Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hope for the best, expect the worst Some drinks and pain Some die at first no way of knowing which way it's going. Hope for the best, expect the worst, hope for the best. Welcome to the Commentary magazine daily podcast. Today is Wednesday. What is the date? May 20th.
- [00:30]
B
May 20th.
- [00:32]
A
May 20th, 2026. I'm John Paul Horticz, the editor of Commentary magazine. With me, as always, I will introduce her first today, rarely, because she did make an important intervention here in terms of the date, Washington Free Beacon editor Eliana Johnson. Hi, Eliana.
- [00:47]
B
Hi, John.
- [00:49]
C
Eliana makes lots of important interventions on this podcast.
- [00:52]
A
Very important interventions. And so do you. And that would be, of course, social commentary columnist Christine Rosen. We're just all upside down here. So we then have to go with senior editor Seth Mandela.
- [01:04]
C
Wait, you have to say hi, Christine so I can say hi, Christine. I don't care about the ritual here.
- [01:08]
A
They do. Hi, Christine.
- [01:09]
C
Hi, John. Hi, John.
- [01:12]
A
Senior editor Seth Mandel. Hi, Seth.
- [01:15]
D
Hi, John. And you know, Christine is our norms defender.
- [01:19]
A
She is.
- [01:20]
C
I am the school norm of the Commentary magazine podcast.
- [01:23]
A
I've totally upended the norms. So here in what we used to call in the 1970s, the special guest star position, the guy at the end of the titles, executive editor Abe Greenwald. Hi, Abe.
- [01:40]
E
Happy to join you all.
- [01:45]
A
So the big news in our small ambit, or not small, it's the American ambit, is, is the primary defeat of Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie in the most expensive primary in American political history. And it's notable because I'm sure Eliana has to, on her fingertips or on the tip of her tongue, the name of Massie's rival, the person who won the race. But I don't.
- [02:18]
B
Ed Gahlrein.
- [02:20]
A
Okay? And I'm bringing this up because I don't care who Ed Gahlrain is. Ed Gallran's name could be John Smith. Ed Gahlran could be the man from Mars. Who Ed Gallrain is is completely immaterial. This election was about.
- [02:37]
D
Ed Gallrain is all of us. Ed Gahlrain is America.
- [02:41]
A
Yeah, and I hope. But even if he isn't, the thing was that this was an election about Thomas Massie. And Thomas Massie gave the game away in his concession speech when his version of conceding defeat was to say that he had had trouble reaching his rival to concede because he had to find him. You know, it was hard to find him in Tel Aviv. Get it? Tel Aviv. Cuz he lives in Telecas. He's an Israeli agent. Because this was the Jews Ganging up on Massey. And I want to get to the question of the Jews gang up on Massey for a minute. In a minute. But before we get to the Jews ganging up on Massey question, does this, the fact that Massey has now been ousted, is this about Trump showing his power within the Republican Party, which I don't think anybody really questioned? Is it about something larger relating to the Republican caucus and the upcoming elections in 2026, or is it just sui generis?
- [03:56]
D
And I think it's, you know.
- [03:58]
A
Go ahead, Seth, go ahead.
- [03:59]
D
No, I, I just, I, I think it's because, because Cassidy and Massie were the two victims of this, you know, the so called, you know, retribution tour or whatever. It's, it's hard to say that it's about a certain type of Republican or anything that it, you know, this week, I think, was clearly a statement of Trump's power. And, and, you know, in terms of, like, the moral hygiene of the gop, like, it's great to get rid of Tom Massie. It's not necessarily, you wouldn't necessarily want to get rid of Bill Cassidy if you're going along those lines. And so, you know, I'm not, I'm not really sure it says much besides Trump was, was, you know, it's, the party is still Trump.
- [04:46]
A
Let me just, let me just put it this way. Say Trump violates many norms. And Christine, of course, our norms defender, as we know, very, very concerned about this. But one of the norms that Trump has violated is that he has made it very clear that what his preferences, wants, needs, wishes are in primaries. Who he wants to win the primaries, what people in his party he would be happy to see gone in favor of other people. Now, all of that happened with prior presidencies, just not publicly. It would be, you know, if Barack Obama didn't like somebody, it's not like the DNC and stuff. Like it didn't have ways of putting their fingers on the scale, denying the money, pushing for other people, all of that. And of course, we have the ultimate example, which is 2015, 2016, when all of the forces and the resources of the Democratic Party were brought to bear to get Hillary Clinton elected against Bernie Sanders, who was running this brilliant insurgent candidacy and in other circumstances might actually have pulled it off against Hillary if there hadn't been this finger on the scale thing. So there is, in a weird way, saying that Trump showed that he has power over his party. All presidents have this kind of power over their party. Probably just others haven't exercised it as Nakedly, just as Trump exercises power in an incredibly naked fashion.
- [06:24]
C
But this is personal for Trump, and I think the example is Texas, because he didn't endorse Cornyn, he's endorsing Paxson. That's politically stupid, but he did it anyway. And because Paxson is going to be loyal to him, at least under. So I do think the difference is that, in theory, previous presidents did this behind the scenes because they wanted to consolidate power for their party. With Trump, he actually doesn't seem to care that much about the party if loyalty is ahead of that goal. And it's going to make a mess for him in the Senate if he's not careful. Because yesterday, actually, besides these elections, we had, you know, the acting attorney general testifying about this new IRS fund, the anti weaponization fund. And there are several senators, including John Thune, who went on the record saying they're not super happy with this idea, that there's going to be a fund for people to, including perhaps some of the January 6th folks to get money from the government. The separate issue is a strange little statement about how the IRS cannot investigate Donald Trump, his sons, or the Trump Organization for tax issues. I'm not sure what the legality of that is. I'm not even quite sure what the details of that are, but it raised enough red flags for Republican senators that several actually spoke to reporters and said, yeah, I don't really like that. And that's a huge thing for them to do at this moment. So whatever power he's shown, and particularly the Massey race, he's also been doing some things that have upset his own party in the Senate.
- [07:54]
A
Okay. But just to get to Paxton, just to jump in, like the story yesterday as Eliana were trading facts, is that very confusing decision to endorse Paxton over Cornyn. Cornyn has a 99% with Trump voting record. Just to make that clear, he is just a conventional conservative Republican of the old school. He is not a radical, modern, tear everything down or whatever Republican. But there's no reason to think that he would vote any differently from anybody else had he been the. And so the line yesterday was that that the White House was scared that Massie was gonna lose and that they wanted to create either a different story about how he was endorsing PAX so that Massie was gonna win and that they were gonna look like they were losing and that he needed to make a dramatic move of his own toward maga, since whatever. That was kind of like the scuttlebutt yesterday that There was a reason that this happened yesterday was to distract from the possible Massie victory, which would have been a humiliation for Trump.
- [09:14]
B
My understanding, and I want to make a couple of points on Massie, but on Paxton, my understanding is as follows. It was clear, I think that the momentum was with Gahlrain, Massie's opponent. So I'm not sure that the White House was worried Massie was going to win. And I think in the polling, the polling was neck and neck, but I think there were a lot of silent Golrain supporters. Like the Massie supporters are all lunatics and they're all vocal and they're all, all over X. The Golrain supporters weren't like that. And the guy, I think that proved to be true, the guy won by 10 points. I think that the White House saw polling that showed Paxton for far ahead. And Trump doesn't really like Cornyn. Yes, it's true, he's voted with Trump much of the time, but Trump, Trump cares a lot about personal interactions. He, this has been particularly true in his choice, his interviews with potential Supreme Court justices and others. He just doesn't really like Cornyn on a personal level. The two don't jive. And so I think he saw polling showing that Paxton was gonna win and he decided to get behind the winner and take credit for that with Massie. There will be a debate. There already is a debate about whether this is a show of Trump strength or whether it's this is Israel, it's the pro Israel donors. I think it's pretty clear it's a combination of the two. But Massie did face primaries. He's a seven term incumbent. He faced primaries in 2020, in 2022, in 2022, in 2024. And Trump did not endorse his opponent in those years. And in 2020, I mean, the guy won his primary 81 to 19. And he won by smaller but still enormous margins in the other years. The differentiator this year was obviously Trump's recruit, recruitment, Trump world's recruitment and endorsement of his opponent. And, and that opened the door for all the money to pour in from Trump allies who are pro Israel. It was the Trump involvement and endorsement that preceded the money and made this. Without that, the pro Israel money would not have gone in. And I think it's important to note that Massie's defeat shows that Republican voters, the Republican Party with Trump's leadership shows that Republicans will cleanse themselves of the anti Semitic conspiracy theorists in their midst. Massie got crosswise of Trump by joining forces with Ro Khanna, the California Democrat who went on X to lament his defeat last night, calling for the release of the Epstein files and voted against the one big beautiful bill. And they are doing that while the Democratic Party is seeing its candidates campaign with Hassan Piker and Chuck Schumer has nothing to say, I think Moment.
- [12:37]
A
Yeah, a DSA backed candidate named Chris Raab won his primary last night. And this is a complicated bank shop thing, but on his Instagram, on his official Instagram campaign feed, somebody liked a post he says it was a staffer who's been fired, though we have no evidence of that. Liked a post celebrating the Bondi beach massacre in Australia. Liked a post that said that Bondi beach was a heroic moment of resistance against Israeli tyranny or something like that. So he didn't say it, but he is associated with it. That guy is now the nominee of the Democratic Party in that district. Rab, the DSA is celebrating. And of course we have Graham Platner up in Maine with his Totenkopf tattoo. And every day something else new comes out that suggests that he is a deeply unstable and dangerous person to be running for office. So that's the self cleansing that Eliana is talking about on the same day that Thomas Massie is ousted and you
- [13:56]
B
haven't even gotten to this candidate in Texas. Oh, sex therapist Maureen Galindo who says Zionists should be put in internment camps and castrated.
- [14:07]
C
Yeah, now there were Democrats. Look, Democrats did come out and condemn that pretty quickly since it's so. But it does. Eliana is right to point out it takes something that egregious to prompt leaders in the Democratic Party to say this is unequivocally wrong.
- [14:22]
A
Abe's newsletter Yesterday, your newsletter, Abe said that there is a real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties, which is that the Democratic Party operates on the basis of a kind of general ideological consensus that cleanses candidates of the things that they do that might seem too extreme for voters as long as they are within the general ambit of the progressive consensus. Democrats look the other way. And Republicans have been engaged for whatever reason in a cleansing process. Some of it is Trump related, but I mean, look, Marjorie Taylor Greene is out of Congress. Matt Gaetz again, complicated thing out of Congress. The worst offenders in some ways in the Republican caucus on some of these issues are gone. We're all asking the same question, how do we make AI work for us? And sitting on the sidelines doesn't seem to be an option because your competitors are already making their moves. You got to move yourself. No more waiting. With Netsuite by Oracle, you can put AI to work. Today, NetSuite is the number one AI Cloud ERP trusted by over 43,000 businesses from software and IT to healthcare equipment, manufacturing, financial services, whatever. NetSuite delivers a customized solution for your business. If your revenues are at least in the seven figures. Get that free business guide provided by NetSuite demystifying AI@netsuite.com commentary this is what I'd use if I had need of the NetSuite services. The guide is free to you at netsuite.com commentary netsuite.com commentary. I'm happy to come talk to you again about quints. It's spring and for me that means it's time to take out my Quint's linen clothes, clothing, pants, shirts. Buy some new ones. The linen breathes. It is the most comfortable for the spring and summer months. It's handsome, it is attractive. And we're talking about stuff that costs 50 to 80% less than you'd find from similar brands. Because Quince works directly with ethical factories, cuts out the middleman. You're getting premium materials without the markup, so refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to quint.com commentary for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q y n c e.com commentary for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com commentary.
- [17:23]
E
I would very much love to think that what's happening is Trump is cleansing directly targeting anti Jewish, anti Israel Republicans and getting them out of the party. I don't think it's quite, quite that. I think what happens is if you are an anti Jewish, anti Israel Republican, you will end up crosswise of Donald Trump because you are going to have problems with his policies. And once you have problems with his policies and with him, whatever those problems are, then you get targeted. The fact that Trump has been an Israel supporter and someone who cracks down on anti Semitism domestically, that certainly plays into it. But it's not this sort of one to one relationship where Trump goes get that Jew hater out of the game, right?
- [18:32]
A
But you make an important point here which is that the policies of this second term, both domestically and abroad, domestically in terms of the pursuit of antisemitism through the Education and Justice departments and abroad with Midnight Hammer and now the war in Iran conducted jointly with Israel in a party that Trump expects to be his party and align with him Personally, there's no real difference between saying, I'm sorry Donald Trump, I love you, but as a libertarian and an isolationist, I can't go along with you. He doesn't care that you're a principled libertarian or isolationist. You're supposed to go along with him, period. And he did change. I mean in their minds he's the one who changed and he's the one who's different and, and he's the one who tolerated them and they're anti Semit now he's different. But I think where Trump is concerned, it's a distinction with that difference. Cuz double time. Even if you hate his policies, if you're loyal to him, you'll go along with his policies because that's the most important thing. That may not be a good way for us to function in a democratic republic, but given the alternatives in 2026 and where the Democratic Party is, I prefer this as the political disciplinary alternative to the alternative alternative, which is it's every man for himself. You can say whatever you want to about Jews, you can say whatever you want to about Israel as long as you like me. He's already made it clear that policy, his policy preferences require you to fall in line behind what is fundamentally a philo Semitic set of policies. Okay, I want to move to the Jewish Massey question.
- [20:28]
D
Just, can I just add something real quick about Rab is just that about a month ago or so he rallied with Hasan Piker and took off from there. So he was he. That it was not clear that he was the overall front runner. From the beginning. This was a, you know, there was a three way primary. And so we should just note that we've seen this with, we saw this with Mamdani and the refusal to condemn globalize the Intifada and things like that. That people, we saw this with Graham Platner in Maine. When they do something that leans into the Jew baiting side of themselves in Democratic primaries, they have benefited from it.
- [21:14]
A
Okay, and you know what? Before we get to Massie, I wanna, therefore I wanna shout out your post because it's not about politics, it's about Hollywood. Seth did a really great post about these two statements at Cannes. One by the Oscar winning actor Javier Bardem and one by the Oscar winning director Lajlo Nemes, both of whom essentially said the same thing, but from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Seth, do you want to sort of lay out. Because this very much has to do with the change in status of what it means to be a Jew in America in a very alarming way, I would say.
- [21:56]
D
Sure. Javier Bardem was essentially bragging about the fact that it was. He's getting more work than ever, more offers for work than ever, after associating himself, essentially becoming the mascot of the sort of Hollywood pro Palestine contingent, whatever you want to call it. He was asked about this idea that it's hurting people's careers to call Israel genocidal and side with Gaza and all that stuff. And maybe there are blacklists, maybe there are people who don't want to work with you. And Bardem said, it's the opposite. I'm getting more offers than ever. It's not hurting me. He was asked about the blacklist question specifically, and he said he doesn't know about any. Any anti Palestinian blacklists, if you want to call him that. So he, Javier Bardem, you know, the star, he doesn't know anything about people trying to blacklist pro Palestinians, but he knows that it's helping his career to be pro Palestinian, and he knows that. And he suggested that they were going to turn the tables and punish the people who were not pro Palestinian, which was part of it. So he's bragging that the tide has turned, is the phrase that he's been using.
- [23:26]
E
Seth. He said something like, the tables are going to turn and the people who have always been in charge before are
- [23:33]
D
going, yes, thank you. Yes, thank you. That's right. Yes, thank you. I. That was a key omission. Yes, thank you. In the post, I discussed that. I quote him saying that, you know, yeah, the people who have always controlled the narrative don't anymore. And so, you know, it's, it's. I mean, we all know what he's suggesting there, but he's basically saying, you know, those people aren't in charge anymore. On the other hand, Nemesis, who, you know, his 2015 movie, Son of Saul was. I mean, I think it probably won every award on the planet, if I remember correctly. It was a massive, massive success. Considered a classic, a Holocaust. Nemes is. He comes from a family affected directly by the Holocaust and he makes movies about it. And Son of Saul was extraordinary. In 2015, he has come out with. He has a new movie, and it's called Orphan. It is also a Holocaust story. I think this one is probably more closely aligned with his own personal story. And he has said that he can't find a U.S. distributor. And I think that, you know, his name is not Martin Scorsese on American's Tongue. So it doesn't. It may not sound as crazy as it sound. But Lazlo Nemesz not being able to find a US Distributor for a Holocaust movie that he has come out with is, is absolutely a moment and very, very telling. And he was asked if, if, you know what if Son of Saul came out today or whatever, they discussed that. And he said he does. He thinks he would have trouble. He thinks people would avoid it. And he has said straight out that there is, he called it an orgy of antisemitism in the west, not just in Hollywood, but in the west, that culturally that there is this, he calls it anti humanist contingent that, you know, see everybody according to racial essentialism and not as individual humans. And it's totalitarian in, in, in its ideological origins. And the fact that he is this guy with the Holocaust history, Jewish and, and made, you know, these notable Holocaust movies, right, and won an Oscar, talking about the totalitarian connections between this and the outbreak of anti Semitism should also be a very big moment. It should be, you know, something that, that people read. So we're seeing the two directions go here. Like Chris Raab, Javier Bardem says, it's good for you to taunt the Jews. It's good for you to call Israel genocidal.
- [26:17]
A
We.
- [26:18]
D
Whether your career as an actor or you're an aspiring politician, at least in Democratic primaries in blue districts,
- [26:34]
A
There's one example after October 7th of a prominent Hollywood performer losing a job because of her supporting, essentially supporting Hamas on October 7th. That's the actress Melissa Barrera, who was set to star in the seventh or the eighth Scream movie. And the producer of that movie said, I can't work with you. I can't work with you after what you said, and fired her off the movie and hired somebody else to play the part. So she suffered for about a year, suffered whatever. She didn't get this starring role. And, and she's now back. She's got four projects, she's on Broadway. She's, you know, and she's also said something like, you know, the worm is turning and the people who came after me are now going to be in the crosshairs. So you can understand somebody, you know, hoping for revenge, you know, in that way, because she herself was punished or whatever, you know, like. But Bardem is an entirely separate matter. And that's why I want to mention, go into a very raw area in relation to Massie and the Jewish money that he ran against. His main campaign issue was, I'm being targeted by these Jews out of the district who want to destroy me because I wanted to Release the Epstein files. And I oppose military action. Now, he has a history dating back through his seven terms of casting very peculiar votes hostile to Jews. The one vote in the House against a resolution on anti Semitism in four or five years ago, one vote. 419 to 1, something like that. Now, his principled objection was he doesn't believe that we should be taking stands on these matters or something as a Libertarian Congress shouldn't vote on this. But given his propensity for talking trash about Israel and Jews, not just saying, as a principled person, I don't think that Libertarian should support legislation that is meaningless or whatever. This is something that has concerned people who care about this for a very long time. And he has been known to us who sort of follow antisemitism issues for a very long time. And nothing is new here, Right? So here's the raw point that I want to make. Jews are under attack. We are under attack. You know, we're under attack. Even the Islamic center bombing in San Diego the other day, the mystery of that bombing since the two people involved, not the bombing, but, you know, whatever the shooting. The mystery is that the manifesto that was released by the one who led it is more anti Semitic than it is anti Islamic and calls for Trump's assassination. And J.D. vance's assassination says Jews are the ultimate enemy. So why he targeted an Islamic center instead of a shul, I don't understand. But even here you can see everywhere we turn in Britain in, you know, every two demonstrations at synagogues in New York in the past two weeks, implicitly supported by the mayor of New York City and all of that, we are under attack. Anti Semitic incidents up 600% since October 7th. Right. So my line has been, and it is a tough line to take because it flies in the face of Jewish history as a minority group in a larger world in which our best hope is to be just, let alone, given the nature of how people have treated Jews and history is we can't just be let alone, and we have to fight back. And the way we fight back is with money, because we can't fight back with guns. And we can't. We're 2% of the population. We can't even fight back particularly well at the ballot box because we don't matter very much except in two or three districts and maybe one state, you know, maybe two states, but probably only one state in the Union where a really close election could be decided by almost unanimous Jewish vote. So what do we have at universities? How did it work? It Was donors saying, your behavior is inexpressibly awful. I am not going to give you any money anymore. And I am going to try to talk my friends into not giving you any money anymore. And I am going to fund programs at colleges that are not doing the kinds of things that you have been doing. I'm going to fund programs, I'm going to move my money elsewhere, and I'm going to see what I can do to cause your institution some damage because you are causing the Jewish people some damage. And the Massey race is very important because I think it is a good thing if Massey and the people like him and others believe that if you cross the line into antisemitism, Jews are gonna use the power that we have openly to go for you. Because what other recourse is there? Are we just gonna sit here and take it? Beg for scraps, hope that nice people are nice to us? The Democratic Party is going explicitly anti Semitic. We can see it happening. People are getting benefits, as Seth says, for being anti Semites. That seems to be part of an appeal in primaries to the left and the party. We have to use what means there are at our disposal. And in my view, and I'm going to put it blank, that is Jewish money. There is an enormous amount of Jewish money in politics, by which I mean Jewish donors wildly disproportionate, not only charitably, but politically. When I say charitably, I mean nobody really knows the numbers. Jews make up 2% of the population. According to some studies, jews make up 20% of the charitable contributions made in the United States annually. That is a tenfold. Think about that. Think about the disproportion of that. And in politics, it's pretty close also. And if that money isn't used, what. Why do people give money? Because they want to influence elections to get people elected who reflect their views. Well, this is an existential issue for Jews. And the Jews who explicitly give money because they want to make it clear to anti Semitic candidates that they are going to have to go through a buzzsaw and that they are not going to simply waltz in and be, you know, be. If they're treated with kid gloves by the New York Times, we are double time gonna do what we can to expose who they are, to find out what we can find out about them that will harm them, and that we will do what we can to prevent them from taking office. What other choice does American Jewry have? This is, as I say, very much in opposition to centuries of Jewish efforts to make it Clear that we just want our own peace and just leave us alone. We'll have our prayers and we'll have our. Just make sure it's okay that our kids get off for the high holy days from school and don't punish them for that. We're not asking for anything. America's been great. We're not asking for anything. And now we're still not asking for anything except equal rights under the law, not having our civil rights trampled. And if anti Semites are gonna try to run for office and change policy in the United States, we are not gonna let that happen without a fight.
- [35:02]
C
Can I go ahead?
- [35:04]
B
I think there's actually something positive to take away from the Massey election, which is that Massie made an affirmative decision to make yesterday's race about Jewish money, Israeli control of elections, Israel, Israel, Israel. And he went around saying, you know, he told Fox News, my people are smart enough to understand this is Israel trying to buy an election. And the results of the race, I think, show that Republican primary voters in deep red states, in this case, you know, Kentucky's 4th congressional district, like Israel Massie was the one who decided to make this race revolve around this and to run ads. You know, he had a pro, pro Masi super PAC running an ad with a rainbow Jewish star demonizing Jews. And the primary voters rejected all this stuff because by and large, Republican primary voters are pro Israel. And I think anybody looking to run for president in 2028 as a Republican would be wise to learn the lesson from this race. He could have made it about a lot of other things, but because he is actually an anti Semite, he made it about this.
- [36:44]
C
And I just to John, to your point about going forward, that things have to change, I think I agree that it's actually a good thing that everyone's out in the open having the conversations they're having because it reveals instantly people's motivations. And in Massey's case, most horrifically, given how he conceded his race. But for decades, Jews have borne their own cost of protection. Synagogues, schools, everything has to have private security. Any event has to have private security. Now, post October 7th, that level of security has had to be increased considerably. The reason it matters, when a public official from the Democratic Party, whether he's running for mayor or running for a seat in Congress or running for the Senate, the reason it matters when mainstream culture overlooks their anti Semitism and the dog whistling and all the things that we saw Massie do in this race is that that sends a very strong message that even private security and private protection isn't going to be enough. Because the people elected to make sure and maintain protection and law and order in whatever, whether it's New York City or your congressional district, they are actually actively on the side of the people trying to kill Jews. So. So that's the signal that I think has that openness. That's another reason why people, even people who aren't Jewish, who don't care at all about the Middle east, they look at that and they say, that is not our democratic system in action. That is not a public official's role to side with those folks. As for the mosque shooting, I'll be really interested to learn more about some of the motivations. They were all over the map. But I think what's most concerning to those of us who've been talking about sort of antisemitism becoming the new Omni cause among the young, there's a lot of that in that manifesto. So they had Nazi symbolism. They were calling for race war. One of them seemed to have carved that on a gun. They're kind of all over the map with their hate. But they were young, they were motivated, and they made sure that they included in there a lot of anti Semitic rhetoric. So that sort of violent nihilism is also given endorsement when someone is hanging out with Hasan Piker and they're all winking and nodding at the cultural elite messaging about anti Semitism. There is a through line there. And both of those things should disturb any thinking American, regardless of their understanding or appreciation for Israel as a nation. And I think that's actually Eliana's spot on about Republican primary voters in a red state going, this is not us. I think that's actually the positive message here, is that people voting in that way.
- [39:09]
A
Interesting.
- [39:09]
E
Two things about that. One is about the manifesto, which is fascinating because it confirms my suspicion, which is that antisemitism is the glue. It is the. So whatever violent radicalism one is about to endorse or commit, it all gets a boost. It all becomes cohesive when you throw in the antisemitism. It's what brings people in. It's what makes the violent left
- [39:47]
D
this
- [39:48]
E
sort of turbocharged force. That is what we have seen. The other point I want to make is that I'm actually kind of happy that Massie came out after losing and made his Tel Aviv remark, because it confirms, not just for me, but for everyone, that antisemitism is comfort food for losers. It is when you lose and are losing in life that you Cling to. Oh, the Jews did this to me. I don't think he thinks he was making a. It was a zinger. I think it makes him look weak and scapegoaty and pathetic.
- [40:42]
A
Two points here. One, to address what Christine and Eliana was saying. According to Eric Fingerhut, who is the head of the Jewish Federations of North America, the calculation in 2025 is that annually Jews spend $765 million a year on what could be called Jewish self defense. That is hardening synagogues, creating security zone, you know, safe security zones within synagogues. My own synagogue just had to rebuild its lobby to create a much more secure place. The day school that my son goes to is. It doesn't look like it, but it's like, you know, Ben Gurion airport level security. Every synagogue now has to have paid guards. Buildings where Jewish organizations have offices have to be hardened down. $765 million a year where that number ideally should be zero. By which I mean what was being defended is stuff that cops are supposed to. This should be ordinary law enforcement work. Do churches have to spend this kind of money? Do other kinds of nonprofit faith based organizations have to spend this kind of protecting themselves against the possibility of mass murder? No. And Jews do it without complaint. There is no complaint here because we believe in self sufficiency and we believe in the need to take care of our own. And people have been doing this kind of work, guarding work forever as simply as part of the communal and collective responsibility. But we are also Americans. We live in the United States. It should not be necessary for us to have to put out that kind of money simply to go to practice freely our faith. And obviously I bring that up only to say that we do that without complaint. But it is a mark of something that is very, very frightening.
- [43:14]
D
And discomfiting and spending on elections is not that different. Spending on elections that may prevent the rise of candidates who incite that kind of violence and maybe and incentivize parties to discourage open antisemitism is itself a form of spending on personal defense.
- [43:39]
C
Or elect mayors who allow pro Palestinian, violent pro Palestinians to gather outside the entrance to a synagogue when people are trying to enter and exit a house of worship.
- [43:49]
A
Yeah, so I mean, I think that's a very important point.
- [43:53]
E
Can I just make another point about what Christine said? There is something remarkable here in that, in the world I grew up in like elite liberal opinion had it that, ooh, the south boy, you don't want to be a Jew down there, you know, Those backward, they'll, you know, Thursday night is Jew punching night or you know, whatever jokes. They're not like open minded accepting folks up here in the Northeast. And then look, we have the mayor in New York, has the Nakba Day mayor and the Kentucky right just said get the hell out of here, you crazy Jew hating maniac.
- [44:49]
A
Yeah, I mean, look, is that a revelation?
- [44:51]
E
To me? It should be a revelation to people that I. Unfortunately it won't be.
- [44:57]
A
It should be. And I want to bring up again, the late Abe Foxman, who died last week, made this point that's very important and very important to the point I was making about how it is important to deploy what power you have as a small minority. And in, in the case of Jews. It is that we are a wealthy community and a generous community and are willing to not hoard our money but spend it for charitable reasons and for self protection reasons and all of that. And Abe Foxman once asked why it was that he advocated for positions that a lot of people in the Jewish community seem not to care about while not advocating for positions that they did care about politically that weren't specifically Jewish. Meaning like why wasn't he on the front frontline for abortion rights or why wasn't he on the front line to help whatever liberal cause of climate change or something? And he said, because Jews, a lot of Jews, that's important to them. And he said, my job as the head of the Anti Defamation League is I represent the Jews who care. By which you mean the Jews who care about Jews, the Jews who care about Judaism, the Jews who care about the Jewish state where 7 million of our brethren are living under existential threat. The Jews who care are allowed to protect themselves from not only the Gentiles who don't care or wish us ill, but from the Jews who don't care, who use the Jews who use their Judaism as a weapon against other Jews, like the Reconstructionist Rabbi just hired by Zoran Mamdani, the anti Zionist Reconstructionist Rabbi, Miriam Grossman, who is now going to be the faith liaison for Mamdani, an opponent of the Jewish state. I wouldn't expect any different given his views. But remember, this is the city with the largest Jewish population outside of Israel and the single largest Jewish population in the world as a local concentration. And you know, and the mayor of the city is explicitly going after Jews as part of his ideological agenda. So yeah, we gotta act, we gotta do what we can. And, and Abe's point about Northeastern people or like how explicit this is, maybe Christine's point. We still have older Democratic politicians, mostly Democrats. There are probably Republicans in here I could throw in, but who are dog whistling and winking and providing no cover, providing no ideological barrier to the rise of antisemitism in their party and in fact are celebrating it implicitly. By which I mean Chris Murphy, Senator from Connecticut, who said he was sorry that Tom Massie had lost a Republican, had lost a primary because he had been so instrumental in opening the Epstein files and Ro Khanna, the progressive in California saying the same thing rather than saying it is a very good thing that our political system just expelled and expunged the most open anti Semite in Congress or at least also in the opposite party. So it's not even like they have to say it. I'm demanding that they say it about Ayanna Pressley or Ilhan Omar or, or Rashida Tlaib. They could say it about a far right wing congressman in Kentucky. They don't even do that.
- [48:59]
E
It was amazing when I saw Ro Khanna's social media posting. My dear friend Thomas Massie lost because he dared to stand up to Israel or whatever this was. But there's no home for that on the right anymore. Come to the left. It's like he's saying the message of Democrats went from the right is full of bigots and that's dangerous. And if you are in with them, you're a bigot. The message now is the right is too cowardly to be bigoted. If you want to be bigoted, get over here, we'll show you how to hate Jews.
- [49:41]
A
Implicitly, I don't think.
- [49:43]
C
Can I add one thing?
- [49:45]
A
Yeah, go ahead.
- [49:46]
C
That Epstein class approach that there a lot of them are now embracing in the Democratic Party is really going to come back to haunt them, I think in the future. Because I mean we, we've talked about the Epstein file, we've talked about the whole thing ad nauseam. The average American voter, the normal person, when they, when they think of a politician who's most affiliated with Epstein, some might think Trump, most think Bill Clinton, who is, who is actually quite, you know, or maybe Prince Andrew. These are the, these are not the sort of. It's not a clear message and they think they're giving a dog whistle. But in fact their own complicity on the side of this elite class of people who think they are above the law and hung out with Epstein, but they're using it because of the name Epstein, obviously. I don't think it has like Massey's blatant anti semitism I don't think it's gonna have the resonance that they believe it does. And shame on Ro Khanna for everything he's been doing recently. Obviously has national ambitions. But I was quite surprised that he was that forthcoming in that statement.
- [50:44]
A
I was very surprised. Like, don't say anything.
- [50:48]
C
Right? You don't have to say anything.
- [50:51]
A
No one's asking you to weigh in on the results of a Kentucky primary in the other party. Don't say anything. They wanted to say something and they wanted to say that.
- [51:02]
D
And Ro Khanna just did that.
- [51:04]
B
I mean, Ro Khanna just did that.
- [51:06]
D
Sorry. The other day on the Nakba thing, he, he. He announced, I'm joining the co sponsors and co sponsoring Rashida Tlaib's Nakba Day resolution. Again, a thing that no one in his district was saying. How come you. Where are you on the Nakba? Representative Khanna? It was the sort of thing where he understood that he was gonna. He was gonna say something publicly because he. Even if he wasn't asked, because it would benefit him.
- [51:35]
B
Yeah, I mean, the guy's singular purpose is to insert himself into every national news cycle with the goal of being a viable presidential candidate in 2028, which he will not be. And the Khana Massey alliance underscores something else that I think voters picked up in this primary. The Beacon did a story a couple of months ago about a Palestinian refugee donor who would give in to Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Cori Bush, who was also supporting Massie. And one of the most powerful ads run in this race was about saying Massie was in a throuple with Omar and aoc. And I think voters in the district did pick up on the fact that when you go conspiracy theory and when you go anti Israel, anti Semite, your natural allies are become, you know, it's the horseshoe theory, the far left of the Democratic Party. Those were the people mourning his defeat. Those are his political allies. And that's not who they wanted representing them.
- [52:56]
A
Okay, so we're talking about Ro Khanna's presidential ambitions. And I want to throw out to you, I think, what is a very real possibility. We have been asking this question about who is gonna represent in the post Trump era what various positions. And so the conversation seems to revolve around, you know, Rubio and Vance, Vance and Rubio. Rubio and Vance. There are gonna be more candidates in 2028 than that. That's not the way this works. You know, generally speaking, you know, people only get one shot at whatever and then there'll be protest, candidacies. Thomas Massie is gonna run for president. That is my prediction. Thomas Massie is going to be the horseshoe candidate for president, the one I thought maybe Tucker Carlson would be. I don't think he's gonna do it. Massie is perfectly situated. He's become nationally famous. He now has a database of donors who are reliable anti Semites. And we know, just as Jews seem to be very generous givers, apparently the world of the anti Semite also is a way of opening a spigot to get a lot of money early. And I assume he would run in the Republican Party, but he could also run as an independent. We have not heard the last of Thomas Massie. He will be. He does represent a deranged, what I believe to be a deranged but real body of opinion in the United States. And he will be. I was martyred by this external malign force that then took over American foreign policy and hypnotized the seemingly powerful Donald Trump into going to war for its benefit. And I'm the only one who can stand up against him.
- [54:46]
C
And.
- [54:47]
A
And Democrats are gonna say this too, by the way, in their primaries, but he'll be saying it. The audience won't be very large in the Republican Party, but it won't be tiny. And so that's my prediction. I'm not a predictor.
- [55:02]
C
Here's an alternative scenario for Massie, and I owe some of this to our wonderful producer Noam, who pointed out that he'll probably spend the next year going on the same five podcasts on the far right saying exactly that message. But I think there's another thing we shouldn't leave out of the equation of why he lost. He didn't. He was always an ideological member of the House. He didn't succeed, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but he never had a single piece of legislation that he introduced that actually was successfully passed. So he was often protesting other bills. He co sponsored a lot of stuff, but he was legislatively not super successful. People in his district, people in his state, people throughout this country, are very concerned about our economic future. And I think the economic messaging, a lot of the stuff that's actually gonna start coming to the fore. He is a poser ideological candidate. He draws a lot of social media attention. He's gonna draw a lot of that podcast attention, but that's not necessarily gonna translate into someone who, at a national level, people think can solve practical problems. And we have a lot of looming practical problems in this country, and we certainly will by the time we get to 2028. So a candidate who is gonna try to gather from that cesspool of voters, either on the right and the left, and they exist on both sides, I think has a limit to the amount of appeal. They might get a lot of money, a lot of attention, but I don't think he will. He's not answered effectively the practical governance questions that really most Americans are concerned about.
- [56:27]
A
I do not take him seriously as a viable candidate or even as a spoiler. But we live in a world in which the social media algorithms are designed to create conflict and to engage people as much negatively as they engage them positively. And Thomas Massie's candidacy will, as much as it enrages me, it will thrill Mehdi Hasan. So, you know, if I don't get myself off Twitter, which I should like, I'll be, like, fulminating every day about,
- [57:06]
C
you should
- [57:09]
A
take some other. So take, you know, take some wonderful tweeters like my friend Susie Shofar or somebody like that. Like, they're gonna go at it five times a day, and Mehdi Hassan will go for it five times a day. And what will happen is that the view that is extreme and lost in this district in Kentucky will have a national audience that will move the Overton window and make this part of the ongoing American cultural conversation, which is, does Israel control America and are the Jews controlling America? That used to be a conversation that was had not only on the fringes, but that respectable opinion was repulsed by then. There were little bits of hints of it popping up, like 20 years ago when Mearsharmer and Walt published their book on apex dominance and stuff like that, which was a key moment in opening that Overton window. That's a generation ago. But this could be a topic. You have an entire wing of the Democratic Party that believes it, and you have an entire wing of the isolationist Maga right or post or beyond Trump Maga right that believes it. And as Abe says, it is the loser theory. It is the Omni theory of why it is that you're not getting what you want. It's because the Jews are taking it from you. And so that's Christine, kind of an economic argument, if you think about it.
- [58:49]
C
Well, it has historically been the scapegoat group in times of economic crisis throughout history. So I get. I do understand that link. I'm just saying that typically, and I hope this remains the case, but you're right to raise it as a possible alarming possibility. Americans have tended to Be more pragmatic in choosing people to solve if they have economic problems. They have those fringes yelling. The question is whether we will have candidates who step up and not just say, here's my economic plan, but point to those fringes and say, this is completely unacceptable. This is not how we do politics. And we don't. We haven't really had that in a while.
- [59:25]
A
And I don't know.
- [59:27]
D
Massey did a couple things on that note. One was that he has tweeted in the past that. A complaint that we are sending money to Israel for them to abort babies. So Massie has, Has. Has prefigured this. He had. There's. There's a sophistication almost to the economic argument that Massie makes and represents, you know, which is that they don't have our values. They have. They have open abortion. So why are we sending them? We're sending them our money. And so your money becomes. It's not just there's a genocide in Gaza, but it becomes, look what else the Jews are doing. They're killing babies.
- [60:06]
A
Well, no, they're killing Palestinian babies.
- [60:08]
D
They're killing Jewish babies. They're killing these babies. Babies. And we're just. And we're just funding all of it. So that's one element of it. The other is that he introduced a bill that was to specifically target AIPAC and force aipac. This was, you know, just. I think it was just days ago. And sometime in the last week, I think he introduced a bill that would force AIPAC to register as an agent of a foreign government. Now, AIPAC is an organization of Americans. It is an American organization. The money is coming from Americans and, you know, and all that. What he wants to do is outlaw Jewish spending on elections. You know, this conversation we're having about how it's. It's, you know, totally legitimate for Jews to use whatever they have at their disposal to participate in democracy. He doesn't want them to. He wants Jews to either be outlawed from. From, you know, from funding campaigns or make it so nefarious seeming that it's embarrassing to do it in your own name or something like that. And the underlying point of the debate, that will be had again, if you're right and if he runs for president and if he talks about this stuff on the campaign trail, the point will be these people are not Americans. They're not real Americans. They're not loyal to America. They are representative of a foreign entity. Not just people who donate to campaigns, but anybody who supports what AIPAC supports and thinks What AIPAC thinks and as
- [61:45]
A
I say, the general Jewish response to this over the course of history to these kinds of assaults, these kinds of attacks, the Charles coughlans in the 30s or even, you know, even the, the people who aligned with the America first movement of Charles Lindbergh or the resurgence of the American Nazi Party in the person of George Lincoln Rockwell. Right. That world of thinking Jews have fought subterraneously to the extent that they can or tried not to fight them at all on the grounds that we can't. It's not a fair. Charles Coughlan is a Catholic priest. Catholicism is the largest single religious denomination in the United States. When it's taking place, he's wildly popular on the radio. The best thing for us to do is to keep our head down and let this play itself out because we are just not equal to the task and we don't have that luxury anymore. And we have way more resources at our disposal. And the masses of the world were put on notice last night that they are not going to get away with it anymore. And this is a message to, I mean our listeners probably already agree with me fundamentally. But to Jews who are interested in this matter altogether is don't worry about how people are going to not like Jews because they're, because we're advocating for ourselves. It doesn't matter anymore. We advocate for ourselves and they're mad. We don't advocate for ourselves and they're mad. The anti Semites don't need us. This is this whole argument about how we're causing antisemitism through our self defense or through talking about this or Israel's causing antisemitism because it's defending itself against existential threats and people who invade their country and kill, you know, and injure 5,000 people and build tunnel cities and hold hostages and fire ballistic missiles at the Jewish state and all of that and we're causing the hatred. Well, don't let the people who are arguing that win. They're wrong. As Abe would say here, antisemitism is their glue. So it's almost self fueling. We don't need to do anything to fuel it. They do it themselves. If it's a rainy day, it's a Jewish space laser that made the clouds open up so we have to ignore them and do what is best for us and take whatever slings and arrows come from it. Cuz I don't know how much worse it could get. I genuinely don't really understand how much worse it could get than the Democrat, than one of the two major parties in the United States taking the turn that it is taking, that is as bad as it can get. And therefore, it has to be fought on the beaches and fought in the classrooms and fought everywhere. And we can never surrender, because this is us. This is all we have left.
- [65:01]
C
There's also. I'm glad you brought up the Father Coughlin example, because what stopped Coughlin's influence and reach wasn't a single person or a single act. It was a series of institutions, including the leadership within the Catholic Church, eventually basically threatening him with excommunication unless he stopped. But it was local broadcasters. It was a New York broadcaster, the major New York radio station, that said, wait a minute, he's gone too far and stopped airing his show. They were allowed to do that. It was government institutions. Now, there's a whole, obviously, debate about free speech around this, but, you know, as we entered the war. Questions about World War II, you mean?
- [65:38]
A
Yeah, World War II, the question. Yeah, Right.
- [65:41]
C
So, I mean, those are separate issues, but the point is that it takes a lot of institutions, individuals, leaders, and just general public saying no. And I think that's where Massie's defeat will hopefully become a data point in what will be a larger movement of people saying, this is not who we are. Americans are not like this. And I actually. Maybe I sound like a Pollyanna, but I still genuinely believe that. And I do think you're right to point out the social media influence now. That's how most people get their news and information. That remains a problem for how our democratic process happens, the lack of trust in institutions that we talk about all the time. But I do still believe that when people like that are exposed for who they are, a lot of Americans say no. And they can say it for their own reasons, but that is something I think we should still hold on to as a possibility. I hope for the future. All right, that's off brand for morosity.
- [66:34]
A
It's fine. It's fine because it's true. This is America. We're hitting our 250th birthday. We're the greatest country that ever was, the greatest political system that has ever been invented in a country that gave Jews the first real taste of civic freedom that Jews have ever had in the history of the world after the destruction of the Jewish nation in 586bce. So I see no reason not to feel optimistic because this has been a. This has been a paradisical place for Jews, and we're having a bad. This is a bad turn that we are living through. But we now have, as I say, unprecedented resources to help restore the civic health of the country in relation to ourselves by not allowing the disease to fester and grow, but to provide the, what you call it, the triage, and then the antibiotics that will hopefully retard its growth and then maybe cure it. So until tomorrow for Christine, Eliana, Seth and Abram John Putwertz, keep the candle burning.
- [68:00]
D
Sam.