Will Progressives Stop Leading With Their Chins?

It’s great that Democrats are blasting “The Epstein Class” but their House candidate in New Jersey needs to avoid “Israeli genocide” and “Abolish ICE”

Donald Trump and the Republicans are in what George H.W. Bush described as “deep doo-doo.” He’s what a character in Grease would call “cruisin’ for a bruisin’.” Even if the economy improves by November, the physics of American politics — midterms almost always go against the president’s party — will likely give the House to the Democrats.

Every day, Trump does something that is simultaneously dangerous, disgusting, and politically hurtful to Republicans. He was already in trouble with the Hispanic voters who handed him the White House (47 percent of Latino men backed Trump in 2024, the decisive statistic), then went out and trashed Bad Bunny.

And there’s good news on the Democratic side. Senator Jon Ossoff, campaigning for reelection in red Georgia, is showing Democrats exactly how to run. “This is the Epstein Class ruling our country,” he said in a barn-burning speech that has already started presidential chatter (only sensible if he wins big this fall). Contrasting the Epstein Class with the working class that Trump promised to help, Ossoff injects betrayal into the Democratic argument. And racism: Trump “is posting about the Obamas like a Klansman at 1:00 a.m.” Touché.

And yet, for all the promising special elections and crappy polls for Republicans, Trump still has a chance to make the election close enough for him to plausibly challenge the results. That would prompt a constitutional crisis late this year.

Trump’s best bet for a GOP comeback is to use dark money (sadly, he and Elon Musk have reconciled) to punch Democrats who lead with their chins — or who merely associate with Democrats who say politically dopey things.

I live in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, where we just had a special election to fill the seat of Mikie Sherrill, our new governor. The upset winner of the Democratic primary is Analilia Mejia, a Squad-like progressive organizer, who won in a squeaker over Tom Malinowski, a better-qualified former congressman. She is expected to beat the Republican in April and serve out the last nine months of Sherrill’s term.

This was a historic special election primary for a couple of reasons. It marks the demise of the last political machine in the United States. During his 2024 Senate campaign, Andy Kim went to court and killed a hoary tradition that allowed New Jersey county bosses to determine ballot position and thus the results of most Democratic primaries. Without that advantage, the two candidates with old-line backing were crushed in the 11th District race by Mejia, who ran a strong, positive, insurgent campaign. As a guy who fought the Daley Machine in Chicago when I was a kid, I say: Good riddance.

Analilia Mejia celebrates with supporters at primary-night party, February 5, 2026 (northjersey.com)

But what we got in place of old-style politics is disturbing. First, AIPAC quietly spent at least $2.3 million in dark money sliming Malinowski (backed by Kim, by the way) with the bogus charge that he supported ICE.

Malinowski’s real sin? He’s a strong supporter of Israel but rightly criticizes Netanyahu and rightly says future U.S. aid to Israel should have human rights conditions attached.

One of my kids called to say: “AIPAC just shat the bed.” It sure did. Thanks to its cynical meddling, our district will now likely be represented by a pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist congresswoman.

Let’s hope this opens a long-delayed conversation about AIPAC inside the Democratic Party. On Tuesday, J Street, a much better Jewish organization, held AIPAC accountable for:

“Endorsing and fundraising for anti-democratic election deniers. Taking money from Republican mega-donors to flood Democratic primaries. Demanding a nuance-free “Israel is always right” response from lawmakers. None of the above advances the cause of a strong US-Israel relationship grounded in shared values and interests.”

Like Zohran Mamdani, who infamously wouldn’t even talk to J Street when he was a Bowdoin College activist, Mejia has no interest in a strong US-Israel relationship, a position at odds with that of most Americans. Her positions on Israel’s “genocide” and ICE are Exhibits A and B of how progressive Democrats sometimes lead with their chins.

Like Malinowski, I’ve been highly critical of Netanyahu’s conduct of the war. And it was sad to watch so many supporters of Israel turn away from the suffering of Palestinian children. But the Gaza War was not genocide, a powerful word with a clear definition since it was first used in 1944 re the Nazis and later, appropriately, to describe horrific mass murder in China, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur. The casual re-definition of the word strips it of meaning and lessens its sting.

The facts aren’t as complicated as they are made out to be. Genocide requires intent to kill a whole category of people; Israel’s legitimate wartime intent was to kill Hamas fighters, not Palestinian civilians being used by the tens of thousands as human shields. The IDF routinely warned civilians before attacks and urged them to leave the area, which is not something genocidal regimes do. Who positioned missile launchers next to civilians, wouldn’t let women and children take refuge in tunnels, and refused to help civilians escape the war zone — all so they could be killed and exploited for propaganda purposes? Hamas.

In truth, the only genocidal intent we’ve seen in the region since Assad fled Syria was what happened on October 7. While Israel has the power to kill everyone in Gaza several times over and doesn’t use it, Hamas still says repeatedly that it wants to kill all the Jews it can. Fortunately, it has never had the strength to complete the genocide it tried to start that day.

Charging genocide might work in Berkeley and Brooklyn, and even in pockets of Montclair and Morristown, but it’s not the way for Mejia to build on the 29 percent of the vote that she got in the primary. She’ll likely beat the Republican in the April special election but might have trouble defending her seat in future cycles in a district that’s much less Democratic than those of AOC and other members of the Squad. That’s something for Democrats to consider if Malinowski runs against Mejia in the June primary for the full-term.

Words matter. After the Minneapolis murders and scores of other appalling ICE excesses, prominent Democrats are rightly saying, “Stop ICE” or “Rein in ICE” and rightly demanding an end to masks, warrantless searches, secret detention centers, and other abuses. In 2029, a Democratic president will rightly tear the agency down to its studs and rebuild it with another name. But these common-sense Democrats are smart enough not to say “Abolish ICE.” They know that makes them seem as if they want open borders with no immigration enforcement — a terrible look for the party, especially when the political weather changes, as it will.

Mejia told New Jersey political columnist Tom Moran that using slogans like “Defund the Police” and “Abolish ICE” serves a purpose. “You’re looking for things that immediately convey the problem and will give us air time…a nuanced discussion doesn’t get the air time that a snappy political slogan does.”

Analilia Mejia's call to "Abolish ICE" is political malpractice

Ugh. Mejia apparently paid no attention to the last four election cycles when even Democrats who didn’t use “Defund the Police” got clobbered for belonging to a party with a small number of tone-deaf candidates who did.

What’s infuriating is that progressives and moderates barely differ at all on the specifics of reforming the police or reining in ICE. But progressives continue to use and often demand language that loses votes. Sure, “Abolish ICE!” makes for a better chant or placard than “Rein in ICE!” So what? “Stop ICE” will do.

Some Democrats insistent on leading with their chins are just virtue signaling. Others are playing a longer game. One of my relatives told me he favors staking out more aggressive left-wing positions in order to “open the Overton Window” — expand the sense of what’s possible.

That’s a nice idea in a normal election year and it’s good that Mejia is pushing hard on populist economic ideas that are winners with voters. But please skip “Israeli genocide,” “Abolish ICE,” “gender-affirming surgery for teenagers,” and other cultural issues that rub many Americans the wrong way. The stakes are too high. If progressives open that window, the fascists will push us out, and the Republic will fall 100 feet to its death.

So please, Democrats, be smart. Tuck your chins as you enter the ring.

Here’s my short “Then and Now” convo with Princeton Professor Julian Zelizer, our latest weekly effort to convey some of the historical context of the news: