Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary should not be dismissed as just another primary upset. Nor should it be exaggerated into proof that the Democratic Party has suddenly become a party of the far left. It is something more significant.
It is evidence that ideas, alliances and rhetoric that only a few years ago would have disqualified a candidate from the Democratic mainstream are now tolerated, embraced and, in some quarters, enthusiastically rewarded. That should concern Democrats at least as much as Republicans.
El-Sayed did not merely run as a progressive. He questioned Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. He welcomed the endorsement and campaign support of Hasan Piker, a social media celebrity who has defended Hamas, praised Mao Zedong, suggested America “deserved” the attacks of Sept. 11 and built a massive following around a deeply cynical view of American institutions. None of this was hidden from voters. It became part of the campaign. And it was not disqualifying.
That represents a remarkable change. When Barack Obama sought the presidency in 2008, he understood that his association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright threatened not merely his campaign but his credibility. Obama did not equivocate. In one of the defining speeches of his political career, he rejected Wright’s rhetoric because he believed Americans deserved to know that criticism of their country was fundamentally different from contempt for it. Eighteen years later, many Democrats appear far less interested in drawing that distinction.
This is not fundamentally about Israel, although Israel is where many Americans first noticed the shift.
Most American Jews have no difficulty criticizing Israeli governments. Many do so regularly. What they increasingly struggle to understand is why questioning the legitimacy of the world’s only Jewish state — or aligning with voices that excuse terrorism or portray America itself as uniquely malign — is no longer considered beyond the political pale.
For generations, American Jews have been among the Democratic Party’s most dependable supporters. They remain overwhelmingly Democratic today. But loyalty should never be mistaken for permanence. Every political coalition has a breaking point.
Nor are Jewish voters alone in their unease. Across the country, reports indicate that many longtime Democratic donors are increasingly directing their contributions to individual candidates instead of the national party. That is more than a fundraising strategy. It is a quiet vote of no confidence. It reflects growing concern that the party’s institutional leadership is losing control of where its activist energy is taking it.
Michigan may not represent the future of the Democratic Party. General elections still matter, and Democratic voters remain a diverse coalition with many competing voices.
But Michigan should serve as a warning.
Successful political parties are not defined by the loudest voices in the room. They are defined by the standards they choose to uphold and the coalitions they choose to preserve. If Democrats continue to normalize rhetoric that once would have been considered beyond the pale, they should not be surprised if longtime supporters quietly conclude that the party they joined is no longer the party they recognize.
The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party is changing. It clearly is. The question is whether it can change without sacrificing the broad coalition that made it a governing majority — and whether it recognizes what it may be losing before it is too late.
