So, in other words, Matt wants him to take a couple of positions that sound moderate to hide the fact that he is a far-left lefty, and DSA adjacent. Not authentically be who he is. Pull the wool over people's eyes.
If you are the anti-Israel party, kind of hard to hide it. So, go back to empty platitudes, say things that are good sound bites, and appear normie center-left. That is not who he is, however.
As for the reason, this is just about winning. So no matter how awful your positions are, we need to put a lickstick on this pig. I remember it was not too long ago; Trump critics would say things like “I hope the voters get Trump good and hard.” He has given it to the whole country, good and hard.
The problem, as I see it, with the Democratic Party and much more the DSA’s embrace of religious Muslims in the US (even the Republicans have flirted with this), is that there are real implications there. On foreign policy, the countries that Muslim-Americans (and especially Arab Sunnis) are likely to sympathize with are authoritarian and have very little respect for ethnic or religious minorities. To the extent we promote these ideologies here, it is a problem. It is hard to find any significant Muslim majority country that allows true freedom of religion, for example.
Fundamentally, religious Muslim ideologies are difficult to reconcile with American ideals of freedom of religion or democracy (at least for Wahhabi-influenced movements) and sit very uneasily with any kind of left-wing thought. Just as communists always try to destroy social democrats, islamists always try to destroy liberalism.
Maybe he can but he shouldn’t. He’s obviously afflicted by Israel Derangement Syndrome and does not have Americas best interests at heart if he hangs with Hasan Piker.
I feel like this is begging too much from someone who has public statements against football & fireworks and decried anti shria law policies as islamaphobic. There's a 10% chance he convincingly moderates his way out of statements he made >2y ago.
Matt writes: "the reason the primary focused so heavily on Israel is that the policy differences between the left and center on 97 percent of issues are either small or unclear."
Respectfully, I disagree. And I'm not sure Matt even believes that statement. Most of the rest of the essay reads like Matt is trying to convince El-Sayed and the DSA to say different things than they believe.
Trump is doing significant damage, but he is going to be gone in 2 years and most of what he is doing can be fixed relatively easily. However, El-Sayed and the DSA will do significant damage by design (IMO) as I do not believe they share my view of the American government and our interests at home and abroad.
I do not want to turn over the Democratic Party to them and I think Matt is making a mistake by trying to sane-wash their positions.
What significant damage / positions are you referring to? El Sayed is probably further left than I am but as someone not following Michigan politics closely he seems intelligent and obviously is very charismatic
Have to disagree on Trump… Nothing about fixing the damage Trump has done to norms and institutions in this country will be easy, I suspect it will take a generation at least
Not that they believe in absurd conspiracy theories, but that they don't believe in a liberal society with a market economy. To quote Dennis Green (AZ football coach) "They are who we thought they were".
Stevens supported strengthening the ACA and a public option, not “Medicare for all”. El Sayed supports Medicare for All. Stevens supported holding ICE accountable for bad behavior, but not stopping federal immigration enforcement. El Sayed supports banning ICE. Stevens did not supports a wealth tax on billionaires. El Sayed does.
Yglesias is just wrong that the left and center agree on 97% of non-Israel issues. This claim holds absolutely no merit.
The implementation of a wealth tax will necessarily be extremely complicated and chock full of exploitable loopholes.
It's pure fantasy to believe wealthy individuals, with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have reliably enabled them to pay lower income tax rates than middle class earners, aren't going to succeed in avoiding significant new taxes on their wealth.
IMO, reforming how wealthy peoples' income gets taxed is a more straightforward and reliable approach to increasing their share of the tax burden
Nice piece, Matt. Really on page with your analysis here. I think El-Sayed will have to moderate some of the positioning on his website -- and he knows that. I think he will be a very credible candidate as long as he stays focused on economic inequality, improving and broadening the welfare state, and reigning in Netanyahu and other irresponsible foreign ventures. If he goes in the direction of DEI, more abrasive social liberalism, and irresponsible immigration policy, he will lose. I think the average voters are sick of that stuff which was the big reason we got a Trump 2. He will also have to talk some serious sense about the budget deficit.
I think some form of universal healthcare whether it’s M4A or something else is going to become a bigger issue on the left because the left-wing millennials and Gen-Zs are getting older and thus needing more healthcare and starting to care about this stuff. I’ve had a number of friends recently lose jobs or businesses and the attitude had been they had enough saved up or from inheritances and they could find cheap housing somewhere and economize on other stuff but there’s no such thing as cheap healthcare if you aren’t getting it through a good employer so they’re forced to take crappy jobs just for the healthcare. Just like on Israel, I think you are seeing left-wing candidates like El-Sayed skating to where the puck is going.
This take much more sense for El Sayed than when you were trying to write a similar take on Mamdani, who I don’t think is actually religious and seems much more left wing in all his convictions, even if he’s moderating as he ages. I have watched his mom’s movies and I’m certain he was raised with far left wing convictions across the board as opposed to El Sayed, who seems like a religiously observant guy.
They are completely different in background, ideology and personality. I think Mamdami is a much better person who doesn't want to be held back by the ideology he was brought up in.
This moment was one of the most revealing for me about “moderate” liberals. I saw basically two types of responses:
1. “It’s sad all around, for both the Jewish children who were attacked, the attacker + his family (brothers were also terrorists), and the attacker’s community.”
(Hilariously, this was was the reaction of Slow Boring antisemitism correspondent Musa al Gharbi.)
2. “This is bad because the terrorist attacked a Jewish but not explicitly Zionist synagogue called ‘Temple Israel.’ In the future the best way for Jews to stand against antisemitism is to strongly differentiate their toddlers from Zionist toddlers, perhaps by adopting the attacker’s preferred foreign policies.”
(Please, before anyone tells me AES was just “explaining not endorsing” the attack. No Democrat ever tried to “explain” why Dylan Roof or the Tree of Life shooter did what they did. The fact that this is different sends a signal.)
“Nothing justifies the heinous attack that we saw on Temple Israel,” El-Sayed, a Democrat, said at a press conference alongside Piker, with whom he appeared at two campaign rallies in Michigan on Tuesday. “I also think it’s just critical for us to understand that hurt people do hurt people, and the circumstances happening 6,000 miles away can affect the lives that we live here, and if we stand against violence, we’ve got to stand against violence, all violence.”
What do you disagree with about that? How would you feel about someone saying: “Nothing justifies the heinous collective punishment in Gaza. I also think it’s just critical for us to understand that hurt people do hurt people, and the circumstances that happened on 10/7 affected the lives of Israelis if we stand against violence, we’ve got to stand against violence, all violence.”
Destroying Jewish property and institutions is not okay because zero people are killed. Don’t know why you emphasize that. He tried to kill people and terrify people while destroying property. That’s terrorism.
His attack on a synagogue was 100% because of his hatred of Jews and the circumstances “6,000 miles away” does not cause someone to attack a synagogue in Michigan. That’s an insane take. You can’t blame Jews for attacks on Jews. You don’t blame Liberians for attacks against a Black Charleston church, because that’s an insane take.
It could be that his deep seated hatred of Jews also caused him to be sympathetic of Hezbollah. His relatives who were killed were members of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has been consistently launching violent attacks for years now, and were rightly targeted. One was a Hezbollah commander responsible for weapons operations.
But again discussion about Lebanon is not remotely relevant here, because the attack against the synagogue was against Jews in Michigan, not in the Levant.
I think no one in their right fucking mind, following a Baruch Goldstein-style attack on a mosque full of babies, would be like “Yeah it’s bad but you gotta understand… 10/7 amirite?”
It’s like saying we need to understand the mental health and suffering of that young man who murdered a bunch of people at an In and Out drive through.
It’s the same type of ”We don’t have a gun violence problem, it’s a mental health crisis,” handwaving dismissal of horrible acts.
What about positions on things that are important for growth: attracting more high-income potential immigrants and students, reducing import restrictions, reducing the deficit, paying for, if not more than paying for, any expansion in subsidies for medical insurance? Economic stagnation is not good for low income citizens. We can't redistribute out of a shrinking pie.
When brilliant people hold far left positions, my inclination is they are probably kinda evil.
So, in other words, Matt wants him to take a couple of positions that sound moderate to hide the fact that he is a far-left lefty, and DSA adjacent. Not authentically be who he is. Pull the wool over people's eyes.
If you are the anti-Israel party, kind of hard to hide it. So, go back to empty platitudes, say things that are good sound bites, and appear normie center-left. That is not who he is, however.
As for the reason, this is just about winning. So no matter how awful your positions are, we need to put a lickstick on this pig. I remember it was not too long ago; Trump critics would say things like “I hope the voters get Trump good and hard.” He has given it to the whole country, good and hard.
The problem, as I see it, with the Democratic Party and much more the DSA’s embrace of religious Muslims in the US (even the Republicans have flirted with this), is that there are real implications there. On foreign policy, the countries that Muslim-Americans (and especially Arab Sunnis) are likely to sympathize with are authoritarian and have very little respect for ethnic or religious minorities. To the extent we promote these ideologies here, it is a problem. It is hard to find any significant Muslim majority country that allows true freedom of religion, for example.
Fundamentally, religious Muslim ideologies are difficult to reconcile with American ideals of freedom of religion or democracy (at least for Wahhabi-influenced movements) and sit very uneasily with any kind of left-wing thought. Just as communists always try to destroy social democrats, islamists always try to destroy liberalism.
Maybe he can but he shouldn’t. He’s obviously afflicted by Israel Derangement Syndrome and does not have Americas best interests at heart if he hangs with Hasan Piker.
I feel like this is begging too much from someone who has public statements against football & fireworks and decried anti shria law policies as islamaphobic. There's a 10% chance he convincingly moderates his way out of statements he made >2y ago.
Matt writes: "the reason the primary focused so heavily on Israel is that the policy differences between the left and center on 97 percent of issues are either small or unclear."
Respectfully, I disagree. And I'm not sure Matt even believes that statement. Most of the rest of the essay reads like Matt is trying to convince El-Sayed and the DSA to say different things than they believe.
Trump is doing significant damage, but he is going to be gone in 2 years and most of what he is doing can be fixed relatively easily. However, El-Sayed and the DSA will do significant damage by design (IMO) as I do not believe they share my view of the American government and our interests at home and abroad.
I do not want to turn over the Democratic Party to them and I think Matt is making a mistake by trying to sane-wash their positions.
What significant damage / positions are you referring to? El Sayed is probably further left than I am but as someone not following Michigan politics closely he seems intelligent and obviously is very charismatic
Have to disagree on Trump… Nothing about fixing the damage Trump has done to norms and institutions in this country will be easy, I suspect it will take a generation at least
https://abdulforsenate.com/priority/money-in-your-pocket/
He's for a wealth tax, for targeted tariffs, anti NAFTA, anti corporate ownership of housing.
Seems like genuine disagreements with establishment Dems.
I think there is a failure by the mainstream to believe that the far left genuinely believe in absurd conspiracy theories.
Not that they believe in absurd conspiracy theories, but that they don't believe in a liberal society with a market economy. To quote Dennis Green (AZ football coach) "They are who we thought they were".
I think people who believe in central planning are outnumbered by people who believe odd things about the Rothschilds.
Also, public opinion towards Israel is strongly negative in most countries, not just Muslim ones: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/06/04/most-people-across-36-countries-have-negative-views-of-israel-and-little-confidence-in-netanyahu/. Bangladesh is no more negative on Israel than Australia or Japan. The US is kind of in its own bubble here. I’d expect any kind of immigrant to on average align with more left-wing views on Israel.
Stevens supported strengthening the ACA and a public option, not “Medicare for all”. El Sayed supports Medicare for All. Stevens supported holding ICE accountable for bad behavior, but not stopping federal immigration enforcement. El Sayed supports banning ICE. Stevens did not supports a wealth tax on billionaires. El Sayed does.
Yglesias is just wrong that the left and center agree on 97% of non-Israel issues. This claim holds absolutely no merit.
These things mostly strike me as skating to where the puck is going. I explained M4A in my main comment but also some form of wealth tax seems inevitable. Even very moderate sources like the Economist and Bloomberg are recognizing that wealth is becoming more important than income: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/27/inheriting-is-becoming-nearly-as-important-as-working. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2026-07-16/great-wealth-transfer-who-will-get-the-93-trillion-baby-boomers-leave-behind. In 2025, the S&P 500 alone returned capital gains similar in magnitude to the total wages paid to all Americans (and that’s not including capital gains on housing, other stocks, bonds, etc.). Wage-earners are not happy to pay taxes when they see all this exempt wealth outstripping their wages. Thus I expect moderates to move towards left positions on these issues.
The implementation of a wealth tax will necessarily be extremely complicated and chock full of exploitable loopholes.
It's pure fantasy to believe wealthy individuals, with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists that have reliably enabled them to pay lower income tax rates than middle class earners, aren't going to succeed in avoiding significant new taxes on their wealth.
IMO, reforming how wealthy peoples' income gets taxed is a more straightforward and reliable approach to increasing their share of the tax burden
Nice piece, Matt. Really on page with your analysis here. I think El-Sayed will have to moderate some of the positioning on his website -- and he knows that. I think he will be a very credible candidate as long as he stays focused on economic inequality, improving and broadening the welfare state, and reigning in Netanyahu and other irresponsible foreign ventures. If he goes in the direction of DEI, more abrasive social liberalism, and irresponsible immigration policy, he will lose. I think the average voters are sick of that stuff which was the big reason we got a Trump 2. He will also have to talk some serious sense about the budget deficit.
I think some form of universal healthcare whether it’s M4A or something else is going to become a bigger issue on the left because the left-wing millennials and Gen-Zs are getting older and thus needing more healthcare and starting to care about this stuff. I’ve had a number of friends recently lose jobs or businesses and the attitude had been they had enough saved up or from inheritances and they could find cheap housing somewhere and economize on other stuff but there’s no such thing as cheap healthcare if you aren’t getting it through a good employer so they’re forced to take crappy jobs just for the healthcare. Just like on Israel, I think you are seeing left-wing candidates like El-Sayed skating to where the puck is going.
300,000 Biharis still live in refugee camps in Bangladesh as a result of the 1971 war. Almost no one knows or cares.
This take much more sense for El Sayed than when you were trying to write a similar take on Mamdani, who I don’t think is actually religious and seems much more left wing in all his convictions, even if he’s moderating as he ages. I have watched his mom’s movies and I’m certain he was raised with far left wing convictions across the board as opposed to El Sayed, who seems like a religiously observant guy.
They are completely different in background, ideology and personality. I think Mamdami is a much better person who doesn't want to be held back by the ideology he was brought up in.
El Sayed sympathizing with someone who drove his car into a synagogue with children inside is a Michigan issue, not a “Palestine” issue.
This moment was one of the most revealing for me about “moderate” liberals. I saw basically two types of responses:
1. “It’s sad all around, for both the Jewish children who were attacked, the attacker + his family (brothers were also terrorists), and the attacker’s community.”
(Hilariously, this was was the reaction of Slow Boring antisemitism correspondent Musa al Gharbi.)
2. “This is bad because the terrorist attacked a Jewish but not explicitly Zionist synagogue called ‘Temple Israel.’ In the future the best way for Jews to stand against antisemitism is to strongly differentiate their toddlers from Zionist toddlers, perhaps by adopting the attacker’s preferred foreign policies.”
(Please, before anyone tells me AES was just “explaining not endorsing” the attack. No Democrat ever tried to “explain” why Dylan Roof or the Tree of Life shooter did what they did. The fact that this is different sends a signal.)
El Sayed said, of a driver who killed no one but himself in grief after Israel killed his family: https://jewishinsider.com/2026/04/abdul-el-sayed-on-temple-israel-terrorist-hurt-people-do-hurt-people/
“Nothing justifies the heinous attack that we saw on Temple Israel,” El-Sayed, a Democrat, said at a press conference alongside Piker, with whom he appeared at two campaign rallies in Michigan on Tuesday. “I also think it’s just critical for us to understand that hurt people do hurt people, and the circumstances happening 6,000 miles away can affect the lives that we live here, and if we stand against violence, we’ve got to stand against violence, all violence.”
What do you disagree with about that? How would you feel about someone saying: “Nothing justifies the heinous collective punishment in Gaza. I also think it’s just critical for us to understand that hurt people do hurt people, and the circumstances that happened on 10/7 affected the lives of Israelis if we stand against violence, we’ve got to stand against violence, all violence.”
Destroying Jewish property and institutions is not okay because zero people are killed. Don’t know why you emphasize that. He tried to kill people and terrify people while destroying property. That’s terrorism.
His attack on a synagogue was 100% because of his hatred of Jews and the circumstances “6,000 miles away” does not cause someone to attack a synagogue in Michigan. That’s an insane take. You can’t blame Jews for attacks on Jews. You don’t blame Liberians for attacks against a Black Charleston church, because that’s an insane take.
It could be that his deep seated hatred of Jews also caused him to be sympathetic of Hezbollah. His relatives who were killed were members of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has been consistently launching violent attacks for years now, and were rightly targeted. One was a Hezbollah commander responsible for weapons operations.
But again discussion about Lebanon is not remotely relevant here, because the attack against the synagogue was against Jews in Michigan, not in the Levant.
I think no one in their right fucking mind, following a Baruch Goldstein-style attack on a mosque full of babies, would be like “Yeah it’s bad but you gotta understand… 10/7 amirite?”
It’s like saying we need to understand the mental health and suffering of that young man who murdered a bunch of people at an In and Out drive through.
It’s the same type of ”We don’t have a gun violence problem, it’s a mental health crisis,” handwaving dismissal of horrible acts.
Normal people tend to avoid expressing empathy towards people who deliberately seek to harm children.
What about positions on things that are important for growth: attracting more high-income potential immigrants and students, reducing import restrictions, reducing the deficit, paying for, if not more than paying for, any expansion in subsidies for medical insurance? Economic stagnation is not good for low income citizens. We can't redistribute out of a shrinking pie.
At a fundamental level isn't El-Sayed just a complete hypocrite?