There’s no way to put a gloss on the ugliness of Darializa Avila Chevalier’s and Melat Kiros’ sentiments about the US and Israel.
The former, the Democratic Party’s nominee for New York’s 13th congressional district, has called this country a “disgrace” (adding an expletive—a characteristic flourish of DSA members’ speech), bragged that once, she “just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me,” praised Vladimir Lenin, denied Israel’s existence, called Joe Biden a “war criminal” and—oh, how they eat their own—chastised Bernie Sanders for his “liberal Zionism.”
She has also attacked black and Arab men for relationships with “ugly colonizer [white] women.”
Although she has deleted most of her wilder online comments, they float in the air as testimony to her heart-of-hearts (or spleen-of-spleens) convictions.
The latter lady (using the word only literally), the Democratic nominee for Colorado’s 1st congressional district, called the 9/11 attacks the “inevitable consequence” of American actions, supports a full US arms embargo on Israel and refused to label as anti-Semitic the fatal firebombing attack on an Israeli hostage awareness march in Boulder.
Perhaps more disturbing than the unpleasant pair’s positions, though, is the reluctance of saner Democratic leaders to criticize the candidates.
House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries struggled to defend Ms. Chevalier, contending that she has “walked away from many of the things that have been unearthed.” California Representative Pete Aguilar explained that “This is a big-tent Democratic Party…there is room for you…no matter where you are.”
Should anyone happen to spy David Duke or Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, do let him know.
It’s easy—as many are doing—to regard the successful campaigns of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates as a harbinger of where the Democratic Party is headed. The “progressives” (who, in light of earlier racist and anti-Semitic movements, should rightly be called regressives) don’t subscribe to the traditional moderate positions of the party past, seeking, rather, to deform it into something closer to their vision. And their successes of late do indeed raise reasonable fears for the party’s future.
New York City’s DSA successfully ran candidates for state legislative seats, and the radicals have scored wins, as well, in mayoral races in, of course, New York, but also in Washington, DC, and Seattle. Erstwhile Totenkopf-tattooed oyster farmer Graham Platner is the Democratic nominee for the Senate in Maine, in one of the most competitive races in the country. And Abdul El-Sayed, who called Israel as “evil” as Hamas, while not a DSA member (just a generic version of one), is running for the Senate in Michigan.
Worth keeping in mind, though, is that the DSA victories were limited to deep blue districts. Middle America is unlikely to follow suit. What’s more, plenty of mainstream Democrats racked up primary victories in recent weeks. Even in Colorado, Senator John Hickenlooper beat a younger erstwhile DSA candidate.
And the progressives have come under fire from moderate Democrats. Jaime Harrison, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, addressed the radicals’ bid to hijack the party, saying, “If you hate the Democratic Party, then please don’t run for our nomination… Don’t rely on our volunteers. Don’t use our infrastructure. Focus on building the party you actually support.” That would be the Communist Party.
Manhattan Democrats Vice Chair Mariama James accused DSA members of being “racist, anti-Black, anti-Semitic, anti-East Asian” and “non-Democrats,” beholden to Bernie Sanders—“a registered Independent.”
Noteworthy, too, is that Ms. Chevalier was supported by just 7% of active voters, and in a very low turnout election to begin with. She will be going to Congress, unfortunately, but her base of support was pathetically small.
And while the DSA is on track to more than double its congressional representation, that means from its current two members to five in the 435-member chamber. That’s approximately 1.15% of the body. So the radicals’ influence, even among Democratic representatives, will be limited.
Will the future, though, see further growth in the radicals’ numbers in the legislature?
There are certainly grounds for concern. But grounds, too, for hoping that the recent electoral successes of anti-American and anti-Israel candidates will prove to have been a flash in the pan, and be extinguished by mainstream Democratic voters caring enough to cast ballots, by Republican wins—and, most important, by our tefillos.
To read more, subscribe to Ami
