Harris’s VP decision: Do we devalue legitimate claims of antisemitism

Kamala Harris antagonists – many Trump supporters as well as thoughtful and prominent Jews among them — argue that her decision to not choose Governor Josh Shapiro as her running mate unambiguously demonstrates antisemitism at work. Just ask Donald Trump. This past weekend he himself strategically added fuel to the fire: “They turned him down because he’s Jewish.”

The dust has begun to settle on this very complicated issue, but not nearly enough. So, let’s pivot back to 1960 for context. At that moment in time, there was a great fear in an overwhelmingly Protestant America that John F. Kennedy, if elected president, would be totally under the thumb of the Holy See in Rome. The fear was palpable, especially in the much-needed Southern vote.

Still, Kennedy won the nomination as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States. Having won that battle. which was at considerable risk due to his Catholicism, Kennedy chose Lyndon Johnson, a Texan, to be his Vice President. The choice was indisputably made in order to maximize his ability to gain the South.  Kennedy chose wisely as it turned out — a totally balanced ticket.  Parenthetically, a woman, Black or Jew as his vice president choice would have been unthinkable at the time. One doesn’t have to wonder why.

But let’s assume this as a pure hypothetical: the roundly acknowledged, singularly best qualified and beloved candidate for the vice presidency at the time was also a Catholic. (Importantly, never before had there been a Catholic president — the only close call coming decades earlier when the Catholic Al Smith lost his 1928 presidential bid, surely in part because of his religion).

Against a conspicuously anti-Catholic sentiment in America as backdrop, was there any chance whatsoever that Kennedy would have selected as his vice president another Catholic?  More important here though, had he declined to choose a Catholic despite his unparalleled qualifications would anyone – including any anti-Kennedy Catholic — have accused Kennedy, the Kennedy family or anyone of importance in Kennedy’s campaign as being anti-Catholic?

Indeed, Kennedy would easily have recognized that he needed a ticket-balancing Protestant running mate. And Kennedy’s most formidable detractors – had there indeed been such a Catholic potential running mate — would have easily acknowledged that. A presidential candidate must understand the electoral playing field, or he or she is a fool.

Just as Barack Obama’s detractors – among them, some conservative Blacks — would have readily admitted the silliness, to a point of recklessness, of his selecting even the singularly most qualified Black man (or, for that matter, Black woman) as his running mate. Politics is politics, and winning is everything. No candidate’s intended agenda can be accomplished without first winning.

Would Obama have been accused of anti-Black racism if he refused to pick a Black individual, even if the most qualified person for the job, as his vice president? And, it’s worth noting, even in Obama’s campaign, false allegations relating to his religion (identifying him as a Muslim rather than a Christian) were raised in an attempt to create a wedge issue. Though the allegations proved false, their spurious nature are a reminder of how divisive religious affiliation may still be in a presidential campaign.

Now, let’s turn to Kamala Harris and Josh Shapiro. And yes, it’s a little more complicated. True enough, Governor Shapiro is eminently qualified – perhaps even the most qualified of the potential candidates for the vice presidency from which Harris could choose. He is indisputably charismatic, centrist, highly popular with voters, a policy maven, refreshingly young, from the most important swing state and thoroughly qualified for the job. So, the question has been posed, did she select Governor Walz, not Shapiro, due to antisemitism?

Of course, we never really know what’s in someone’s mind or heart. Still, what is the best evidence against that conclusion? Simple:  Harris married a Jew. Of all the men in the world – an attractive, accomplished woman she surely would have had many candidates for the position — she chose as her husband a Jew. So, Harris herself, an antisemite? Surely not.

Still, we can’t be certain why she didn’t choose Shapiro, aside from the constantly looming suggestion of antisemitism. After all, and we can’t ignore it: the Israel/Hamas War has laid bare a deep political chasm within the Democratic Party that created a troublesome rift between moderates and progressives. The fissure continues to have the potential to swing critical states like Michigan. Also, Shapiro wrote in college that the Palestinians were too “battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own,” words that may not sit well with the left flank of the Democratic Party. Finally, he studied in Israel, volunteered for the Israel army, and supported Israel’s war in Gaza after the October 7 attack.

Surely, all of these things undoubtedly did go into Harris’s calculus – as they should have! But are we really willing to say that if a putative presidential nominee is concerned about losing votes over Israel or differs with aggressive positions that the Netanyahu government is taking in Gaza and elsewhere, and accordingly would not choose a Jewish/Zionistic vice presidential possibility, that the nominee is motivated by antisemitism?

One person interviewed for this essay, when directly asked whether choosing Shapiro was an antisemitic act, said: “Obviously, she caved to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, having been more fearful of losing their votes than those of pro-Israel Jews. You tell me what that is.” I suspect that that precise sentiment echoes the view of many Jews, especially Zionist-leaning Jews, particularly now during the war in Gaza. For them, that act of caving is itself “an act of antisemitism” – not very short of an outright accusation.

Still, apart from any of the above, did she decline Shapiro simply because, as some commentators suggest, he essentially wanted what would have amounted to a co-presidency with her or, alternatively, the ability to effectively be an independent vice president? Did she fear that he might outshine her?  Perhaps she didn’t have the same chemistry with Shapiro as with Walz. Whichever it was – likely a combination — the ultimate choice was that of Harris (the established non-antisemite in the room), not some unidentified antisemite whisperer on her team.

Now, undoubtedly, Harris (and her team) would have quickly recognized that having a Jew on her ticket even apart from the Zionism issue might indeed be a drag. After all, quiet as its kept, or maybe not so quietly, many whites in middle America simply don’t consider Jews as being “white” in the same way as they see themselves (and I’m not even talking about the “they can’t replace us” crowd). So, given that dirty little secret, a Jew as her running mate would have meant in some quarters “two non-whites on the ticket”: Harris, an interracial Black and Indian woman, and Shapiro, a Jew. Indeed, in the view of at least some, this would be just shy of the equivalent of two Catholics having run side by side in 1960.

So, if Harris made her choice purely on that basis, it would have meant that Harris recognized “the continued existence of” anti-Black racism and anti-Semitism in America — particularly problematic, especially in combination. Is that the same as saying that antisemitism was the reason for her not choosing Shapiro? Much more apt would be that Harris (like this writer) would have feared that the dual factors of antisemitism and racism might fatally impact the ticket.

Importantly, too, Harris didn’t choose the very qualified Governor Whitmer or Secretary Buttigieg. Misogyny or homophobia? Or simply a valid recognition by a candidate that the nation likely isn’t ready, currently at least, for two women or a Black woman and gay man on the same ticket? And, by the way, what would have been her reason to not have selected Senator Mark Kelly?

Then too, not choosing Shapiro may have had absolutely nothing to do with him being a Jew.  Assume, however, that she did “cave” to the progressive left in her choice of Walz. It’s certainly possible. If that is indeed what occurred, then those who label the rejection of Shapiro as a running mate as “antisemitism” too easily conflate the odious  intolerance of Jews that we have suffered as a people over the course of history, with a candidate’s strategic obeisance to the necessities of political life. Put otherwise, aren’t we simply seeing real politique, pure and simple?

Certainly, we’re witnessing a ferocious surge of antisemitism across America. As the Irish writer Conor Cruise O’Brien once observed, “antisemitism is a light sleeper.” We Jews see it daily, and must constantly be on the alert to eradicate it. Still, when we raise our hand and point to it so that others may see, we need to be right — lest we devalue the views we hold that we would ideally want others to accept.