Last week, New York Democratic Representative Jamaal Bowman was defeated in his bid for a third term in Congress. In describing the outcome, American newspaper headlines and media analysts only scratched the surface of why and how this happened and the consequences that this contest would have on future US elections.
For their part, pro-Israel groups, while acknowledging that they spent a combined $25 million dollars to defeat Mr Bowman, tried to play it in two ways. On the one hand, they said that their involvement was decisive proof that “being pro-Israel was good policy and good politics”.
On the other hand, they attempted to downplay their role suggesting that Mr Bowman’s loss was due to his “radicalism”, with voters demonstrating their preference for the more “centrist” candidate, negatively comparing Mr Bowman’s passion with the staider demeanour of his opponent, Westchester County executive George Latimer.
The lessons the media deduced from all of this were that pro-Israel groups indeed won, progressives lost, and that supporting Palestinian rights could be an electorally dangerous proposition.
This, however, ignored the deeper story that played out in this election.
First and foremost, it was about the huge amounts of money spent, why and how it was used, and the impact it had on the contest. The $25 million pro-Israel groups spent to defeat Mr Bowman was by far the most ever expended in a congressional primary, used mainly for negative advertising and direct mail attacks smearing Mr Bowman’s character and criticising his style. Virtually no mention of Israel was made in these ads.
During some points in the campaign, voters were subjected to more than a half-dozen of these attack ads. The impression created was that Mr Bowman was a flawed person and an unworthy candidate. One observer told me: “If Jamaal’s mother had stayed at home watching this negative onslaught, she wouldn’t have voted for her son either.”
That’s the role of negative ads: to damage the candidates being attacked so that they are defined as so flawed that their supporters are discouraged from voting on Election Day. This tactic is simply an expensive form of voter suppression.
In reality, Mr Latimer outpaced Mr Bowman in “radicalism” by making outrageous, racially tinged comments that could have been used against him. But Mr Bowman didn’t have $25 million to define or destroy Mr Latimer’s character. And so, the impression was created that Mr Bowman was a loose cannon and Mr Latimer was the responsible candidate.
To be sure, racism played a role in all of this as the contest became “the angry, frightening young black man versus the calm, thoughtful older white guy”.
How the money was used is one thing, but why it was raised is something else to consider.
Some pro-Israel groups are losing the public debate over policy – especially among Democrats. Most Democrats are deeply opposed to current Israeli policies in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian lands. The majority of Democrats want a ceasefire and an end to settlements. And they want to stop further arms shipments to Israel.
Knowing this, some pro-Israel groups never make their campaigns a referendum on Israel. Instead, they tend to focus on the character of their opponents. When they win, they claim that it was a victory for Israel and support for its policies, when it most decidedly isn’t and never was.
There was another factor in this contest that was largely ignored by commentators. Mr Bowman’s congressional district had been redistricted last year (by a statewide committee that included Mr Latimer). The new district removed many of the areas that had been more favourable to Mr Bowman and included new areas that were more favourable to Mr Latimer. This made Mr Bowman vulnerable, providing some pro-Israel groups with the opportunity to play in this race and make it look like they won on the merits.
Historically this is how they’ve done their work – going after vulnerable candidates. It’s why they left alone other equally strong pro-Palestinian, but less vulnerable, members of Congress. It then gives them bragging rights they can use to cower others into thinking they are invincible.
Examining who the donors to these pro-Israel campaigns were, we find that while they are largely supporters of Israel, many of the very large contributors are billionaire Republicans.
The use of unregulated “dark money” that is increasingly playing a role in primaries ought to set off alarms. Twice I tried and failed to get the Democratic Party to ban such “dark money” funds. My warning then was that if this tactic can be used by pro-Israel groups now, why won’t other powerful lobbies make use of this approach in the future?
If left unchecked, America’s democracy, already distorted by big money, could be swamped and destroyed by billionaires who could make elections their game in which to manipulate voters at will.
One final observation for Democrats: while Mr Bowman was defeated, support for Palestinian rights continues to grow. And the resentment of voters who favoured Mr Bowman and other targeted members of Congress will also continue to grow.
These are Democratic votes that US President Joe Biden will need to win in November. So if the party doesn’t address this issue, they may lose a sufficient number of their base who are resentful of the party establishment’s failure to both stop the war in Gaza and to defend progressive champions such as Mr Bowman.
Seen in this light, “Israel’s win” in the Bowman contest may negatively affect Democrats’ chances for victory in November.
