Do It, but Do it Right

The typical daily question posed by Sirius XM and CNN guy Michael Smerconish is misleading, ambiguous, disingenous, or fails to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The one on Saturday did not disappoint, also because it was provocative.

The website asked "Do Democrats need a Sister Souljah break with democratic socialists?"   In short

Back in the summer of 1992, then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton criticized rapper Sister Souljah after she made offensive remarks about blacks killing whites instead of each other. The moment quickly entered the political lexicon as shorthand for a politician rebuking an extremist in his or her base in order to demonstrate to independents that they are not beholden to the party’s core special interests.

However, the there are two problems with the question: They are what "need" is and whether we're talking long-term or short-term; and on what issues the break would be. Those who themselves identify, or whom otheres identify, as democratic socialists break with mainstream Democrats on both economic issues, such as health care and the role of government in the private sector, and on Israel.

If someone is to do to democratic socialists what Bill Clinton did to Sister Souljah, it would have to be someone well respected across the Party. Neither Democrati leader- Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer- has that credibility, especially since the Platner disaster in Maine, where party leadership cleared the field to for Governor Janet Mills to run against the upstart. Mills ran a disinterested campaign, Platner was easily nominated, and his campaign proceeded to blow up.

The two most obvious candidates to take on this task have the same surname. However, Michelle Obama generally has been loathe to get intimately involved in politics, and her husband knows that he would be staking his reputation, possibly incurring a backlash, only for the benefit of his Party. Were he to take such a risk, he wouldn't be "Barack Obama." 

Of course, there is the matter of on what basis to condemn these controversial, divisive extremists. It could be on a) their embrace of economic populism; b) their embrace of "Palestine" and denunciation of Israel, or c) both.

Van Jones, with whom I've often disagreed, evidently would go with (b). Whatever the political wisdom- and that's very difficult to predict- the policy wisdom is right on target. In the tweet/video below, he points out

...if everybody could see a doctor when they got sick, get a good, free education and breathe clean air — would that represent progress? Yes. Those are PROGRESSIVE ideas.

They are NOT the same thing. And the difference matters.

Some defend the far left by claiming they only want Nordic-style social democracy. If that were true, I might applaud them. I want those policies, too! But what does universal healthcare have to do with Hamas? With abolishing all law enforcement? With erasing all borders? With treating every wealthy person as a villain? Ideas matter. And these are terrible ideas.

I'm tired of being told that, to be a progressive, I now must swear allegiance to crazy ideas.

I'm a strong Democrat, with a winning bipartisan track record. I'm rooted in progressive ideals and policies: criminal justice reform, Green New Deal, Medicare for All, free education,… pic.twitter.com/foPRXip7fb

— Van Jones (@VanJones68) July 18, 2026

That should get the ball rolling. However, it might be even better to distinguish between the haters of Israel who understand that the Democratic Party is necessary to advance progressive ideas and the haters who do not. 

The New York Times asked New York City mayor Zohran Mamdan if there is room in the Party for AIPAC and replied "If they are Democrats and they run as Democrats and they win as Democrats, then they should be part of the Democratic Party."  Asked on CNN about Mamdani's response, Abdul el-Sayed, running against Haley Stevens for the Democratic nomination for US Senate stated "I want our tax dollars spent in Michigan on our schools and on our health care. And the idea that somebody wants to vote to send that money away, to me, just seems -- seems to be an anathema."

You read that correctly. In el-Sayed's view, Israel is committing genocide and AIPAC is supporting that and responsible for failing schools and inadequate health care in Michigan. He also was joined on the campaign trail by the virulent American-hating anti-Semite Hasan Piker. A thought: people so blind with bigotry that they're unable to talk about the daily needs of Michigander cannot be reasoned with.

Times change, issues change, personalities are different, and 2026 is not 1992. It's complicated. Any effort to denounce individuals or groups which believe Israel is the devil incarnate would be perilous. But if, as appears likely, there must be a reckoning. Van Jones recognizes the side that must be taken.. 

Share |