A Voter’s Guide To New York’s 12th Congressional District – The Nadler Seat

For People Worried About Antisemitism

Bad News – The Candidates Suck

The primary to select the democratic candidate for New York’s 12th Congressional District (NY-12) in the November election is on June 23, and mail-in voting has begun. This primary is the real election, since the republican candidate being chosen the same day has no chance of winning in November. The democratic stronghold of NY-12 is the most Jewish district in the United States, and among the most ethnically diverse. It is brimming with liberal democrats. It is one of the wealthiest districts, the most hard working, and also has its fair share of retirees, families, middle class and poor. It teems with some of the most educated people on the globe. It is an amazing district in so many ways, a tourism mecca filled with the world’s finest culture, museums, business, fashion, shopping, food and sports. For a district this amazing, possibly the most remarkable thing about it is the utter mediocrity of the slate of democratic candidates seeking to represent it in Congress.

Perhaps it should not be that surprising, given the unexceptional performance of the current, retiring representative, Jerrold Nadler. Rep. Nadler is one of the most recognizable figures in Congress — just not, it turns out, to most of the people who elected him. Probably fewer than 100 people in the district could identify a single legislative achievement to his name in his 175 years in Congress. Like most of Washington, his grandstanding is unimaginative and tiresome. He’s a democrat loyalist in the extreme – he endorsed democratic socialist darling Zohran Mamdani for Mayor of New York. He supported President Obama’s failed strategy of Iran appeasement in the JCPOA. He is virulently anti-Trump (though more property bears Trump’s name in Nadler’s district than anywhere else in the world) and regardless of what you think of the impeachment efforts, Nadler’s performance during the impeachment trials was an embarrassment. He’s decidedly weak on Israel and does not speak about or even seem to care about the rise of antisemitism in his party.
Sadly, the leading candidates to replace Rep. Nadler are no better, and more of the same mediocrity is practically assured, as the following look at the leading candidates suggests.

First, there is the golden Kennedy boy John “Jack” Bouvier Kennedy Schlossberg. He has not demonstrated any great familiarity with or interest in the Middle East. He does like to trot out that his father was from an obsevant Jewish home with which he feels connected. That connection has not prevented him from staking out anti-Israel views. He says he does not take PAC money, and the only PAC he mentions by name whose money he will not accept is (here comes the shocker…) AIPAC. He says he would have voted for the Sanders arms embargo. He has put his Kennedy bloodline and Harvard and Yale degrees to very good use: His principal occupation – this is not a joke – is Tik Tok “influencer”. In fairness, other trust fund babies have been elected with less on the resume. He’s a mediocre candidate without ideas on antisemitism, except to endorse Mamdani for Mayor and to defend him against accusations of antisemitism. That and a Nancy Pelosi endorsement (he is a Kennedy after all), have earned Schlossberg the title of contender, but fortunately a recent hatchet job in the paper of record reports on the 30-something snoozing through staff meetings among other assorted poor behaviors, so he’s slipping in the polls.

Second is Micah Lasher, who enjoys being the candidate endorsed by the retiring Congressman. Under old-school rules, Lasher has done what he was supposed to do, he’s been a good boy and worked his way up in the machine politics for which New York is so famous. He trots out his Jewish cred, irrefutably legitimate, but also proves to be very weak like his mentor. He dares not to say anything bad about the antisemites in the club, like “his friend” (his words) Mayor Mamdani, who he endorsed, and while he claims to support Israel, he cannot be expected to stand up to the progressive wing actively working to undermine the relationship between the U.S. and Israel and about whom he has been silent. More likely, he is inclined to succumb to that wing. He has attached his name to useful legislation regarding antisemitic protests, and says he would have voted against the Sanders embargo, but it is far from clear he is a candidate with any fresh ideas to address the growing problems for Jews in America, particularly within his party. A vote for Lasher is a vote for more of the same, and the same is getting worse for Jews in New York, not better. His political ambition dictates his party loyalty. As the wind blows farther and stronger from the antisemitic left, one can reasonably expect him to yield to the growing hate.

Third, Alex Bores. While Bores is himself uninteresting, the political war against him is fun to watch. A self-declared “AI expert” who once worked for Palantir, and who promoted local regulation of AI in New York state government, he became a household name in the district because “Big Tech PACS” have been running anti-Bores television ads in prime TV spots since the New Year. They oppose the patchwork approach to AI regulation that Bores supported in the state legislature, a legitimate gripe for which his answer seems to be to run for Congress. The attack ads call him a patsy for Palantir, though he quit Palantir allegedly in disgust, more on that in a moment. Given the quirkiness of the district, this ad campaign actually gave Bores meaningful name recognition and has probably helped him more than it hurt. It is hardly clear that his voice is needed on the subject of AI or that his perspective on it is so unique as to justify the lifetime appointment to Congress. Indeed, someone trained in ethics and morality, a rabbi or other clergyman for instance, seems like a far better choice than a software engineer who “resigned” after his employer opened an HR investigation into bawdy behavior. Bores is weak on antisemitism, claims a Bernie Sanders endorsement, possibly has character issues, and squarely embraces the J Street faction who are no friend of Israel. Like any good democrat, he has also kissed the ring and endorsed Mamdani for Mayor. Bores is oblivious to rising antisemitism in the democratic party and he has no ideas on or about it.

Fourth, George Conway. While all the candidates insist they will “take on Trump,” whatever that means, Conway’s sole agenda item is to impeach Trump, after which he quite admirably promises to leave office. Conway enjoys name recognition, since he has been so exclusively focused on lambasting Trump for almost a decade on major networks and social media, a hatred for Trump that even cost him his marriage in a very public split. Among lawyers, Conway is well-known and highly regarded for his acumen. Of these leading candidates, he would likely be the best friend to Israel, but his exclusively anti-Trump focus can only go so far. While his professed contempt for antisemitism is certainly sincere, it is not something he volunteers about his views, and his singular focus on Trump means antisemitism is not really an issue for him. He could portray himself as the outsider who forcefully takes on the increasingly dominant antisemite wing of the party, but that simply is not a real part of his agenda. While he has uttered the requisite lines about “affordability” necessary to call himself a democrat, Conway has a hard time concealing that he is really an old-school republican, someone who believes in free market ideas and less government, ideas that simply do not resonate in NY-12. While the voters in this district can be convinced of many claimed virtues to Conway’s hopes for dealing with President Trump, everyone knows he’s a republican wearing a democrat lapel pin and he has no chance of garnering many votes. (It should be noted, however, that there are republicans who live in the district who register as democrats solely so they can vote in the democratic primary elections – he’ll get some of those votes.)

The slate of other candidates contains several other names who do not currently have a meaningful chance of success at the polls. That includes several so-called progressives who rant against the genocide and the apartheid state. Rest assured, however, none of them (possibly save one) see the antisemitism in the party and are talking about it. A few are Jewish, and most are highly supportive of New York’s mayor.

In short, barring some black swan event, the winning candidate from New York’s most Jewish district can be expected not only to be weak on Israel but to accommodate the anti-Zionist mob of the progressive left. Such tolerance of antisemitism from the representative of this district, and quite possibly from a Jew, will serve to promote and further normalize the ostracization of Israel and inreasingly poor treatment of Jews in America. New York’s 12th district will be a lost opportunity for meaningfully changing this trajectory, and the next congressman will almost certainly be a democrat who shows continued weakness in the face of growing bigotry.