Let’s get this out of the way at the start: Charlie Kirk got what he deserved. The world is a better place now that he is gone.

Kirk was not just some “conservative activist” trying to have conversations with liberals. He was not a defender of free speech, a philosopher, or whatever else the right-wing propaganda machine is styling him as in its post-mortem attempt to martyrize him.

Charlie Kirk was a fascist zealot, a political operative for the Trump administration, and one of the most effective purveyors of far-right violence in the US. His organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), is a massive operation designed to mainline far-right ideology and disinformation straight to young people. He was the modern-day Baldur von Schirach (head of the Hitler Youth) and no different from extremist Muslim clerics who groom young people to become suicide bombers and ISIS fighters.

The only kindness Kirk should be afforded is to apply to his death what he preached in life. In life, Kirk famously said that allowing some gun deaths is acceptable for the right to own firearms:

He also said he did not believe in empathy. We should therefore treat his death as acceptable and afford it no human kindness.

And yet, many liberals fell all over themselves trying to do just that, condemning his death while the MSM did its best to lionize his legacy. Claims of “violence not having any place in our country” and that “all violence should be condemned” rang through social media and the airwaves. Democratic politicians mirrored the sentiments of their fascist counterparts in decrying “violence on both sides”, an inability to “disagree and still be civil,” and other nonsense. Some liberals even joined the far-right in condemning those who would dare express indignation at Kirk.

It was a true coming together moment…a bipartisan effort to carry water for the fascist cause.

In a vacuum, this reflexive genuflecting may seem well-intentioned, noble even. Violence in society is indeed troubling, and political violence especially so. Ideally, we would condemn any instance of violence that may occur.

But we live in the United States, where Republicans have made violence the biggest American export and its biggest self-created disease. Schools in this country offer a greater chance for children to receive a bullet rather than a proper education. Rather than a country where political violence is not permitted, it is so commonplace that we have become depressingly numb to it. Case in point: most of those grieving Kirk’s death paid no mind to the two children gunned down in Colorado that same day, let alone the deaths of Minnesota Democrat state representative Melissa Hortman and her husband several weeks before (indeed, while Democrats offered their kindest words for a fallen fascist this week, Republicans repeatedly ridiculed Hortman’s assassination when it happened).

The prevalence of so much violence in this country means that it is humanly impossible to care equally for every instance of its occurrence. The times people chose to express concern, therefore, say much about where they stand. It speaks volumes, for example, that many Democrats (politicians and supporters alike) chose to express grief over the death of a fascist, but deem the genocide of Palestinians as quotidian and seemingly acceptable. To paraphrase a quote attributed to Jose Stalin: “The death of millions of kids is a statistic. The death of one neo Nazi is a tragedy. "

Furthermore, at a time when ICE goon squads are openly kidnapping individuals in broad daylight and occupying entire cities, this selective concern from liberals is as dangerous as it is misguided. Rather than promoting peace or establishing a moral standard, it only serves to normalize fascists and make them more powerful.

The Fallacy of the “Holier than Thou” Left

For much of Trump’s political career, Democrats have styled themselves as the side of the political spectrum tasked with upholding moral standards. While Trump continuously offends, ridicules, threatens, and in many other ways belittles his opponents, Democrats sought to adopt a gracious and dignified approach in their manner and speech. If Trump were the devil, Democrats would be the saints.

This was encapsulated in former First Lady Michelle Obama’s rallying cry of “When we go low, they go high!!!” at an October 2016 rally. Trump trounced Democrats mere weeks later.

Democrats took their 2020 victory as a sign that this moralistic approach was popular. Biden continuously evoked a “battle for the soul of the nation” when contrasting himself with Trump. Democrats of all levels took up the call of political sainthood, styling themselves as the nice, caring party opposing the big, bad orange man. Voters in 2024 were not impressed.

There are many reasons why this approach is ineffective. One is that voters want fighters, not saints, to protect their bottom lines. It’s nice that Democrats didn’t want to say mean things against anyone, but that does nothing for the housing or affordability crises.

The other reason is, of course, the hypocrisy of it all. Obama and Biden both joined the chorus of “this violence has no place in our country“ following Kirk’s death, despite personally perpetrating the same or worse. Obama, for example, must have forgotten that he authorized the extrajudicial killing of the de facto Charlie Kirk of Al Qaeda when he approved the drone strike on radical cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Obama’s use of drone warfare killed thousands of people during his presidency, many of whom were innocent people. There is no better example than the aforementioned strike on al-Awlaki, which also killed his al-Awlaki’s son, a 16-year-old American boy. At least Kirk’s shooter can boast a lack of collateral damage.

As for Biden, what is there to say? The notion that a man can claim any type of moral superiority while openly supporting and funding some of the worst atrocities of the 21st century in Gaza was always asinine.

Liberals Need to Stop Demanding “Perfect Victimhood”

One of the most insidious aspects of an oppressive system happens when society collectively expects victims of oppression, past and present, to be noble, docile, and submissive in their oppression. A failure to be a “perfect victim” renders one undeserving of liberation.

We see this when Black liberation is discussed in the U.S. Slaves like Nat Turner and Toussaint Louverture were extremists, the bad slaves ruining it for the rest of the bunch. Uncle Tom and his cabin deserved emancipation, not the ones who dared take liberty for themselves.

We needn’t even go into the past to see this dynamic; we see it currently in Gaza as well. The Hamas attack on October 7th is framed as an unacceptable act of violence against innocent people. That it was the result of decades of Israeli apartheid and oppression is so anathema to the liberal psyche that some Democrats want to make it illegal to even utter those very words.

Liberals demanding empathy in the wake of Kirk’s death are, willingly or not, upholding this “perfect victim” trope rather than focusing on fighting the fascists in power. In doing so, they effectively support Trump’s authoritarianism by ostracizing those who are righteously angry at people like Kirk, while at the same time doing nothing to capitalize on a significant political moment. They are, in effect, simultaneously the crabs in the bucket and the frogs in the hot water.

“We cannot lose our humanity!” some will say. I would argue that not holding space for anger is more inhuman than wishing a fascist dead.

“But we cannot make Kirk a martyr!” others will cry. This concern is overblown. Unfortunately, we are so desensitized by the frequent occurrences of political violence that Kirk will be an afterthought for most in a news cycle or two.

“But this will give Trump and MAGA a reason to commit further violence!” The reality is that they weren’t struggling to find one. Trump and the MAGA gang have already blamed Kirk’s death on the left, despite Kirk’s killer coming from a Republican household and steeping himself in far-right content. Worrying about displeasing Trump and his goons is as cowardly as it is pointless.

Embracing an Intolerance of the Intolerant

Writing during the throes of World War II, philosopher Karl Popper offered the best explanation of the dangers of liberals’ empathy towards Kirk. To uphold a tolerant society, Popper posited, we must suppress intolerant actors like Kirk, or suffer the destruction of said society. To hear him tell it:

To be clear, Kirk was never interested in the “rational argument” Popper mentions. His so-called “debates” on college campuses were not efforts for common ground, but rather an effort to undermine liberal talking points through baseless ranting and overedited responses. Kirk may well have inspired a whole genre of supposed “debate” content designed to create further division and platform extremists.

Furthermore, TPUSA is not a benign think tank but a militant network for the recruitment of fascist operatives used to undermine the American education system. In addition to spreading fascist propaganda, TPUSA chapters track professors and school programs that promote inclusion and tolerance for the purpose of destroying them through threats and intimidation.

Liberals must therefore do away with the nonsensical self-policing and go on the offensive. Rather than worrying about being seen as morally superior, they must begin a concerted effort to ostracize and marginalize fascist factions like TPUSA and their followers. They must begin to treat them and their followers as the terrorists that they are. Luckily, they have the truth on their side. Studies show that the far-right commits about six times more violence in the U.S. than left-wing actors. Most far-right terrorists are groomed via organizations like Kirk’s and swear allegiance directly to Trump himself, making it easier to make those connections.

Senator Elizabeth Warren made a good start:

Rhetoric is just the start, however. The left should also borrow a page from the far right and ostracize far-right sympathizers in any way possible. Individuals should be named, shamed, and, when possible, fired for their intolerance. Anyone who has espoused fascist ideologies should be banned from acquiring a gun, visiting schools, and restricted from as many public places as possible.

The MAGA regime will not go away via nice words and moral posturing. Only through radical intolerance of the intolerant can we hope to rid ourselves of scum like Kirk and Trump.

Last week, President Biden issued a full pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Hunter was convicted of federal gun charges in June and pleaded guilty to federal tax offenses in September; he was set to be sentenced on both charges in a few weeks. In defending the pardon, Biden cited his belief that politics had interfered with the judicial process.

This seemingly unprecedented move elicited reactions from both sides of the aisle. Predictably, Trump crowed about the pardon being a miscarriage of justice and even asked for his own hush money trial to be tossed out because of the pardon. A handful of centrist Democrats, meanwhile, took turns clutching their proverbial pearls.

Worse yet was the flurry of bad takes from the journalist and pundit class. The AP called the pardon “a threat to democratic norms” and contradictory to the notion that everyone is above the law. NYT columnist Bret Stephens denounced Biden’s pardon and said it was “rank mendacity, political hypocrisy, naked self-dealing”. The Washington Post was worried whether Biden’s pardon would embolden Trump to undermine the rule of law.

It’s as if these people are writing from a different universe, one in which Trump hasn’t existed as an existential threat to democracy for eight years. Despite years of Trump’s threats to norms, outright hypocrisy, and naked self-dealing, neither Stephens nor many other MSM journalists ever mustered the courage to call him out with the same forcefulness as they mustered for Biden.

And the notion that this will embolden Trump? Trump has already stated clearly that he will undermine the rule of law to pursue political enemies. After two impeachments, multiple criminal trials, and an election win, it is the height of naivety to think that it will be Biden’ pardon, of all things, that will push Trump to break the rules. He is going to do it, regardless of what anyone does in the next two months.

First off, let’s set the record straight on Biden’s pardon. To start with, Biden’s pardon is neither unprecedented nor novel. This was not the first time a president has pardoned a family member, nor were Hunter Biden’s crimes the most serious wrongdoing by a presidential relative to elicit a pardon. The first pardon of a relative was Bill Clinton, who granted clemency for the drug conviction of his brother. The second was Donald Trump himself, who pardoned his son-in-law’s father Charles Kushner of multiple crimes including filing false tax returns, lying to the Federal Election Commission, and retaliating against a witness, all of which are more serious than Hunter Biden’s crimes.

Second, there does appear to be irregularities with Hunter Biden’s case. According to Ryan Reilly of NBC, legal experts have rarely seen the charges Hunter Biden faced taken up by prosecutors. Rather than a sweet deal, Hunter Biden seemed to be getting the short end of the stick. The constant pressure from MAGA Republicans in Congress may therefore have succeeded in influencing the carriage of justice.

Whether that makes Biden’s pardon justifiable is up for debate. Most of us don’t like to see rich white men get away with crimes due to their privilege. President Biden did also go back on his word not to interfere with his son’s case. On the other hand, we should also not favor anyone to be punished unjustly and more harshly than necessary. Given Trump’s comments and the aforementioned Republican witch hunt, there is a high probability that Hunter Biden would have suffered unjust punishment while in custody. Many do not take this into account in their judgments of Biden’s pardon.

More important, however, is the false equivalency set up by the MSM’s alarmism. The notion that this pardon is somehow a grave erosion of democratic norms is asinine compared to the litany of wrongdoing Trump has been setting up since the election. Trump has appointed a litany of extremists and far-right zealots to run major aspects of the government. Two of them- Matt Gaetz and Pete Heseth- are credibly accused of rape. His FBI pick, Kash Patel, has threatened to use the agency to jail journalists. Project 2025 architect Brendan Carr, the nominee to head the Federal Communications Commission, is likely to undermine regulations to propel right-wing propaganda. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence, may well be a Russian asset. And Charles Kushner, the guy Trump pardoned? He will likely serve as the country’s next ambassador to France.

All of this somehow did not elicit the same amount of outrage and pearl-clutching from the MSM. The aforementioned individuals have made literal threats to democracy. To suggest that the pardoning of Hunter Biden is what is going to erode American democracy given this context is irresponsible journalism.

Why does all this matter?

The mainstream media has a legitimate role to play in both Donald Trump’s initial rise, as well as his return to power. During his first term, the MSM routinely delved into bad faith false equivalencies and distracting headlines while covering the Trump administration’s wrongdoing. During his reelection, they sought to sane-wash Trump’s criminality and fascistic predilections. This is to say nothing of the news outlets that yielded to cowardice and corporate interests in declining to endorse Kamala Harris.

Now, Trump has little to lose and a lot to gain by undermining democratic institutions on his way to autocratic rule. We need journalists to do their jobs, which is to provide accurate and nuanced coverage rather than seeking a nonexistent “balance” to assuage right-wing fascists. As journalism professor Jonathan Foster once said:

“If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f**king window and find out which is true.”

Only time will tell whether the MSM is up to this task.

That said, here is my best guess of the outcome, along with some other interesting things we may see once all the votes are counted. I am basing this not just on polling, but also on reports and anecdotes on the ground in key battleground states and elsewhere.

Harris will win (by a hair), and the US will have its first woman President.

Polls have shown Harris and Trump to be neck and neck for the last several months. All seven battleground states have consistently reported outcomes within the margin of error; in essence a statistical coin flip between the candidates.

Some of this is due to some sketchy practices on the part of pollsters. A fear of getting it wrong has led many polling firms to massage the numbers, eliminating outliers to make their projections show a tighter race. This practice, known as herding, calls into question the validity of polling at a time when disinformation and false narratives are plaguing the American electoral system. It needs to end.

With all that said, it is safe to say that all seven of the battleground states will be close. Harris may end up winning them all; Trump may end up winning them all (I think the former outcome is more likely). The most likely outcome is somewhere between those two extremes.

Polls seem to be swinging in Harris’ direction right when it matters most. Many recent polls have her either up or in a better position, even if it’s within the margin of error. There seems to be some some undercounting of women voters in particular, which pollsters are starting to try to account for. Some polls have Democrats shooting for the moon. A recent poll by the Des Moines register has Harris up in Iowa. Yes, that Iowa.

More importantly, Harris seems to have more votes in the bank already. Early votes are trending in her direction in battleground states. She may have half a million or more votes in Pennsylvania alone by the time polls open on Election Day.

All of this leads me to believe that Harris will win. Her easiest path is the one I think is most likely. I am projecting her to win three swing states in the Great Lakes region- Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania- thereby shoring up the proverbial “Blue Wall” of northern states. These are the three states she has generally polled best in, and also the states where Harris has put in the best ground game.

If she wins all three states, she will only need Nebraska’s second district to give her the 270 votes she needs to win. Luckily, she is well ahead, in that race:

Trump will sweep the Sun Belt and Ohio, but fall short

Which is a good thing, because Harris may well fall short in every other battleground state. Harris has not polled as well for as long as in the aforementioned states, and a number of factors may have her fall just short in all of them.

In Ohio, Trump has won in two successive elections and has led in most polls throughout, so a reversal of that trend is unlikely. In North Carolina, turnout will be dampened due to the aftermath of hurricane Helene, and any reduction in turnout is almost always to Democrats’ detriment. The same can be said for Georgia, where tepid support from key immigrant groups adds to Democrats’ challenges.

The best news for Harris in the Sun Belt may come from Nevada. John Ralston, editor of the Nevada Independent and a premier state electoral expert, is calling the race for Harris by a razor thin margin of 0.3 percent. This is the most positive credible poll she’s received so far, but it’s still too close for me to get on board. In 2020, Democrats benefitted in Nevada from a good ground game conducted during the primaries by Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign. Harris did not have the same luxury this time around. Trump’s rising vote share Latino voters (more on this below) will therefore put him just over the top in Nevada and Arizona.

We will see less deep reds and blues, and more pinks and light blues on the 2024 map

You will likely not see as many fun-colored maps as mine on Election Day, but I wanted to highlight this important trend. 2024 will see less “safe” states for either party. Changing demographics and migration patterns, as well as the candidates’ campaign strategies will all serve to make previously uncontested states closer than before.

Trump’s focus on turning out apolitical men will see him increase his vote share in urban areas along the East Coast and Rust Belt. His xenophobic propaganda about migrants will also gain him votes in border areas. Most of this will not help him electorally; it doesn’t matter whether he loses New York by 20 points or 40 points. But it may help him secure Ohio, and make future races in rural parts of the East Coast, as well as states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Minnesota more competitive.

On the other side, Harris’ strategy of focusing on independent and disaffected Republican voters will also see her get larger vote shares in the South and Midwest. Like Trump’s East Coast gains, there may not be any electoral gains to be had (unless Iowa really is in play). However, the increase in people moving from large metropolitan areas on the coasts to smaller cities in the Sun Belt will make these Democratic gains more likely to continue. This will give Democrats a better electoral map going forward, with potentially more competitive local races in the South and in the middle states. Texas and Florida would be the ultimate prizes. Democrats will very likely fall short there this time around, but any result over 45% should have them daring to dream big for 2028.

We will see a record number of split tickets

Today’s divisive political climate has made split-ticket voters- those who vote for candidates from different parties on their ballot- more of a rarity. Democrats’ hopes of retaining the Senate may well depend on them, however. Two of the most vulnerable Senators- John Tester of Montana and Sherrod Brown of Ohio- would benefit greatly from Trump supporters who either don’t vote down ballot or still favor them as the more well known candidates.

Harris’ strategy of courting Republican voters sick of Trump will result in an uptick of the the opposite type of split ticket voter, however. Unlike the cultish Trump supporters, never-Trump Republican voters are high information voters. They are more likely to follow local politics and favor traditional Republican policies such as low taxes, immigration restrictions, and a conservative foreign policy. If Harris is successful is getting them to vote for her, that’s as far as their support for Democrats will go on Tuesday.

Trump will gain with Latino voters, but not by as much as he could have

For much of the 21st century, Democrats have largely taken Latino voters for granted. They have foregone extensive engagement with this fast growing group of voters, thinking Republican xenophobia, esepcially after Trump rose to power, will naturally secure support for their side.

This has been a losing strategy so far. Years of targeted outreach by Republicans have eroded Democratic support. The GOP has expertly identified and engaged Latino voters they can most likely sway (religious voters, non college educated men, voters who may see undocumented migrants as “cutting the line”). It has paid dividends. Despite Trump’s rabid and hateful rhetoric, he has nonetheless taken advantage of Democratic ineptitude and has increase his share of Latino voters. In 2020, he received more than a quarter of the Latino vote. Just over a month ago, he was polling at 40 percent, enough to make a Republican landslide a distinct possibility.

Harris and Democrats were recently given a lifeline, however. Comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s racist comments about Puerto Rico seems to have made a mark on a lot of Latino voters, plunging Trump’s numbers:

If these numbers hold, it would likely give Harris the edge in Pennsylvania, the battleground state with the most Puerto Rican voters. I am not sure if Trump’s numbers will fall enough among other Latino voters to put Harris over the top in Nevada and Arizona. But a few minutes of racist “comedy” has increased the Democrats’ chances for an election landslide.

Key voting bloc to watch: pro-Palestinian voters

The genocide in Gaza has served as the most deplorable aspect of the Democratic platform. Harris has so far been loathe to distance herself from President Biden’s steadfast support of Israeli atrocity. In fact, her campaign has done everything possible to distance herself from any voter for whom Palestine is a key issue. This will be a key reason why she will not win as many votes nationally as Biden did in 2020.

As always, it depends where she loses those votes. Michigan, in particular, is the biggest source of concern. It has one of the largest populations of Muslim voters in the country. During the primaries, over 100,000 people voted “uncommitted” as a protest against President Biden. If the same number don’t show up for Harris, it could jeopardize her chances there (and, by extension, her chances at the White House).

So far, this scenario does not seem likely. As mentioned, Harris’ ground game has been strong in Michigan. The pro-Palestinian bloc seems to be split on whether or not to back Harris. Some Muslim leaders and “Uncommitted” voters have come around to endorsing her. However, if this is not enough for Harris in Michigan and elsewhere, Democrats will only have themselves to blame.

The gender divide will be historic, and will define politics going forward

In many ways, the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is as a reflection of how the country views gender equality and what it means to be a man and woman in American society.

Kamala Harris represents the culmination of decades of progress for women’s rights and an equal opportunity for everyone, regardless of their gender. Harris is the embodiment of the ideal woman leader: intelligent, ambitious, professional, with ability to demonstrate grace and empathy when needed.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, represents the toxic backlash to woman’s progress. His persona is entirely based on a masculinity of subjugation and dominance, one that relies on outdated tropes about manhood that appeal to men who feel forgotten by a rapidly changing society. Trump’s followers see racial and gender equality as a zero sum game, one in which progress for women and people of color come at the expense of men (white men, in particular).

Both candidates have leaned into the gender divide. Harris has put reproductive freedom at the forefront of her campaign, spurred on by the Dobbs Supreme Court decision reversing women’s right to abortion. She is hoping this, as well as women’s anger over Trump’s misogyny in general, will carry her to the White House. Trump, for his part, has maintained his misogynistic rhetoric, while painting a socioeconomic vision whereby the country will be dominated by men once it is purged from migrants and other minorties.

Harris’ strategy seems to be more likely to be successful. She is gaining with women, particularly young women, at a greater rate than her losses among men. Furthermore, Trump’s gains among Black men, initially thought to be an increase in the double digits, now seem to be closer to statistical insignificance. Harris’ focus on women also gives her an advantage with likely voters, given that women tend to vote more consistently than men.

As mentioned before, the mostly male-dominated pollsters are likely underestimating the degree to which women are turning out for Harris. The degree of that underestimation will determine if this is a small Harris win or a landslide. The key demographic is white women, particularly those who are over 40 and/or have not gone to college. Historically, white women have tended to vote Republican, with some studies indicating they do so to preserve their proximity to white male privilege. White women favored Trump in both of the last elections, and Trump even increased his vote share this time around. Whether abortion rights, or just simply being sick of Trumpian masculinity, will lead white women to buck this trend is yet to be determined.

If women elect Kamala Harris to the White House, it would change the makeup and vision for American governance for years to come.

With less than a week to go in the election, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris has done little to persuade leftist and pro-Palestinian voters to vote for her. More than a year on, Israel’s genocide in Gaza continues unabated, faithfully backed by the Biden administration and over 70 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is now unleashing terrifying attacks upon Lebanon and threatening to draw the entire Middle East into a dangerous regional war. Democrats only respond by repeating the Zionist mantra that “Israel has a right to defend itself”. Perhaps most damning of all was the decision by Democrats not to include any Palestinian voices at the Democratic National Convention. An admission of indifference on the issue, if ever there was one.

Vice President Harris has offered little hope that much will change if she takes office. While stressing that she is committed to a ceasefire and de-escalation in the region, Harris has been steadfast in her commitment to Israel’s defense above all else. Indeed, much of her stance seems like a copy/paste job from Biden’s stances before her:

On other issues, Harris has similarly ignored her progressive base. In her debate against Donald Trump in September, Harris seemed rather uninterested in pushing for progress on many important issues. On climate change, Harris seemed more eager to boast about her support for fracking than to meaningfully address an issue that is destroying the world as we know it. On immigration, Harris’ lack of both empathy and general coherence on the issue was rendered virtually invisible by Donald Trump’s rabid xenophobia. On the economy, Harris could not articulate a compelling case for addressing America’s structural, systemic inequalities. 

For many leftists, supporting Harris and the Democrats is akin to upholding everything they stand against: Zionism, neocolonialism, structural racism, corporate capitalism, and a host of other evils. Many may feel betrayed by a Democratic establishment that too often seems to tacitly support these evils. 

Progressives have also been repeatedly maligned for their efforts to address injustices. Actions taken to end U.S. support for the genocide in Gaza- from nationwide protests to school encampments to voting uncommitted in the Democratic primary- have been unfairly and maliciously attacked by neoliberal Democrata. Hillary Clinton, a former Secretary of State turned de-facto Israeli ambassador, called protestors “ignorant”. Both she and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi separately (and baselessly) accused protestors of being influenced by outside forces, such as Russia. Local Democratic officials such as New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser employed police violence on protestors, most of whom were peacefully and legally exercising their right to free speech. Even the slightest criticism of the Biden administration has hysterically been shouted down as “helping Trump” by Democratic stalwarts. 

(One notable exception, in fairness, has been Minnesota governor and VP nominee Tim Walz, who is one of the few Democratic politicians to praise uncommitted voters and pro-Palestine protestors as the “civically engaged” citizens that they are.)

Given this, many progressives may be angry at the suggestion that they should support Kamala Harris. And though they are justified in their anger, the brutal reality is that this moral righteousness alone does little to change the current political circumstances. As it stands, progressives do not have many mechanisms to hold Democrats accountable. They have few allies at any level of government, are at a steep financial and political disadvantage compared to their corporatist opponents, and are crowded out of a media environment obsessed with the prospect of a second Trump presidency. 

In short, if they would like to see a change in the status quo, progressives need to get themselves some power. While it may seem counterintuitive, supporting Kamala Harris provides them with the best way to do so.

Here’s why:

Voting Out Trump Eliminates Neoliberals’ Biggest Political Advantage

Progressives are correct in feeling forgotten by a Democratic Party that has never really treated them as a meaningful coalition member over the last decade. After Trump’s win in 2016, Democrats’ immediate response was to try to win back the mythical “Obama-Trump voters”, a group of supposedly disaffected white voters in Rust Belt swing states who were in reality increasingly racist and xenophobic voters who were never going to vote for them anyway. 

Eight years later, Democrats have similarly committed themselves to a campaign strategy targeting independent voters and disaffected Republicans rather than shoring up a forgotten majority of citizens yearning for significant changes in the political system. To assuage their target voting bloc, comprised mostly of suburban white people over 40, Democrats have given up on many of their previous commitments. Gone are the promises for bold action on climate change, upholding human rights, addressing police violence, and supporting immigrants. Fracking, “safe borders”, and “law and order” are all the rage now. 

Their only strategy to get progressives on their side has been scaremongering tactics around the prospect of a second Trump presidency, citing threats such as Project 2025, the prospect of Trump selecting more Supreme Court justices, and all that comes with a fascist presidency. As if disaffected voters such as Arab Americans are ignorant of what a Trump presidency may entail for them.  

However, as long as Trump remains a political force, Democrats have very little incentive to change course. Indeed, the threat of a Trump presidency provides Democrats with the best political cover to avoid policy changes. Since Trump came into office in 2016, the Democrats’ general political message has been some version of “we are better than Trump”. This mantra has been used to avoid any criticism progressives may level against them. 

Funding a genocide in Gaza? Still better than Trump. 

Pumping out more oil than ever? Still better than Trump.

Upholding Trump’s immigration policies? Still (somehow) better than Trump. And if you dare say otherwise, you’re a Trump supporter and that’s that.

In the face of the overwhelming threat that is Trumpism, “we are better than Trump” messaging has admittedly paid electoral dividends. Democrats have won three major elections since 2016. Their electoral hopes in 2024 largely rest upon voters turning out against Trump’s most egregious policies, such as rolling back abortion rights. Some may point to the unpopularity of President Biden as a sign that “we are are better than Trump” is not a successful strategy. However, the fact that Democrats were able to gain a surge in momentum solely by switching over to Kamala Harris proves otherwise.   

Progressives would be right to point out that they have played a critical role in Democratic successes. Large-scale protests during the Trump era, particularly in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, served as the starkest sign of opposition to his regime. The 2020 election also saw a record amount of progressives get elected to Congress. In 2022, an unprecedented youth turnout gave Republicans one of the worst performances in a midterm election in recent history.

And yet, there isn’t much politically that progressives can show for their efforts. Despite progressive gains down-ballot in 2020, progressive Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders actually lost support compared to 2016. The socialist brand in particular is not a winning one; a 2022 Pew Research study found positive perceptions of socialism to be declining among Americans in general, and Democrats in particular. This year, pro-Palestinian progressives Cori Bush and Jamal Bowman were handily defeated in primaries after Zionist organizations poured millions of dollars against them. 

It would be tempting, therefore, for progressives to conclude that they should cease their cooperation with the Democratic Party. Doing so now will make progressives a weaker political force, regardless of who is in the White House. 

If Democrats defeat Trump in November without the support of progressives, it will cement the power and influence of neoliberal voices in the Harris administration and the party at large, marginalizing progressive ones potentially to the point of irrelevance. If Trump wins, Democrats will again go back to the “we are better than Trump” strategy, repeating the same cycle over the next 4-8 years. 

The best course of action for progressives, therefore, is to make themselves active and important coalition members in the fight against Trump. In doing so, they would provide themselves with the best enabling environment to grow their brand, while eliminating neoliberals’ political cover. Without Trump as an existential threat, Democrats will no longer be able to use the same strategy they have been using since 2016. As centrist Democrat voters become less engaged in a post-Trump era (a very high likelihood given the particularly high unfavorability of Trump), they will need left-leaning voters more than ever, giving progressives unprecedented leverage. More importantly, Democrats would run out of excuses for upholding neoliberal policies such as their support for Israel, making it easier to remove Zionists and move the party to do the right thing.

Jill Stein Ain’t It

The two-party system has fewer and fewer proponents these days. Americans, conservative and liberal alike, feel less and less represented by their representatives, and support for the current Congres is at historic lows. So why not rally around a third-party candidate this year?

If progressives are truly committed to fighting for positive change, voting third party in 2024 is not a viable solution. Some may protest this take as an upholding of the two-party status quo. Far from it. More parties are needed in government now more than ever, but voting for Jill Stein or other third-party candidates in this election will do nothing to achieve that. 

Jill Stein is particularly unworthy of progressive support. The overwhelming evidence of her close ties to Russia should be a non-starter for leftists who claim they stand for inclusive democracy and justice for all. Her blatant hypocrisy in railing against evil corporations while profiting off corporate investments should similarly make her non-viable for progressives.

More recently, Stein reportedly hired a consultancy firm tied to a January 6th rioter, the most damning step yet in her chummy dalliance with Republicans. GOP operatives are likewise helping Cornel West’s bid to appear on campaign ballots. Whether progressives like it or not, this year’s third-party options are simply useful idiots carrying water for the Trump campaign. 

Furthermore, if progressives want someone to blame for the failures of third parties, look no further than Stein herself. Under her leadership, the Green Party has lost almost 100,000 registered members. The party boasts a mere 143 elected officeholders nationwide, mostly low-level officials. They have not come close to winning a seat at any state or federal race. In short, the party has done little outside of inflating Stein’s apparently unscrupulous ego. Progressives deserve better.

The Time For Progressivism is Now in 2026 (and Beyond!)

If progressives want to break the two-party system, or simply elect more progressive Democrats, they need to pursue a longer-term strategy. There are many challenges to achieving this. The American political system is the most illiberal in the rich world, both in its structure and execution. It is hard to break through in a winner-take-all political system, especially one marred by decades of Republican voter suppression tactics and legalized bribery thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. 

Neoliberal super PACs and Zionist organizations have hundreds of millions of dollars, an army of lawyers, and enormous political influence. AIPAC alone has spent over $100 million on this election, one of the biggest election interference operations in U.S. history (that strangely seems not to make headlines…)

Luckily, progressives have several advantages. As previously mentioned, the public is disgusted with the political system. Most voters are unhappy with their choices and will be looking for alternatives the next time around. Fertile ground for change, if there ever was one. 

And it’s not as if leftists need new ideas. The progressive base represents the Democratic party’s lifeblood policy-wise. Most of Democrats’ biggest victories in recent history- from gay marriage to healthcare to economic reforms- started out as progressive policies derided as “unrealistic” by neoliberals. President Biden’s biggest policy achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, adopted many of its elements from the Green New Deal, a progressive climate change resolution introduced by progressive Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In short, Democrats need progressives more than centrists and neoliberals would like to admit. 

On Palestine, there are also reasons for optimism. AIPAC’s spending in 2024 should be seen less as a show of force and more as an act of desperation. They need to spend so much because they can no longer rest on the laurels of American indifference. After a year of genocide, a significant portion of voters are no longer willing to support Israel unequivocally. The Zionist vice-grip is breaking. 

This is why getting rid of Trump is so crucial. Without Trump, leftists will have the clean slate that comes with a defeated Republican Party and a Democratic Party in need of a post-Trump identity. This will allow for major actions on the policy and electoral front. 

In a post-Trump world, Pro-Palestinian activists will have their best shot at taking down Israeli-funded Democrats. As mentioned, there are more than 70 Zionist Democrats in the House, in addition to more than 30 in the Senate. No progress on holding Israel accountable is possible without a political culling of that voting bloc. Without the “lesser evil” messaging to hide behind, many of these Zionist Democrats will be vulnerable in 2026. All efforts must be made to primary as many of them as possible. Even just a few of them taken out of office will shift the political calculus of the party. 

The same principles apply to those who want to build out a third-party option. Without Trump’s fascism taking up the political space, many voters will be eager for new options. If third parties set up grassroots infrastructure in Democratic strongholds (D.C., New York, and New England states come to mind), they can begin to put pressure on local Democratic parties unaccustomed to opposition. Jurisdictions that use ranked-choice voting should also be prime targets. A likable, non-GOP supported third-party candidate running and winning against an unpopular Democrat in a high-profile race is the first big step towards breaking apart the two-party system. 

This, and more, are very real possibilities for 2026 and beyond for a progressive coalition.

We Need Progressive Voices Now More Than Ever 

Supporting Harris in November does mean staying silent on criticism of Democrats. Progressive should still push for a ceasefire and other progressive causes even if they are turning people out to vote for Harris. If Harris wins, she owns all of the malice left behind by the Biden administration, and she should be treated as such. Her inauguration should be marked by protests rather than celebrations if she continues to support genocide. 

Protests and other forms of activism are vital in mobilizing grassroots support for progressive causes. However, at some point, such support needs to materialize into more seats at decision-making tables. While Democrats have seemingly shunned their progressive base, it would be foolish for progressives to return the favor. A long-term approach that starts with getting rid of Donald Trump can end with a political system in which leftists can command a legitimate space. 

And we need this to happen because we need progressive ideals, now more than ever. The Biden administration’s Gaza policy has destroyed the international human rights framework, bringing us closer to worldwide conflict. Our planet is dying at a rate that can no longer sustain centrist half-measures. Global migration due to both of these aforementioned issues will put a strain on established notions of borders, trade, capitalism, government services, and more. 

Crafting bold solutions to these complex problems can only happen if progressives get off the political sidelines. 

Three weeks after the first presidential debate, Democrats have completely stalled their efforts to defeat Donald Trump this November. After a subpar debate performance by President Biden last month, an ever-growing chorus of Democrats have clamored for Biden to step down. Currently, as many as 20 Democratic members of Congress have called for Biden to quit, including members in vulnerable seats, such as Senators Michael Bennett of Colorado and Jon Tester of Montana.

Biden’s campaign has not been able to quell the defections. Calls with Democratic leadership and presidential events such as the recent NATO summit have done little to quell discontent. Biden’s recent COVID diagnosis has left him isolated even further. There are rumors that he may drop out as soon as this weekend.

The effort seems to be spearheaded by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and former President Barack Obama. Both have said they concluded that Biden needed to drop out after meeting with him following the debate. However, their change of heart is suspiciously in tandem with that of a slate of megadonors who have said the same. In recent weeks, donors to the party have threatened to withhold funding and have used their influence with members of Congress they own have leverage over to get Biden to step down. Some, like George Clooney, have even gone public with their concerns.

It all seems like the stuff of a good political drama. The righteous protagonists use savvy backroom politics to outmaneuver their opponent and save their country. Except, this is not “Scandal”, and Pelosi is not Olivia Pope.

In reality, what we are seeing is nonsensical political theater and the disenfranchisement of the Democratic base. Regardless of what we may think of President Biden, he has been elected for the party’s nomination by Democratic voters. By pressuring him to resign, Pelosi, Obama, and their donor posse are essentially intending to override this vote and, in doing so, undermine democratic processes. All while Donald Trump, their actual opponent, is threatening to do the same (and worse) if he becomes president again.

The Democratic mutineers would argue they have sound reasoning to do so. Biden is old, they say, and clearly cannot handle the rigors of a presidential campaign. The polls, they say, show that Trump will defeat Biden handily if he stays in. In order to avoid this, a younger, more charismatic candidate is needed.

However, none of their assertions stand up to scrutiny and data:

Wait?! Biden’s Old?! Since When?!

The crux of the recent criticism around Biden has been his advanced age. That Biden is old is undeniable, and his age may well be a problem in performing his duties for four more years. The list of blunders and “senior moments” are too many to count. Voters are noticing too; as many as 70% are not confident in his ability to perform the duties of the presidency.

However, Pelosi and co. are acting like they just found out Biden is old three weeks ago. No one raised any issues about Biden’s age until after the first debate (i.e. when donors started to). To pretend that this is all of a sudden a new issue is disingenuous. It would be one thing if there were calls for him to step down a year or two before the election. Better yet, they could have put forth a primary challenger to Biden if they were so concerned about his ability to beat Trump.

But to make it an issue now, after he secured the nomination and just over three months before the election, is sheer political temerity.

If Biden truly cannot go on with his campaign, he should step aside. However, this should be a private decision based on medical advice. Last I checked, Pelosi is not a doctor, and George Clooney only played one on TV. Their opinions on one’s fitness, therefore, don’t really mean much.

Unpacking the Polling Hysteria

Many Democratic lawmakers are adamant that the polls show that Biden will lose in a landslide. Senator Bennett declared Trump would flip the Senate and gain seats in the House on his way to victory. Pelosi apparently told Biden the same privately.

If this is true, then they need to show the public what polls they are looking at. The publicly available ones tell a completely different story. An average of polls done by the site FiveThirtyEight has Trump leading over Biden by a little over 3 percent, which is well within a standard margin of error (i.e. Trump’s projected lead may be completely nonexistent). The site’s poll tracker simulations actually have Biden, yes Biden, winning 53 percent of the time.

Recent media reports will have you believe Donald Trump is rising in popularity. This is also not based on tangible data. Recent polls find that Trump’s favorability is in the low 40s, about the same as Biden’s, and that over half of the country has an unfavorable view of him. This is despite the fact that Trump had an attempt on his life last week, is enjoying a bump in popularity due to the RNC, and is currently campaigning against an embattled opponent. It can’t get much better for Trump at the moment, but it can get much worse for him later on.

When you drill down to state-level polling (which, due to the electoral college, is what really matters), the picture is more ambiguous, and interesting. Trump is indeed leading in all battleground states, though by variable margins. However, when looking at the down-ballot races in those states, Democrats have big leads over their Republican opponents:

The double-digit gap between Biden’s numbers and those of candidates in those respective states is unprecedented. In the case of Pennsylvania, the gap is a whopping 16 points (Biden is down 4 points, but Senator Bob Casey leads his challenger by 12). In Arizona, where Biden is down by as many as 10 points in some polls, but Senate candidate Ruben Gallego is up 7, it may be even more stark.

It’s tempting to paint this as an indictment of Biden’s unpopularity, but that would ignore the entirety of American electoral history. While there are people who vote for candidates from different parties on their ballot (ie “splitting their ticket”), most voters generally vote for candidates from a single party down the line. In fact, as politics have become more divisive, fewer and fewer people split the ticket when voting. In other words, the likelihood that more than 15 percent of voters in Pennsylvania will actually vote for a Democrat as Senator but Trump as president is next to zero.

It’s hard to make sense of polls at the moment and, if you think about it, that makes sense in a way. This election has been completely crazy. Between Trump’s indictments, his unhinged fascism in the form of Project 2025, an ongoing genocide in Gaza, the attempt on Trump’s life, and now an intra-party squabble with the Democrats, there are so many factors influencing voters that the potential for noise in the data is quite high.

What is clear though, is that the notion that Trump has a big lead- as anti-Biden Dems have claimed- is just not based in reality. Pelosi and co. also seem to forget that polls are snapshots in time. They only reflect (to a degree) public sentiment at the time of the poll. So Biden may be down in mid-July, but the race is close, and there is plenty of time until November. The popularity of down-ballot Dems hints at a path for the Biden campaign to improve their fortunes and win the election (yes, I’m serious).

Centrists would see that if they spent more time analyzing the data rather than the vibes of their donors.

[Insert Name Here] for President!

The most asinine (and dangerous) aspect of the bid to remove Biden is that the people aiming to do so don’t have a plan for who would succeed him. They have been so focused on Biden’s age and (current) unpopularity, that they have completely ignored the difficulty of changing a candidate so soon before an election, let alone the process for doing so.

Here again, Democrats are being led by bad-faith arguments and donor angst rather than rationality and data. For the last three weeks, there has been consistent clamor from the news pundit class about how a younger candidate is more likely to defeat Trump. The talking heads are quick to show polls to hammer in the point. A recent Emerson poll found that 53.7 percent of swing state voters said they would vote for a younger Democrat over Trump.

While that sounds nice, “younger Democrat” is not an actual person. And when you do replace Biden with an actual alternative candidate in polls, the results are not encouraging.

VP Kamala Harris is the most logical choice to replace Biden. However, she fares little better against Trump than Biden does. Polls from FiveThirtyEight have her losing to Trump by between 2 and 5 points, roughly the same as Biden. Another poll found that only 6 in 10 Democrats think she would do a good job as president. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Who else? A draft memo by BlueLabs, a Democratic-funded polling group, asserts that nearly every Democrat they tested performed better than Biden by an average of three points across battleground states. Four of them- Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer- outpaced Biden by around 5 points.

This seems significant but is hardly a guarantee to defeat Trump. The candidates mentioned would theoretically be in a dead heat in some battlegrounds, while still losing in others. And that may be the best-case scenario. Keep in mind that these candidates are tested in a vacuum, and against the backdrop of an unpopular incumbent as an alternative. It is impossible to predict how they will stand up to the scrutiny of a presidential campaign.

Gazing Into the Electoral Abyss

More importantly, how would a candidate who was not on the primary ballot even become the nominee? The process to do so at this point, per the AP, is murky at best. In essence, it would involve the Democratic convention, where delegates pledged to Biden based on primary results would have to vote for another candidate. In other words, they would have to go against the will of the people and for the will of a room full of politicians and their donors.

The notion that their methods are undemocratic, that they would discourage turnout among their voter base, all to get a temporary 5 percent boost in the polls, seems lost on Pelosi and the centrist gang. That shouldn’t be particularly surprising. During the 2010s, with Obama as President and Pelosi as Speaker of the House, these brilliant tacticians caused the Democratic party to lose over 1,000 political seats nationwide.

This is not an endorsement of Biden’s candidacy. For what it’s worth, I find his support for genocide, more so than anything, as unfit for a president. However, the move by centrists to oust Biden is another evil unto its own. It reveals a condescending, paternalistic wing of the party that is more concerned with the whims of their donors, the pointless drivel of pundits on TV, and so-called “experts” on Capital Hill, rather than the actual will of their voters. They know what is best for us, it seems, and they will carry it out in their celebrity cocktail dinners and backroom dealings, whether we want them to or not.

And then, we have to shut up and vote for their new focus group-tested candidate, lest we want to endure a second Trump presidency.

And, worse of all, centrists think this is a winning strategy and message.

Vote blue in November, they will say. I know your vote didn’t matter last time, but we swear it will this time!

(Good luck fitting that on a bumper sticker).

Pelosi and co. may well succeed in their efforts. Biden may be gone by the start of the week. But this will in no way guarantee Trump will be defeated in November, and will place the election in historically unprecedented waters.

Worse yet, it will undermine some of the very values we are supposedly protecting from Trumpism.

Dear President Granberg,

My name is Jossif Ezekilov, and I am a double graduate of George Washington University and worked at the University for more than six years. I am writing to express my utter disgust at the violent attack on the pro-Palestinian encampment at University Yard and to demand that you cease your police-assisted assault on the right of pro-Palestinian students to assemble on campus freely. 

The violent clearing of the camp early Wednesday morning by Metropolitan police is an uncalled-for and undemocratic response to peaceful protests by Students for Justice in Palestine at GW and other student groups. This attack also occurred hours after students peacefully protested in front of your house, and hours before Mayor Bowser and Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith were to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee about protests at GW. A few hours after the police assault, Republican Representative and House Oversight Chairman James Comer cheerfully canceled the hearing due to the clearing of the encampment, which police themselves have said was done in cooperation with university officials. 

This chain of events demands an immediate explanation. Otherwise, one can only assume that the encampment's clearing was motivated by political considerations- and perhaps even personal pettiness- rather than a genuine concern for campus safety. If you did indeed collaborate with the Mayor’s Office, the police, and/or members of the Republican party (some of whom visited the campus last week) to endanger students in order to score political points, then you have left an indelible stain on this university and you should tender your resignation immediately. 

You are (at least for the time being) presiding over a university that markets itself as a liberal academic institution that gives students the opportunity to “come to demand change and to be that change”; “to make history”; and to “gain an education unlike any other”. Just a year ago, this University rightfully undertook a rebranding of its moniker from the problematic “Colonials” to the “Revolutionaries”, in order to reflect the spirit of GW students who “are not afraid to break boundaries and change the game. The GW Revolutionaries go beyond what is conventional or expected to focus on shifting mindsets and creating a new future for ourselves and our world.”

And yet, when GW students embodied this Revolutionary spirit, you responded with unabashed Colonialism. 

When these students came together to “demand change and to be that change” you responded by stamping out their efforts in favor of a Zionist status quo. This response is not limited to the underhanded actions on Wednesday but has been the university’s modus operandi from the start of the student protests. Merely days after the genocide in Gaza began, you condemned a vigil for Palestinians killed in the initial bombings as a “celebration of terrorism”. Then, in November, you suspended Students for Justice in Palestine at GW for a nonviolent act of protest (just like this morning, this suspension was suspiciously meted right after pressure from politicians). Several weeks later, when a truck doxing pro-Palestinian protestors arrived on campus, you reacted with meaningless bluster and inaction. And yet, after all of this, you issued a statement this Sunday that falsely and hypocritically claimed that you “support and encourage our community to speak out and engage in controversial and critical dialogues” while pleading for good faith from students when you provided none. 

When these students sought “to make history,” you steadfastly stood on the wrong side of it. In so doing, you have joined the ranks of your colleagues in other supposedly progressive universities in telling tall tales about a desire to create spaces for tomorrow’s changemakers, while violently bringing down the ones in your very sight. The students at University Yard are part of a national movement demanding nothing more than for their tuition dollars, which they will likely have to work tirelessly to pay off, not to be used to abet an active genocide. In so doing, they continue the spirit of generations of anti-war protestors, civil rights demonstrations, and other truly Revolutionary acts that have moved this country forward. 

In curtailing these students’ efforts you, and others like you, have proven yourself to be the white moderate that Dr. Martin Luther King warned us about from his Birmingham jail cell in 1963, “the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

When these students created a space to “gain an education unlike any other,” you actively destroyed this endeavor. When I visited the encampment last week, I saw none of the violence and vitriol you described in your last statement. Instead, I saw not only the most peaceful protest I have ever encountered, but also a space of empathy, understanding, and learning unlike any other. Students had organized University Yard into a high-functioning community, providing food, information, and other services (and frankly, in a more efficient manner than some University departments). Students were putting into practice skills like logistics, budgeting, public speaking, sustainability, active listening, and media training, among many others. The supposedly dangerous environment you described was little more than lectures, testimonies, film screenings, and quiet time for exams. The only source of violence was caused by a non-university member yelling insults at protestors on a bullhorn. While university police looked on disinterestedly, student organizers took control of the situation, deescalated tensions, and successfully avoided further altercations. In your inability to see this encampment as the ultimate educational opportunity, I sincerely question your competence as a university president in particular, and that of university officials in general.

When these students sought to “break boundaries and change the game,” you enforced those boundaries in bad faith to keep the “game” as it is. Here, I suspect, lies the real reason behind GW’s violent response to students’ demands. In calling for transparency and divestment, pro-Palestinian students are calling not just for an end to support of Zionism, but an end to “business as usual” for this university. Like many similar institutions, GW depends on student tuition as both a revenue source (46% as of GW’s last financial statement) and a credit line for its uninterrupted spending over the last two decades. While students do indeed invest in themselves by paying for an education at GW, they are also de facto guarantors of the large-scale real estate and other non-academic investments that boost GW’s endowment and your generous salary. What the students are demanding amounts to a change in the relationship between the student and the university, moving from a client-provider model to something closer to an investor-investee one. And while that would indeed be a positive game changer, somehow, I suspect that is not the type of change that GW officials want to highlight in the university’s flowery recruitment literature. Students might raise uncomfortable questions about whether their ever-increasing tuition bills are really worth what GW provides, especially after seeing how you treat students who ask uncomfortable questions. 

Let me assure you that, despite the best efforts of yourself and other like-minded white moderates, these students will create a new future for themselves and our world. It is your choice whether you continue to devote university efforts to order rather than justice or allow GW’s true Revolutionaries to pursue a “positive peace.”  Choosing the latter option would, in mind, entail the following actions:

• Ending your assault on pro-Palestinian students and their right to assembly on campus.

• Reversing any suspensions or disciplinary action of students involved in these protests.

• Allowing for an independent investigation into whether the University acted illegally or unethically in its response to pro-Palestinian protests on its campus. 

• Beginning a good faith dialogue and a legitimate process to meet student demands.

• Or, if you are unable or unwilling to do any of these actions, to tender your resignation.

If you continue to pursue efforts towards a “negative peace,” let me assure you that I will continue to pursue efforts to negatively impact the two things this university seemingly cares about most - its reputation and its bottom line. I have talked to many fellow alumni to persuade them to stop their donations and other support to the University until student demands are met and will continue to do so. I also know I am not alone in this endeavor, and that many others support my views on this matter.

I hope you make the right choice.

Sincerely,

 Jossif Ezekilov
AKA “The incredibly handsome guy on the front page of your
Graduate Admissions website”
  

(Trigger warning: This story deals with sexual violence and assault, which may be triggering to survivors and victims.)

If sex sells, then rape grabs headlines. Sexual violence strikes a particular fear in us in ways that other crimes cannot. Murder is hyper-stylized and over-saturated, the stuff of casual binge-watching these days. Robbery can be cold and impersonal, delivered in statistics by your frantic local news. War crimes do not capture the imagination of those inundated with “first-world problems”.

But sexual violence captivates us because it is particularly vile in its perversion of our greatest desires. Passion and intimacy are turned into tools that dehumanize and traumatize. That women form the majority of victims of sexual violence is no coincidence in our patriarchal society. It is a crime that is rooted in the demonstration of power over another human being, and therefore the starkest and most well-known example of gender inequity and violence against women.

Our media’s constant portrayal of women as both sexual objects to desire and vulnerable beings to protect fuels a “rape culture” that removes society’s responsibility for pervasive sexual violence and places it upon an amorphous, evil male entity. The rapist is an outsider, not one of us. He is a creeper lurking in the bushes. A strange visitor from another land. A crazed madman preying upon the lily-white innocence of OUR women. (Never mind that most perpetrators of sexual violence are acquaintances, partners, or family members.)

It should therefore come as little surprise that reports of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas in its attack on Israel on October 7th have dominated news coverage. That sexual violence was perpetrated by Hamas during the attack is of little doubt. Earlier today, a report by a team of experts from the United Nations concluded that there is "reasonable grounds to believe" that multiple forms of sexual violence were committed by Hamas at several locations during the attack.

However, a different sort of narrative emerged shortly after the attacks, and continues to persist. Israeli organizations- amplified by Western media and world leaders- have consistently claimed that sexual violence on October 7th was systematic and ordered directly by Hamas as a weapon of war. Israeli officials have repeatedly evoked these allegations to not only justify their (plausible) genocide of Palestinians in Gaza but also to deflect criticism from the U.N. and other international organizations. Today, shortly after the release of the U.N. report, Israel recalled its U.N. ambassador, accusing the global body of keeping quiet about “mass rapes committed by Hamas”. The report made no attribution of sexual violence to any armed group due to the nature of the U.N. mission. 

The threat of rape by Hamas has also been used by supporters of Zionism to demonize Pro-Palestinian protestors:

Hamas, for its part, has gone out of its way to strongly reject allegations of sexual violence. This is notable because they have largely taken responsibility for the other atrocities they committed, including the killing of around 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages. 

One of the most vivid reporting on the sexual violence occurring during the October 7th attack comes from The New York Times’ Jeffrey Gettelman, along with Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella. In a December 28th article entitled “‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7”, the three authors present a brutal and graphic accounting of what they claim is “a pattern of rape, mutilation and extreme brutality against women in the attacks on Israel.” 

Their reporting has recently come under fire for a litany of questionable practices, including bad sourcing, numerous inaccuracies, biased language, and even manipulating and discrediting a victim’s family. Furthermore, the staunchly anti-Palestinian backgrounds of Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella have also made headlines. 

The revelations, put forth by the Intercept and several other outlets, detail how the Times knowingly pursued potentially unethical journalism and editorial decisions, despite voiced skepticism from other journalists at the paper, to paint a picture of a systemic pattern of sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas. This coverage was then amplified and used by supporters of Israel and the Israeli government as a justification for its war in Gaza, which has now killed over 30,000 people, mostly women and children. 

Separating Truth From Propaganda

Now, before delving into The Times piece, an important caveat. This is not written to cast doubt on the accounts of sexual violence, or worse on any victims themselves. In fact, it is meant to do the opposite and show how the New York Times is devaluing the suffering of those victims by misrepresenting them and, willingly or not, furthering Israeli propaganda legitimizing plausible genocide in doing so. 

As previously mentioned, we can say with a great deal of confidence that Hamas did commit acts of sexual violence on October 7th, and likely numerous ones. According to Alix Vuillemin, senior advocacy advisor at Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice. “Where there is conflict, there will be sexual violence, always,” In a 2022 interview, she defines sexual violence as “acts that are intentional, non-consensual, and of a sexual nature which occur during or related to a conflict, committed by or against any person regardless of age, sex or gender.”

There is also credible evidence that can be used as a reference point, including the report released by the U.N. today. Likewise, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, a health organization working in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, published a paper that compiled available evidence and testimonies around sexual violence on October 7^th. They conclude that the evidence they analyzed “raise concerns that the October 7 Hamas attacks included many incidents of sexual assault following repetitive patterns.” 

Crucially, they do not conclude that the sexual violence was systemic or ordered by Hamas, as the Times’ article infers in its article. In an interview with The New Yorker, one of the authors of the organization’s paper, Hadas Ziv, detailed its painstaking process of vetting and scrutinizing sources, and why they were careful not to make unsubstantiated claims:

“In order to say that it was systematic, you need to show orders and a method, but saying that something was “widespread” was easier to feel sure about. It’s for the legal teams to investigate whether it was systematic and to define whether the scale is large enough to define it as a crime against humanity. We ask for people to investigate.”

Taking the “Investigation” out of “Investigative Journalism”

The Times, for its part, has stood by its reporting and claims of systemic sexual violence. In a statement, international editor Phil Pan said that, “We remain confident in the accuracy of our reporting and stand by the team’s investigation.” However, they also recently shelved a planned episode of its podcast “The Daily”, which was supposed to cover the article by Gettelman and co. And it seems like that was a wise decision, given all that has been uncovered around their investigation. 

First off, there are serious concerns around the Times’ decision to rely on Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella as journalists, mostly because they aren’t journalists, and are certainly not unbiased. According to James North of Mondoweiss, Anat Schwartz is a filmmaker who worked in Israeli Defense Force intelligence. She has also “liked” several anti-Palestinian posts online, including one calling Palestinians “human animals”, another urging the Israeli army to make Gaza into a “slaughterhouse”, and others that spread misinformation about the Hamas attacks. (Schwartz tweeted an apology for one of these likes, saying it was inadvertent, but it is unclear which). Adam Sella is Anat Schwartz’s nephew and appears to have little journalistic experience outside of food blogging. 

This information was very publicly available and, as writer/illustrator Mona Chalabi points out below, The Times seemingly had to go out of their way not to know about it: 

In a podcast interview produced by an Israeli TV channel (as reported by The Intercept), Schwartz herself admits she did not have the experience to investigate sexual violence, but that the Times convinced her that she could do so anyway. Newsroom sources at the Times (again, cited by The Intercept) confirmed that Schwartz, along with Sella, did reporting on the ground, while Gettelman did the framing and writing. 

In her interview, Schwartz details her process of gathering evidence and sources, which vacillates from the spectacularly inept to the dangerously problematic. After calling hospitals, sexual assault hotlines, and kibbutzim (Israeli communal collectives) and being told that none had received reports of sexual assault, she then started looking for witnesses of sexual violence. She reached out to an Israeli Air Force paramedic who told multiple news outlets that he saw evidence of two teenage sisters who were raped and killed in Kibbutz Nahal Oz. 

However, his testimony was roundly discredited by Palestinian journalists at Mondoweiss, who were not able to corroborate his story with that of Israeli records of dead victims. In subsequent news interviews, the soldier changed his testimony to say the girls were actually found at another kibbutz, Be’eri, which also could not be corroborated by the U.N. report. The soldier also made other outlandish and widely reported claims, such as a colleague finding a baby stabbed and thrown away in a trashcan, which has also been debunked.

The New York Times included the soldier’s changed story in their article without mention of these red flags, despite their availability weeks before the article’s publication date. Even more worrying is Schwartz’s wildly unfounded conclusion from hearing the testimony. In her own words:

“I say, ‘OK, so it happened, one person saw it happen in Be’eri, so it can’t be just one person, because it’s two girls. It’s sisters. It’s in the room. Something about it is systematic, something about it feels to me that it’s not random,”

Schwartz continued to maintain there was a pattern to the sexual violence despite finding no additional witnesses at other kibbutzim and other sites that were attacked on October 7^th. Undeterred, Schwartz turned to other sources of questionable credibility, including members of Zaka, a volunteer rescue group, as well as the testimony of Shari Mendes, who served in an IDF rabbinical unit that prepared bodies for burial. The same pattern followed as with the solider: Schwart failed to verify or contextualize the source, they provided dubious testimony, and Schwartz extrapolated her own conclusions from it. 

In the case of Zaka, Schwartz thought nothing of the fact that they were a conservative, ultra-Orthodox organization, or the fact that they had no forensic or crime scene expertise. In fact, in an October interview describing the group’s work after the October 7^th attack, Yossi Landau, a senior Zaka official, said “When we go into a house, we are using our imagination.” The newspaper Haaretz later found that the group had mishandled evidence. Zaka has also been accused of spreading false stories about October 7^th. 

Zaka, for their part, never actually made specific allegations of rape, even by Schwartz’s own admission. However, in her interview, Schwartz listed Zaka’s along with the soldier’s accounts as evidence that she did find. The Times not only heavily featured Yossi Landau and Zaka in their piece but provided no context of their background other than that they are “religious Jews and operate under strict rules that command deep respect for the dead.”

Shari Mendes’ account and interviews have been widely circulated by major news agencies, and she even testified before a UN session about sexual violence on October 7^th. As with others, Mendes had no experience in forensics, as she is an architect by training. Her testimony has been called into question, particularly regarding her claim of finding a beheaded pregnant woman whose baby had been cut out and also beheaded, despite no existence of a record of such a woman or baby. 

The Times includes Mendes in their story and mentions her background, but not the red flags raised in her testimony. In their article, she says she saw the bodies of four female soldiers, who she deemed to have had signs of sexual violence, “including some with “a lot of blood in their pelvic areas.” 

Physicians for Human Rights Israel do not include Shari Mendes’ testimony in their paper. While they include accounts from Yossi Landau and Zaka, they were careful to only document what Zaka workers witnessed, without making any inferences. In his interview, Hadas Ziv explains the importance of this:

“The rescue teams were traumatized. Because it was the first time that we saw sexual violence in conflict—this is something we haven’t seen before—they did not come prepared to collect the testimony and collect the evidence that is needed…For example, as in one of the testimonies, if an ambulance driver or a paramedic sees a woman, a youth, legs spread, lower body exposed, semen on her back, he says she was raped, but he’s not an expert. All we know is there was sexual abuse here because of how we found the body, but he’s not an expert to say that she was raped.”

The UN report specifically noted “erroneous interpretations of the state of bodies by some volunteer first responders without relevant qualifications and expertise”.

In all, October 7^th Fact Check, an independent verification site, flagged a dozen testimonies that the Times used in their article as having varying levels of inconsistencies, lack of evidence, or outright falsehoods. Some of the testimonies made by the Times’ sources were also discredited by the U.N. report. 

Doing No Harm?

Mendes’ interviews made Anat Schwartz jump to further illogical conclusions:

“It feels to me like it’s starting to approach a plurality, even if you don’t know which numbers to put on it yet.”

However, issues arose by this point in her “investigation”. Some of the previously mentioned falsehoods and inconsistencies in the testimonies had started to become public, and there was still little to no primary evidence. 

The Israeli police have maintained that they have compiled an enormous amount of testimonies and have forensic evidence, which they will share at a later date. As of this publication, this evidence has not been released. However, while the Times does not address this issue directly, they provide contradictory accounts for the lack of forensic evidence. 

At one point, they say (correctly) that forensic evidence is difficult to come by in a conflict zone, but that Israeli police did dispatch forensic teams and that it is possible. But earlier in the article, they claim, without corroboration, that “Jewish religious duties” of quickly burying bodies was a factor in the lack of forensic evidence. Both the UN report and Physicians for Human Rights Israel allude to capacity issues, including a shortage of forensic pathologists. 

Schwartz also reported wanting to publish as quickly as possible to maintain the momentum of the story of sexual violence and even reported being pressured by Israeli police themselves. 

The lack of primary evidence led Schwartz to more drastic measures. In her interview, she describes going to a trauma center various times to get testimonies, but when she was unsuccessful, she accused the therapists at the center of “a conspiracy of silence.” 

Schwartz’s callous actions violate the principles of “Do No Harm”, the widely held standard for working with victims of sexual violence. The principle maintains that any work related to sexual violence should always seek to prevent any form of additional trauma or harm to victims, including in the way their stories are used and amplified.

When asked why victims might not want to want to speak out, Schwartz provided random musings about “conservative Israeli society” and at another time, suggested that victims may just not want to remember due to their trauma. Hadas Ziv provides a professional explanation:

“Our decision was not to approach the actual victims or the eyewitnesses because we thought that this was too short a time afterward, and that we were not equipped to talk to them and treat them. Every time you ask them to tell the story, it’s opening up the trauma, and we are not professionals in this.”

Despite Shwartz’s admission, per the Intercept’s article, that she got little more than “innuendo and general statements” from therapists at the center, the Times article reported that: “Two therapists said they were working with a woman who was gang raped at the rave and was in no condition to talk to investigators or reporters.”

Perhaps the most egregious example of Schwartz and the Times’ unethical practices is their treatment of the family of Gal Abdush, who the Times and other outlets dubbed “the woman in the black dress”. The Times used Abdush’s family as their article’s cover photo, and opened the article by describing the viral video of her burned body being found. They go on to report that Israeli police deemed Abdush was raped based solely on the video itself, and label her “a symbol of the horrors visited upon Israeli women and girls during the Oct. 7 attacks”.

However, after the article was published, the family denied the Times’ assertion that Gal was raped and said the paper misrepresented its intent when they agreed to speak with them. As Mondoweiss first reported in January, Gal’s brother-in-law told Israeli news the media invented the story of Gal’s rape, while one of Gal’s sisters wrote in an Instagram post (since deleted) “If we knew that the title would be about rape and butchery, we’d never accept that.” In its follow-up story to its “Screams Without Words” article, the Times sought to discredit Gal’s sister, saying she was “confused”. 

Meanwhile, Israeli site Ynet (via The Intercept) reported that the woman who took the video of Gal was pressured by Adel Schwartz and Adam Sella to give the New York Times access to her photos and videos for Israeli propaganda purposes: 

“They called me again and again and explained how important it is to Israeli hasbara,” she recalled, using the term for public diplomacy, which in practice refers to Israeli propaganda efforts directed at international audiences.”

Weaponizing Rape in the War of Information

As previously mentioned, there were writers within the New York Times staffroom who expressed skepticism and criticism for this reporting. The Intercept even cites anonymous sources at the paper who likened the article to Rukmini Callimachi’s podcast and news series on the Islamic State “Caliphate”, which was roundly discredited and eventually retracted by the Times in 2019. 

Schwartz herself recalled being questioned extensively by others at the Times, particularly around the issue of a lack of primary evidence. However, she claimed that the Times editors never voiced any skepticism to her. 

While Schwartz’s practices were indeed questionable, and her participation in this investigation unacceptable, the larger issue is a lack of journalistic professionalism on the part of the editors and Jeffrey Gettelman, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. After all, it was Gettelman himself who provided the writing and framing of the “Screams Without Words” story, while the editors should have ensured proper corroboration and verification before the article was published. 

However, Gettelman’s own public comments show a troubling lack of concern for veracity in his reporting. Speaking to a panel on sexual violence in conflict at Columbia University following the article’s publication, Gettleman casually waived off concerns around evidence:

“What we found — I don’t want to even use the word ‘evidence,’ because evidence is almost like a legal term that suggests you’re trying to prove an allegation or prove a case in court. That’s not my role. We all have our roles. And my role is to document, is to present information, is to give people a voice. And we found information along the entire chain of violence, so of sexual violence.”

Accuracy and balance, it seems are secondary concerns for Gettleman: 

“It’s really difficult to get this information and then to shape it,” he said. “That’s our job as journalists: to get the information and to share the story in a way that makes people care. Not just to inform, but to move people. And that’s what I’ve been doing for a long time.”

Placing a priority on shaping narratives rather than informing people is a dangerous precedent for a prominent journalist to take. In the ongoing war of information, where a litany of malicious actors are looking to amplify and disseminate disinformation at blinding speeds to shape false narratives, we need journalists more than ever to uphold truth rather than “shape information”. In the context of sexual violence, Gettleman’s job should have been to seek truth for the victims of October 7^th. He, and the entire staff of The New York Times, failed in this endeavor. 

Only Gettleman, Schwartz, and Sella can speak to their true motives. However, it is hard to look at the entirety of their unethical practices- from the hiring of Schwartz and Sella, to publishing biased information, to traumatizing and gaslighting a victim’s family members- as unintentionally anti-Palestinian. Schwartz’s Zionist bias is, of course, public knowledge at this point. But Gettleman, the self-proclaimed “information shaper”, had to have known that his story would “move people” in an anti-Palestinian direction.

As to the New York Times? While they spent a great deal of effort trying to address criticisms of their original reporting (which they still stand by), they have published nothing regarding last month’s UN report detailing sexual violence committed by Israeli forces on Palestinian women.

Subscribe now