knees thanking Bibi & Trump for fighting the good fight in defending the West from such a deadly threat.
And let’s not forget today’s left wing useful idiots whose ideological ancestors were wiped out by Khomeini after they’d outlived their usefulness to him in helping to overthrow the Shah. Fast forward to today and those idiots are getting into bed with the likes of Iran and Muslim parties here in the West. Never mind that the only thing Islamists hate more than non-Muslims is atheist communist non-Muslims. For those Red people in the Red/Green alliance there are none so blind while the Islamists are laughing their f*&%$#g heads off. Although I must admit I’m surprised I haven’t yet seen any Queers For Islam placards. Probably just a matter of time.
Putting all of the above together and I swear we’re living in the world of Alice In Wonderland where we can all believe 6 impossible things before breakfast.
As I’m sure our host is aware, Douglas Murray and Maarten Boudry are also sounding the alarm as well as Giulio Meotti at the Middle East Forum. I can strongly recommend Giulio’s writings and the MEF isn’t paywalled. Some voices of sanity in an insane world.
So, yeah – to my mind this problem is far, far bigger than any domestic political issues in any country and justifies a one issue vote.
G’day, Frank, Aussie-American here. I agree with you on US politics, Iran and Aussie stuff which after 30 years I notice now. (ALP etc.)
Misunderstanding the true nature of Islam is very common. When you see our MSMedia you can see why most people think we Zionists are evil puppy killers and why Islam is a “religion of peace” – just like Christianity really though w/o the bacon. This is the wildest, “not even wrong” misreading of the actual truth of Islam.
regards to you, mate!
D.A.
NYC
The more I learn about Islam, its history of conquest, and how it marginalizes or outright eliminates non-Muslims once it gains control of an area, the more skeptical I am that Western democracies can survive after absorbing millions of adherents of this religion.
Growing up, my mental image of a Muslim was Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. This benign type of American Muslim is not what we are seeing with sinister figures like Abdul el-Sayed or Zohran Mamdani.
PCC(E) and many here are in a similar position as me/us.
Pretty sure I’m voting GoP for the first time in my life tomorrow. I like their economics policies (because I understand Money): I don’t like paying more tax than— ANY— other —Americans*. (That’s not a deal breaker tho, I’m used to it and don’t mind so much.)
GoP have some moral clauses I’m not happy with.
Still. Abortion isn’t an issue now and we won the creationist/evolution in schools fight (big for me). In fact with MAGA they’re a less religious party.
I’m just NOT voting for the Palestinian terrorism, the behead me mob, the child mutilation cult the or racist BLM moral panic party. For AOC, Squad, Mandami, Sayed, etc.
D.A.
NYC
Jerry, how about a compromise: Do I get to keep my guns if young Johnny retains his testosterone levels and little Janie her breasts?
I’ve noticed that those of us in our 50s and older, which I gather includes nearly all of the readers here, tend to fall back on old policy debates when discussing politics. (As I did above.) That’s our comfort zone. But notice what has changed. The gun control debate can occur within a universe still governed by reason; the “gender” debate largely cannot.
Perhaps even more troubling than this flight from reason has been its coupling with enforced conformity. Many here have commented on the professional and peer pressure to assent to whatever the “progressives” decided to believe the day before yesterday. Some have experienced the self-censorship in the workplace. Others have felt the pain of families shaken and friendships dissolved.
All of these behaviors are now far more common on the left—particularly the educated left. One has much more freedom to speak one’s mind in the mechanics’ garage or the factory warehouse than one ever will in the faculty lounge or the party convention. This is not traditional politics. It is cultish. It has echoes of “The Party is always right.”