The Politics of Principle or Power
Interestingly, all the sound and fury surrounding Representative Haley Stevens’s decision to endorse Republican Mike Rogers over Democrat Abdul El-Sayed is being framed as outrage over her willingness to cross party lines and support a candidate endorsed by Donald Trump. That framing conveniently obscures the central issue: Stevens’s decision was not an endorsement of Trump or an abrupt conversion to Republicanism, but a response to El-Sayed’s libelous rhetoric toward Israel, his association with anti-Israel provocateurs, and his unwillingness to confront antisemitic messaging.
Stevens had initially pledged to support her party’s nominee despite their profound disagreements over Israel. She drew a line over an outside political advertisement invoking Israel to explain Michigan’s economic problems and El-Sayed’s association with Hasan Piker. These were not merely differences over Israeli policy; they raised fundamental questions about the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric in American political discourse.
For those who fecklessly insist that El-Sayed is not antisemitic, merely anti-Zionist, they are deluding themselves by pretending the two are mutually exclusive. Criticism of Israeli government policies is legitimate. But demonizing the Jewish state, questioning its legitimacy, applying discriminatory double standards to its existence, and invoking longstanding antisemitic tropes cannot be excused simply by attaching the label “anti-Zionist.” There is a fundamental difference between criticizing Israel and vilifying the Jewish national home.
El-Sayed’s own rhetoric makes the distinction particularly difficult to dismiss. His accusations that Israel is committing genocide and practicing apartheid, his characterization of the Israeli government as “evil” and no better than Hamas, and his description of Israelis as “bloodthirsty” invoke language and imagery with a disturbing history of demonizing Jews. These are not inconsequential political disagreements.
Yet some of Michigan’s Jewish Democratic politicians appear willing to put party loyalty ahead of principle and propriety. Consider former Congressman Sander Levin, who acknowledged his “significant disagreement” with El-Sayed’s positions on Israel but nevertheless endorsed him, explaining that he had “never failed to support the full Democratic ticket.”
They invoke their disdain for Donald Trump as a convenient justification for overlooking these profound differences. What is presented as resistance to Trump increasingly looks like a political calculation to preserve party influence, retain positions, and remain relevant in the corridors of power. Indeed, supporters have characterized their endorsement as a “strategic chess move” intended to restore Democratic control of the Senate and check Trump’s power.
Their opposition to Trump may be politically expedient, but it should not be confused with moral courage or principled leadership. Why, then, are some Democrats more outraged by a political colleague crossing party lines than by the rhetoric that prompted her to do so?
Disagreement with Trump should never become an excuse to overlook, rationalize, or excuse hostility toward Israel, its legitimacy as the Jewish homeland, or the security of its citizens. Party loyalty is no substitute for principle, and political expediency is no excuse for abandoning it.
