Progressives are increasingly angry with the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) after the primary defeat of “the squad” member Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) earlier this week.
Bush was unseated by fellow Democrat Wesley Bell in a primary where AIPAC spent aggressively against her. Just weeks earlier, the group invested $15 million in the primary to defeat Rep. Jamaal Bowman (DN.Y.). Both races together, AIPAC invested nearly 24 million dollars to eliminate two of the most prominent black members of the leftist cohort.
“She was a great fighter for the common people,” said a progressive organizer who applauded the re-election efforts of both Bush and Bowman.
“Now all that district has is a Democratic candidate who has proven that his loyalty lies with the big financial interests who don’t care about the hungry babies in St. Louis,” the progressive said.
AIPAC celebrated Bush’s defeat of Bell, a St. Louis prosecutor, as a key step toward protecting the country’s alliance with Israel.
“Our only criteria for supporting candidates or opposing candidates is their position on the U.S.-Israel relationship,” AIPAC spokesman Marshall Wittmann told The Hill after Bush’s defeat.
Wittmann pointed to Bell and George Latimer, who unseated Bowman in his Bronx-Westchester district, as important fundraisers who he believes still carry the progressive torch in less divisive ways.
“The pro-Israel mainstream has sent a powerful message that America stands with Israel as it combats Iranian terrorist proxies,” he said. “Voters across America are rejecting anti-Israel voices in favor of candidates who understand the vital importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
Progressives rooting for Bush and Bowman’s seats to be saved strongly disagree with that view. Those who have spoken out against AIPAC’s spending say the group has become more prominent and now has a greater track record of defeating its opposition.
While many on the progressive left are united in anger at the group’s influence, there is some light in terms of how they think they should combat it.
Progressives in Congress and organizers working to maintain their coalition say changing the campaign finance structure is the most important step toward reducing the power of outside spending groups like AIPAC.
“If there is any strategy we should focus on in the wake of the Bowman and Bush election results, it is campaign finance reform,” said Hassan Martini, who runs No Dem Left Behind, a progressive group that recruits and trains new political candidates. left.
Martini, who, like many Democratic strategists, has been critical of the seemingly limitless flow of money, said such reform should be in the interests of both parties and factions within them.
Pushing for change would “strengthen democracy by expanding small donors, increasing transparency in funding and reducing barriers for ordinary candidates,” he said.
Since Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton, progressives have pushed to restructure the system that drives elections, but haven’t gotten very far. Sanders managed to run his presidential campaign over two cycles using this model, but other candidates have replicated it with varying levels of success depending on their district, the strength of their rivals, and their individual flaws.
“AIPAC had to spend $8.5 million to get 51% of the vote to defeat Cori Bush,” Sanders wrote in a post on social platform X. “Billionaires buying elections is not what this country is about. We have to end Citizens United and super PACs and move to public financing of elections.”
Others on the left speculate that things will get worse before they get better, meaning there could be more candidate casualties as the country prepares for a presidential election and a possible change of power on Capitol Hill.
“I have not heard of a real strategy to combat the disputes that decide AIPAC’s money. To be perfectly honest, it’s been a while since I’ve seen a cohesive or meaningful left strategy,” said Tim Black, an independent media figure with progressive leanings who hosts a popular YouTube show.
Another progressive projected even less confidence in the left’s approach to AIPAC.
“I think the Democratic ticket would rather lose the elections than challenge Israel,” said the voice from the left, who is in contact with prominent leaders of the movement. “I would love to be wrong about that.”
“In the short term, voters looking for decency and morality on this issue will be very frustrated,” the source said, calling it “an out-of-control freight train.”
“Both the populist left and right are getting angrier about our Israel policy with each passing day,” the source said. “There will be a huge uprising next year if this conflict continues, no matter who the president is. And if Israel starts this giant war in the Middle East and we support them, there will be the biggest protests this country has ever seen.”
Bush herself gave voice to the growing anger toward AIPAC shortly after her primary defeat.
“AIPAC, I come to destroy your kingdom,” Bush said on Tuesday night, provoking a reaction from moderate Democrats.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was among those who denounced the comments.
“This type of rhetoric is inflammatory, divisive and incredibly unhelpful,” she told reporters. “We will continue to condemn any kind of political rhetoric in this way, in this sense.”
President Biden and Vice President Harris, the party’s new nominee, did not make it to the primaries, much to the chagrin of progressives who argued that this could have helped Bush win.
Bush and Bowman lost due to what some consider careless errors and bad optics, including a federal investigation into Bush’s use of security and Bowman’s improper pulling of a fire alarm in a Capitol building.
Adding to the narrative that they were against Biden, Bush voted against the infrastructure bill and both called for a ceasefire during the Israel-Hamas war.
Progressives say these political mistakes could have been overcome alone, but together they made them easy targets. And his steadfastness in what AIPAC, the United Democracy Project and other pro-Israel groups see as working against his cause has been compounded by the administration’s lack of support.
“Quickly, many so-called progressives will be caught as far less committed to the issues than Bush or Bowman,” Black said.
“They seem much more committed to maintaining this pathetic identity politics so as not to be considered racist, misogynistic or Trump supporters,” he said.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
