For the 8235th time, the Democratic establishment is Very Mad at Hasan Piker. While Laura Loomer and Randy Fine spew vile hatred at any and every Black and Muslim Democrat, conservative Democrats and the media are focused on attacking their own. In an obviously coordinated campaign, over a dozen prominent Democrats spent the entirety of last week condemning the Twitch streamer for something he never said. Hakeem Jeffries, Ken Martin, Elissa Slotkin, Brad Schneider, Cory Booker, Josh Gottheimer, Jake Auchincloss, Hillary Scholten, Ritchie Torres, and many others representing the pro-Israel establishment decried Piker as “dangerous,” “antisemitic,” and “malicious,” along with other harsh words they would never call a Republican. The manufactured outrage centered on misrepresenting Piker’s below statement as a call to violence.
“If Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they are singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone is going to come around and take action, not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews.”
This is no different from what Ezra Klein has expressed: “If you keep telling people that if they oppose the Jewish state then they must hate the Jewish people, eventually, they will believe you.” It’s also what Dana Bash asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just months ago. Quoting El-Sayed’s then-opponent Haley Stevens, Bash asked Bibi if Israel’s cataclysmic violence was making Jews “less safe.” In this clip I found on Twitter comparing Bash’s presentation of the same statements differently, the naked cynicism of this ‘scandal’ is on full display.
Of course, the Twitch streamer isn’t the target of this bad-faith attack. He’s a stand-in for the insurgent left, which the establishment failed to defeat in high-importance Democratic primaries. Because the progressives and socialists challenging the Democratic establishment are within the party tent, the reactionaries struggle to criticize them. Doing so would further reveal that conservative Democrats prioritize themselves, their donors, and zionism over defeating Republicans, which would enrage voters and drive them into the left’s open arms. So, the establishment lies about what Piker says, slanders him as an anti-semite, elevates his importance (most Democrats have never heard of Hasan Piker), then relentlessly criticizes him to taint their more progressive-minded party members as bigots.
Coordinated media narratives, false charges of anti-social behavior, and other tactics pulled from Richard Nixon’s Ratfuckers’ Playbook are the establishment’s only ways to fight the factionalist contest taking place within the Democratic Party. The left vs. establishment fight is often referred to as a “civil war.” Realistically, it’s more like a rebellion. As primary elections have overwhelmingly shown, Democratic voters prefer socialist and progressive candidates who will fight oligarchy, imperialism, and Trump over the establishment candidates who protect oligarchy, imperialism, and Trump. In the few races where a conservative Democrat has defeated a viable progressive challenger, they require overwhelming and unsustainable money and support to win by the skin of their teeth. No one can deny that if primaries were a level playing field, the left’s already-impressive gains would be even more triumphant.
Currently, Democratic voters are joining the left rebellion and advancing it. So, it’s no surprise the establishment is fighting back with dirty tricks. Like any noteworthy rebellion, the insurgents have popular support, and the powerful have power. The left is confident our message of anti-corruption, anti-genocide, pro-worker, and pro-family policies can attract more votes to win primary and general elections. Comparatively, the establishment is not confident they can win democratically, and for good reason. Americans don’t like our billionaire ruling class and are furious at Democratic leadership for failing to stop Trump. But lack of grassroots support doesn’t mean the establishment will surrender.
To the extent it has one, the dominant ideology of the Democratic establishment is reactionary centrism. They’re not Republicans, but they agree with the GOP that the world requires hierarchy: Israelis over Palestinians, corporations over workers, and politicians over voters. Just as conservative reactionaries resort to violence to defend their unnatural hierarchies, centrist reactionaries lash out against progressive threats with a variety of anti-democratic tactics ranging from bad faith media narratives to assisting the right’s state violence. These aren’t “failures” to live up to liberal values. They’re a revelation that much of the Democratic establishment is highly illiberal, only wielding the cudgel of “democracy” and “freedom” every four years to guilt-trip Americans into voting for them.
As these actors believe, the nation’s political fate should rest in the hands of the oh-so-intelligent, so enlightened Adults In The Room who know better than you what’s in your best interest. (Spoiler: It’s cutting grandma’s Social Security to fund more corporate tax breaks.) This is why Chuck Schumer told The New York Times his priority is keeping the Democrats pro-Israel. The Senate minority leader doesn’t believe he should follow voters’ wishes, but rather manipulate and trick voters to achieve his political goals. It’s also why the most reactionary elements of the Democratic world no longer feel the need to conceal their anti-democratic beliefs and whine that everyday Americans are increasing their political engagement.
This is the ethos that dominates the Democratic Party orbit: Sure, the voters made a decision. But it’s the wrong decision, so the ‘experts’ have to correct them. It also explains the latest obsession with Hasan Piker, who is being used as a proxy target to attack Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed. Though the primary ended last month, reactionary centrists don’t believe the voters’ decision is the final say. As Yglesias expressed above, much of the Democratic establishment believes Michiganders made the ‘wrong’ decision. So, they’re still fighting to sink Abdul El-Sayed in hopes Republican Mike Rogers will win. After sabotaging El-Sayed, they’ll point to his loss as ‘proof’ progressives can’t win in swing states, giving them ammunition against the insurgent revolution and continuing the politics they believe are ‘correct.’ Of course, this will only embolden the fascist project. But it will put the ‘right’ voices back in charge of the party.
It will come as no surprise that the sabotage of Abdul El-Sayed is primarily conducted through the establishment’s ideological allies in the media. Jeff Bezos’s Substack (The Washington Post) is scaremongering with absurd headlines such as “El-Sayed’s Ties to Firebrand Influencer Threaten Democrats’ Path to Control the Senate,” as if an unknown Twitch streamer is to blame for the party’s electoral woes, rather than decades of incompetent leadership. The Atlantic’s Jonathan Chait went further, sending up a batsignal to his conservative Democratic friends that it’s necessary to sink El-Sayed for pro-Israel forces to maintain control of the party. Chait’s tantrum frames the Michigan Senate race as a “grim choice.” As a refresher, the choice is between Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat who supports universal healthcare and opposes genocide, and Mike Rogers, a Trump sycophant who will further accelerate Republican fascism and send more bombs to baby killer Bibi. Calling this a “grim choice” says more about Jonathan Chait than Abdul El-Sayed. Fearful of the backlash, Chait doesn’t explicitly say that he wants El-Sayed to lose to protect Israel. So he couches his argument in false accusations of bigotry and signals that if the Democrats win in Michigan, more anti-genocide Democrats are on their way.
“What’s more, El-Sayed has already said that he intends to use his victory as a platform to reshape the party. Him winning could invite a future in which the United States has not just one party that is open to bigots but two.”
New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer took a similar approach, racing to CNN to say he wouldn’t support El-Sayed. Neither will Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Michigan state representative Jeremy Moss, nor Michigan representative Hillary Scholten. Though these narcissists think they can trick voters by talking about Hasan Piker, Americans are much smarter than politicians think they are. Tensions boiled over during a recent Michigan Democrats conference when attendees chastized these politicians for refusing to support their party’s nominee for a crucial Senate seat. One attendee yelled at Scholten, “Your inflammatory rhetoric has nothing to do with creating a better economic future for the people of West Michigan, and everything to do with protecting the pipeline of our tax dollars to Israel.” Absolutely cooked her. A 10-8 round for the unnamed “attendee” over the two-term congresswoman.
While callouts and condemnations of stubborn zionists and corporatists are always good, we must understand the reactionary centrists are not going to change. Appeals to their better nature or justified calls to “Vote Blue No Matter Who” won’t stop undemocratic Democrats’ war on the left. There are many non-reactionary liberal Democrats who have shifted left rhetorically and on policy along with growing progressive popularity and force. But the reactionaries won’t, because they don’t believe a democratic majority is the decision-maker. Rather, they believe it is their right to control political decisions, and the common folk should shut up and agree with whatever they decide. As a more democratically-minded force is leading the American people in the fight for universal political and economic democracy, the reactionaries are resorting to dirty tricks, media manipulation, and sabotage to put these everyday Americans back in their place. That’s why they’re singularly focused on attacking Abdul El-Sayed by way of Hasan Piker. For most of us, the Michigan Senate primary concluded when the voters chose El-Sayed over Stevens. But for the reactionary centrists, the voters’ will is irrelevant. To them, the election barely matters. Their tactics have slightly shifted to fit their post-primary reality. But the battle to keep another Israel-critic out of the Senate continues.
It is no coincidence that the most reactionary elements of the Democratic establishment love Israel, and don’t mind breaching democratic norms to protect it. Israel is a fascist apartheid state. Its entire existence is based on the premise that the in-group, in this case Jewish Israelis, have a right to suppress the democratic majority of the out-group Palestinians. Conservative Democrats think that’s a justified system. So it should come as no surprise when they see no reason to adhere to democratic legitimacy at home.
What is currently being thrown at Abdul El-Sayed is just a taste of what’s to come. As the left keeps growing, the center will become more reactionary, anti-social, and undemocratic. With just over sixty-four days until the midterm elections, Representatives Gottheimer, Scholten, Moskowitz, and Suozzi are wasting time introducing a resolution to condemn DSA. Hakeem Jeffries recently appointed ultra-Zionist Moskowitz to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, a signal to donors that he will try to keep the House caucus pro-Israel, going against voters’ wishes to stop the genocide in Gaza. Be warned. If AOC or another progressive runs in 2028, we’re going to see an establishment ratfucking campaign that puts the 2016 Democratic primary to shame. They can’t win elections, and they can’t persuade voters. So tricks and deceit are the only weapon they have to fight with.
If you appreciated this essay, please click the ❤️ to help it rise in Substack’s algorithm. Don’t forget to subscribe so future articles are delivered to your inbox. If you’re a returning JoeWrote reader, consider supporting my work with a premium subscription. For the cost of just one cup of coffee a month, you can help me keep creating content like this. Plus, you unlock everything JoeWrote has to offer.
Thanks in advance!
In Solidarity — Joe
When people complain about both parties being the same, this is what they’re talking about. There’s very little real difference between centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans. Centrist Democrats have no particular loyalty to the party and would vote for a centrist Republican over an actual progressive, but progressives won’t vote for Republicans to thwart centrist Dems. As the party establishment loves to remind us, who else are we gonna vote for? Trump?