SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) holds a sign that reads "Guilty of Genocide" as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress in the chamber of the House of Representatives at the U.S. Capitol on July 24, 2024 in Washington, D.C.
The Michigan Democrat is not morally wrong for refusing to support the Harris campaign. But her refusal, I submit, is politically mistaken.
Democracy is on the ballot this Tuesday.
The election is only one step in a protracted process.
Between the election, and the presidential inauguration on January 21, 2025, there is an almost three-month long period—what Barton Gellman has called “an interregnum”—that will furnish Trump and his team of MAGA attorneys with many opportunities to litigate, intimidate, obstruct, and even attempt to overturn a Harris-Walz electoral victory by legalistic if not legal means.
Democrats and democrats more generally have learned the lessons of 2020, and have organized an extensive legal effort, headed up by Marc Elias, to defeat election obstruction in the courts. The need to hold the line politically against such obstruction is well understood.
But this will only be necessary if Kamala Harriswins the election.
And this will only happen if she is able to obtain enough votes in the crucial swing states necessary to win 270 electoral votes. Winning the popular vote will not be enough. The Electoral College is where this election will ultimately be decided. This is why the Harris-Walz campaign has been campaigning so furiously in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin, and especially Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Tlaib is a brave and savvy political leader who has consistently spoken up against oppression and who, as the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has spoken bravely on behalf of Palestinians in the face of outright hostility expressed by Republicans but also by many Democrats.
And because the race is so tight, and every vote counts, and because so much of importance rides on the outcome, it is important, now, to think critically, in an intelligent way, about a very disappointing thing which happened this weekend: Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s unfortunate refusal, at a UAW campaign rally in Detroit, to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
Tlaib’s rationale is both straightforward and legitimate: the Biden administration’s strong and unwavering support for Israel’s criminal campaign of murder and destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, and the Democratic Party’s refusal to allow even one Palestinian-American to give voice to Palestinian concerns at the party’s convention last summer, represent intolerable disregard for Palestinian lives. As she explained: “Our trauma and pain feel unseen and ignored by both parties. One party uses our identity as a slur, and the other refuses to hear from us. Where is the shared humanity? Ignoring us won’t stop the genocide.”
Tlaib is a brave and savvy political leader who has consistently spoken up against oppression and who, as the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has spoken bravely on behalf of Palestinians in the face of outright hostility expressed by Republicans but also by many Democrats.
When she was attacked last year for her criticisms of Israeli war crimes, I strongly defended her in two pieces, published in rapid succession, that received substantial attention: “To Censure Rashida Tlaib Would Be to Censure Democracy Itself,” “and ““The Attacks on Rashida Tlaib Are Attacks on the Ethos of Pluralist Democracy .” In a third piece, “Defending and Respecting Rashida Tlaib’s Standpoint Does Not Mean Abandoning My Own ,” I also offered a sympathetic criticism of some of her rhetoric, which I thought alienated many allies to her cause.
It is in this spirit that I am writing now. I am not one of those who believes that Palestinian and Arab-Americans are under a moral duty to vote for the Harris-Walz ticket, or that they are somehow morally blameworthy should they refuse to so vote on grounds of either conscience or simple identity. For all politics involves mobilizing identity, and the Harris campaign is going all out to mobilize women in support of reproductive freedom and women’s health--as it should do.
Tlaib is not only a Palestinian-American citizen. She is also a member of Congress and leader of the Democratic Party and the progressive left more generally.
As I stated last week, in “A Few Words to Those Currently 'Uncommitted' to Voting for Harris ,“ many Arab-Americans are clearly so disgusted by Biden administration policy that they cannot support Harris, and it would be both foolish and morally tone deaf to tell them that their sense of identity is less important than any other. Arab-American fellow citizens have a right to feel outraged and ignored and to act accordingly.
At the same time, I also observed that:
’Uncommitted’ voters in some swing states, especially Michigan and Arizona, can turn the election for Trump or against him, and thus for racist authoritarianism or against it. Such voters can have an outsized influence on the future of American politics and thus the future of the world. There is an enormous political responsibility in this, a point recognized in an open letter circulated this week by Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders, which emphasizes that ‘voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement of her or of the policy decisions of the administration in which she served. It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear.’
The question I want to pose here regarding Tlaib’s decision is a question of political responsibility.
Tlaib is a Palestinian-American citizen, whose family is currently in danger in Israel-Palestine. As a citizen and as a conscientious moral individual, she has every right to refuse to support or to vote for Harris, by abstaining, or voting for Jill Stein, or whatever. It would be presumptuous for anyone to judge her as an individual, for only she knows what the current destruction of Palestine means to her and those whom she holds most dear.
But Tlaib is not only a Palestinian-American citizen. She is also a member of Congress and leader of the Democratic Party and the progressive left more generally.
And she has a distinct political responsibility that comes with this leadership. It requires that she be accountable to her constituents. But it also requires the she exercise the judgment necessary to truly lead, and to act publicly in ways that promote the interests of her constituents; the policies she cares about; and the survival of democracy itself. What she does publicly is by nature about much more than her. And her decisions carry more weight than ordinary citizen decisions.
A second Trump administration, especially linked to a buoyed MAGA Republican Congress, would be a simple disaster for everything that Rashida Tlaib has long bravely supported, from civil liberties to the dignified treatment of immigrants—including Arab immigrants—to justice for Palestinians. For Trump is an ally of Netanyahu and his Greater Israel agenda, and he will surely green-light even more aggression, dispossession, destruction and death for Palestinians than we have seen over the past year.
Rashida Tlaib is not morally wrong for refusing to support the Harris campaign. But her refusal, I submit, is politically mistaken, because it is likely to bring about results that are politically noxious for her supporters and their values, and for American democracy more generally.
A second Trump administration, especially linked to a buoyed MAGA Republican Congress, would be a simple disaster for everything that Rashida Tlaib has long bravely supported.
Back in early January 2019, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, then newly elected to her first Congressional term, made a bold and highly publicized declaration: “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!” She was immediately attacked for her lack of “civility.” One of many, I defended her, in three pieces” “On Calls to Impeach the Motherfucker,” “Why We Need to Listen to Rashida Tlaib,” and “Is ‘Motherfucker’ the Concept Political Science Now Needs?”
My basic point was a simple one: Tlaib’s controversial comments were entirely appropriate ways of talking about tyrannical then-president Trump, and her candor indeed established her as an outspoken and exemplary defender of democracy, a true leader of her party. In doing so, I quoted from her “offending” January speech:
President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country. On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country. His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now. . . Each passing day brings new damage to the countless people hurt by this lawless president’s actions. We cannot undo the trauma that he is causing to our people, and this nation. Those most vulnerable to his administration’s cruelty are counting on us to act — act to remove the president and put this country on a path to true justice. . . his is not just about Donald Trump. This is about all of us. What should we be as a nation? Who should we be as a people? In the face of this constitutional crisis, we must rise. We must rise to defend our Constitution, to defend our democracy, and to defend that bedrock principle that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States.
More powerful words in defense of democracy have rarely been spoken by a U.S. Congressperson.
It is obvious that much has changed since then. And especially since October 7, 2023, when a brutal Hamas attack on Israel precipitated almost a year of Israeli attacks on Gaza (and the West Bank, and Lebanon), attacks so brutal, destructive, and murderous that they do not even merit the description “retaliation.” This Israeli policy has been deplorable and criminal, and it deserves to be vocally criticized.
In the past year, Tlaib’s brave action as the lone Palestinian voice of and for Palestinians in the U.S. has been exemplary. Her call for a cease-fire, her denunciation of the Israeli war and of U.S. military support for it, her calls for Palestinian self-determination—she has done these things as only she could do them. And in doing these things, she has acted not only on behalf of the rights of Palestinians—an eminently noble commitment!—but on behalf of a more accountable, humane, and just U.S. foreign policy, in the Middle East and more generally. She has called out the hypocritical aspects of the Biden administration claim to be all about “democracy,” and she has done so in the name of democracy itself.
And it is concern for democracy that will hopefully lead her, at the last moment, to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
Tlaib, through her well-earned influence with scores of thousands of Arab-American citizens, especially in Michigan, can still– even in this late moment—well turn the outcome of this election. By making a statement like the open letter circulated by Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats, and declaring that “voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement . . . . It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear,” she can help to elect Harris and to keep Trump at bay. In doing so, she would also further cement her stature as a Democratic leader and indeed she would strengthen the party’s Progressive Caucus and especially her “Squad” colleagues.
Alternatively, she can decline to say anything. This might be the righteous choice. But it may well produce the worst possible political outcome—a second Trump administration.
Tlaib bears a tremendous burden of responsibility.
I hope she foregoes the righteous choice in favor of the politically right one.
A great deal hangs in the balance for us all.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Democracy is on the ballot this Tuesday.
The election is only one step in a protracted process.
Between the election, and the presidential inauguration on January 21, 2025, there is an almost three-month long period—what Barton Gellman has called “an interregnum”—that will furnish Trump and his team of MAGA attorneys with many opportunities to litigate, intimidate, obstruct, and even attempt to overturn a Harris-Walz electoral victory by legalistic if not legal means.
Democrats and democrats more generally have learned the lessons of 2020, and have organized an extensive legal effort, headed up by Marc Elias, to defeat election obstruction in the courts. The need to hold the line politically against such obstruction is well understood.
But this will only be necessary if Kamala Harriswins the election.
And this will only happen if she is able to obtain enough votes in the crucial swing states necessary to win 270 electoral votes. Winning the popular vote will not be enough. The Electoral College is where this election will ultimately be decided. This is why the Harris-Walz campaign has been campaigning so furiously in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin, and especially Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Tlaib is a brave and savvy political leader who has consistently spoken up against oppression and who, as the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has spoken bravely on behalf of Palestinians in the face of outright hostility expressed by Republicans but also by many Democrats.
And because the race is so tight, and every vote counts, and because so much of importance rides on the outcome, it is important, now, to think critically, in an intelligent way, about a very disappointing thing which happened this weekend: Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s unfortunate refusal, at a UAW campaign rally in Detroit, to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
Tlaib’s rationale is both straightforward and legitimate: the Biden administration’s strong and unwavering support for Israel’s criminal campaign of murder and destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, and the Democratic Party’s refusal to allow even one Palestinian-American to give voice to Palestinian concerns at the party’s convention last summer, represent intolerable disregard for Palestinian lives. As she explained: “Our trauma and pain feel unseen and ignored by both parties. One party uses our identity as a slur, and the other refuses to hear from us. Where is the shared humanity? Ignoring us won’t stop the genocide.”
Tlaib is a brave and savvy political leader who has consistently spoken up against oppression and who, as the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has spoken bravely on behalf of Palestinians in the face of outright hostility expressed by Republicans but also by many Democrats.
When she was attacked last year for her criticisms of Israeli war crimes, I strongly defended her in two pieces, published in rapid succession, that received substantial attention: “To Censure Rashida Tlaib Would Be to Censure Democracy Itself,” “and ““The Attacks on Rashida Tlaib Are Attacks on the Ethos of Pluralist Democracy .” In a third piece, “Defending and Respecting Rashida Tlaib’s Standpoint Does Not Mean Abandoning My Own ,” I also offered a sympathetic criticism of some of her rhetoric, which I thought alienated many allies to her cause.
It is in this spirit that I am writing now. I am not one of those who believes that Palestinian and Arab-Americans are under a moral duty to vote for the Harris-Walz ticket, or that they are somehow morally blameworthy should they refuse to so vote on grounds of either conscience or simple identity. For all politics involves mobilizing identity, and the Harris campaign is going all out to mobilize women in support of reproductive freedom and women’s health--as it should do.
Tlaib is not only a Palestinian-American citizen. She is also a member of Congress and leader of the Democratic Party and the progressive left more generally.
As I stated last week, in “A Few Words to Those Currently 'Uncommitted' to Voting for Harris ,“ many Arab-Americans are clearly so disgusted by Biden administration policy that they cannot support Harris, and it would be both foolish and morally tone deaf to tell them that their sense of identity is less important than any other. Arab-American fellow citizens have a right to feel outraged and ignored and to act accordingly.
At the same time, I also observed that:
’Uncommitted’ voters in some swing states, especially Michigan and Arizona, can turn the election for Trump or against him, and thus for racist authoritarianism or against it. Such voters can have an outsized influence on the future of American politics and thus the future of the world. There is an enormous political responsibility in this, a point recognized in an open letter circulated this week by Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders, which emphasizes that ‘voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement of her or of the policy decisions of the administration in which she served. It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear.’
The question I want to pose here regarding Tlaib’s decision is a question of political responsibility.
Tlaib is a Palestinian-American citizen, whose family is currently in danger in Israel-Palestine. As a citizen and as a conscientious moral individual, she has every right to refuse to support or to vote for Harris, by abstaining, or voting for Jill Stein, or whatever. It would be presumptuous for anyone to judge her as an individual, for only she knows what the current destruction of Palestine means to her and those whom she holds most dear.
But Tlaib is not only a Palestinian-American citizen. She is also a member of Congress and leader of the Democratic Party and the progressive left more generally.
And she has a distinct political responsibility that comes with this leadership. It requires that she be accountable to her constituents. But it also requires the she exercise the judgment necessary to truly lead, and to act publicly in ways that promote the interests of her constituents; the policies she cares about; and the survival of democracy itself. What she does publicly is by nature about much more than her. And her decisions carry more weight than ordinary citizen decisions.
A second Trump administration, especially linked to a buoyed MAGA Republican Congress, would be a simple disaster for everything that Rashida Tlaib has long bravely supported, from civil liberties to the dignified treatment of immigrants—including Arab immigrants—to justice for Palestinians. For Trump is an ally of Netanyahu and his Greater Israel agenda, and he will surely green-light even more aggression, dispossession, destruction and death for Palestinians than we have seen over the past year.
Rashida Tlaib is not morally wrong for refusing to support the Harris campaign. But her refusal, I submit, is politically mistaken, because it is likely to bring about results that are politically noxious for her supporters and their values, and for American democracy more generally.
A second Trump administration, especially linked to a buoyed MAGA Republican Congress, would be a simple disaster for everything that Rashida Tlaib has long bravely supported.
Back in early January 2019, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, then newly elected to her first Congressional term, made a bold and highly publicized declaration: “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!” She was immediately attacked for her lack of “civility.” One of many, I defended her, in three pieces” “On Calls to Impeach the Motherfucker,” “Why We Need to Listen to Rashida Tlaib,” and “Is ‘Motherfucker’ the Concept Political Science Now Needs?”
My basic point was a simple one: Tlaib’s controversial comments were entirely appropriate ways of talking about tyrannical then-president Trump, and her candor indeed established her as an outspoken and exemplary defender of democracy, a true leader of her party. In doing so, I quoted from her “offending” January speech:
President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country. On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country. His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now. . . Each passing day brings new damage to the countless people hurt by this lawless president’s actions. We cannot undo the trauma that he is causing to our people, and this nation. Those most vulnerable to his administration’s cruelty are counting on us to act — act to remove the president and put this country on a path to true justice. . . his is not just about Donald Trump. This is about all of us. What should we be as a nation? Who should we be as a people? In the face of this constitutional crisis, we must rise. We must rise to defend our Constitution, to defend our democracy, and to defend that bedrock principle that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States.
More powerful words in defense of democracy have rarely been spoken by a U.S. Congressperson.
It is obvious that much has changed since then. And especially since October 7, 2023, when a brutal Hamas attack on Israel precipitated almost a year of Israeli attacks on Gaza (and the West Bank, and Lebanon), attacks so brutal, destructive, and murderous that they do not even merit the description “retaliation.” This Israeli policy has been deplorable and criminal, and it deserves to be vocally criticized.
In the past year, Tlaib’s brave action as the lone Palestinian voice of and for Palestinians in the U.S. has been exemplary. Her call for a cease-fire, her denunciation of the Israeli war and of U.S. military support for it, her calls for Palestinian self-determination—she has done these things as only she could do them. And in doing these things, she has acted not only on behalf of the rights of Palestinians—an eminently noble commitment!—but on behalf of a more accountable, humane, and just U.S. foreign policy, in the Middle East and more generally. She has called out the hypocritical aspects of the Biden administration claim to be all about “democracy,” and she has done so in the name of democracy itself.
And it is concern for democracy that will hopefully lead her, at the last moment, to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
Tlaib, through her well-earned influence with scores of thousands of Arab-American citizens, especially in Michigan, can still– even in this late moment—well turn the outcome of this election. By making a statement like the open letter circulated by Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats, and declaring that “voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement . . . . It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear,” she can help to elect Harris and to keep Trump at bay. In doing so, she would also further cement her stature as a Democratic leader and indeed she would strengthen the party’s Progressive Caucus and especially her “Squad” colleagues.
Alternatively, she can decline to say anything. This might be the righteous choice. But it may well produce the worst possible political outcome—a second Trump administration.
Tlaib bears a tremendous burden of responsibility.
I hope she foregoes the righteous choice in favor of the politically right one.
A great deal hangs in the balance for us all.
Democracy is on the ballot this Tuesday.
The election is only one step in a protracted process.
Between the election, and the presidential inauguration on January 21, 2025, there is an almost three-month long period—what Barton Gellman has called “an interregnum”—that will furnish Trump and his team of MAGA attorneys with many opportunities to litigate, intimidate, obstruct, and even attempt to overturn a Harris-Walz electoral victory by legalistic if not legal means.
Democrats and democrats more generally have learned the lessons of 2020, and have organized an extensive legal effort, headed up by Marc Elias, to defeat election obstruction in the courts. The need to hold the line politically against such obstruction is well understood.
But this will only be necessary if Kamala Harriswins the election.
And this will only happen if she is able to obtain enough votes in the crucial swing states necessary to win 270 electoral votes. Winning the popular vote will not be enough. The Electoral College is where this election will ultimately be decided. This is why the Harris-Walz campaign has been campaigning so furiously in Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Nevada, Wisconsin, and especially Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Tlaib is a brave and savvy political leader who has consistently spoken up against oppression and who, as the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has spoken bravely on behalf of Palestinians in the face of outright hostility expressed by Republicans but also by many Democrats.
And because the race is so tight, and every vote counts, and because so much of importance rides on the outcome, it is important, now, to think critically, in an intelligent way, about a very disappointing thing which happened this weekend: Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s unfortunate refusal, at a UAW campaign rally in Detroit, to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
Tlaib’s rationale is both straightforward and legitimate: the Biden administration’s strong and unwavering support for Israel’s criminal campaign of murder and destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, and the Democratic Party’s refusal to allow even one Palestinian-American to give voice to Palestinian concerns at the party’s convention last summer, represent intolerable disregard for Palestinian lives. As she explained: “Our trauma and pain feel unseen and ignored by both parties. One party uses our identity as a slur, and the other refuses to hear from us. Where is the shared humanity? Ignoring us won’t stop the genocide.”
Tlaib is a brave and savvy political leader who has consistently spoken up against oppression and who, as the only Palestinian-American in Congress, has spoken bravely on behalf of Palestinians in the face of outright hostility expressed by Republicans but also by many Democrats.
When she was attacked last year for her criticisms of Israeli war crimes, I strongly defended her in two pieces, published in rapid succession, that received substantial attention: “To Censure Rashida Tlaib Would Be to Censure Democracy Itself,” “and ““The Attacks on Rashida Tlaib Are Attacks on the Ethos of Pluralist Democracy .” In a third piece, “Defending and Respecting Rashida Tlaib’s Standpoint Does Not Mean Abandoning My Own ,” I also offered a sympathetic criticism of some of her rhetoric, which I thought alienated many allies to her cause.
It is in this spirit that I am writing now. I am not one of those who believes that Palestinian and Arab-Americans are under a moral duty to vote for the Harris-Walz ticket, or that they are somehow morally blameworthy should they refuse to so vote on grounds of either conscience or simple identity. For all politics involves mobilizing identity, and the Harris campaign is going all out to mobilize women in support of reproductive freedom and women’s health--as it should do.
Tlaib is not only a Palestinian-American citizen. She is also a member of Congress and leader of the Democratic Party and the progressive left more generally.
As I stated last week, in “A Few Words to Those Currently 'Uncommitted' to Voting for Harris ,“ many Arab-Americans are clearly so disgusted by Biden administration policy that they cannot support Harris, and it would be both foolish and morally tone deaf to tell them that their sense of identity is less important than any other. Arab-American fellow citizens have a right to feel outraged and ignored and to act accordingly.
At the same time, I also observed that:
’Uncommitted’ voters in some swing states, especially Michigan and Arizona, can turn the election for Trump or against him, and thus for racist authoritarianism or against it. Such voters can have an outsized influence on the future of American politics and thus the future of the world. There is an enormous political responsibility in this, a point recognized in an open letter circulated this week by Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats and community leaders, which emphasizes that ‘voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement of her or of the policy decisions of the administration in which she served. It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear.’
The question I want to pose here regarding Tlaib’s decision is a question of political responsibility.
Tlaib is a Palestinian-American citizen, whose family is currently in danger in Israel-Palestine. As a citizen and as a conscientious moral individual, she has every right to refuse to support or to vote for Harris, by abstaining, or voting for Jill Stein, or whatever. It would be presumptuous for anyone to judge her as an individual, for only she knows what the current destruction of Palestine means to her and those whom she holds most dear.
But Tlaib is not only a Palestinian-American citizen. She is also a member of Congress and leader of the Democratic Party and the progressive left more generally.
And she has a distinct political responsibility that comes with this leadership. It requires that she be accountable to her constituents. But it also requires the she exercise the judgment necessary to truly lead, and to act publicly in ways that promote the interests of her constituents; the policies she cares about; and the survival of democracy itself. What she does publicly is by nature about much more than her. And her decisions carry more weight than ordinary citizen decisions.
A second Trump administration, especially linked to a buoyed MAGA Republican Congress, would be a simple disaster for everything that Rashida Tlaib has long bravely supported, from civil liberties to the dignified treatment of immigrants—including Arab immigrants—to justice for Palestinians. For Trump is an ally of Netanyahu and his Greater Israel agenda, and he will surely green-light even more aggression, dispossession, destruction and death for Palestinians than we have seen over the past year.
Rashida Tlaib is not morally wrong for refusing to support the Harris campaign. But her refusal, I submit, is politically mistaken, because it is likely to bring about results that are politically noxious for her supporters and their values, and for American democracy more generally.
A second Trump administration, especially linked to a buoyed MAGA Republican Congress, would be a simple disaster for everything that Rashida Tlaib has long bravely supported.
Back in early January 2019, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, then newly elected to her first Congressional term, made a bold and highly publicized declaration: “We’re going to impeach the motherfucker!” She was immediately attacked for her lack of “civility.” One of many, I defended her, in three pieces” “On Calls to Impeach the Motherfucker,” “Why We Need to Listen to Rashida Tlaib,” and “Is ‘Motherfucker’ the Concept Political Science Now Needs?”
My basic point was a simple one: Tlaib’s controversial comments were entirely appropriate ways of talking about tyrannical then-president Trump, and her candor indeed established her as an outspoken and exemplary defender of democracy, a true leader of her party. In doing so, I quoted from her “offending” January speech:
President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country. On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country. His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now. . . Each passing day brings new damage to the countless people hurt by this lawless president’s actions. We cannot undo the trauma that he is causing to our people, and this nation. Those most vulnerable to his administration’s cruelty are counting on us to act — act to remove the president and put this country on a path to true justice. . . his is not just about Donald Trump. This is about all of us. What should we be as a nation? Who should we be as a people? In the face of this constitutional crisis, we must rise. We must rise to defend our Constitution, to defend our democracy, and to defend that bedrock principle that no one is above the law, not even the President of the United States.
More powerful words in defense of democracy have rarely been spoken by a U.S. Congressperson.
It is obvious that much has changed since then. And especially since October 7, 2023, when a brutal Hamas attack on Israel precipitated almost a year of Israeli attacks on Gaza (and the West Bank, and Lebanon), attacks so brutal, destructive, and murderous that they do not even merit the description “retaliation.” This Israeli policy has been deplorable and criminal, and it deserves to be vocally criticized.
In the past year, Tlaib’s brave action as the lone Palestinian voice of and for Palestinians in the U.S. has been exemplary. Her call for a cease-fire, her denunciation of the Israeli war and of U.S. military support for it, her calls for Palestinian self-determination—she has done these things as only she could do them. And in doing these things, she has acted not only on behalf of the rights of Palestinians—an eminently noble commitment!—but on behalf of a more accountable, humane, and just U.S. foreign policy, in the Middle East and more generally. She has called out the hypocritical aspects of the Biden administration claim to be all about “democracy,” and she has done so in the name of democracy itself.
And it is concern for democracy that will hopefully lead her, at the last moment, to endorse the Harris-Walz ticket.
Tlaib, through her well-earned influence with scores of thousands of Arab-American citizens, especially in Michigan, can still– even in this late moment—well turn the outcome of this election. By making a statement like the open letter circulated by Arizona Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, and progressive Democrats, and declaring that “voting for Harris is not a personal endorsement . . . . It’s an assessment of the best possible option to continue fighting for an end to the genocide, a free Palestine, and all else that we hold dear,” she can help to elect Harris and to keep Trump at bay. In doing so, she would also further cement her stature as a Democratic leader and indeed she would strengthen the party’s Progressive Caucus and especially her “Squad” colleagues.
Alternatively, she can decline to say anything. This might be the righteous choice. But it may well produce the worst possible political outcome—a second Trump administration.
Tlaib bears a tremendous burden of responsibility.
I hope she foregoes the righteous choice in favor of the politically right one.
A great deal hangs in the balance for us all.
The new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator joins "a team of snake oil salesmen and anti-science flunkies that have already shown disdain for the American people and their health," said one critic.
Echoing a party-line vote by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee last week, the chamber's Republicans on Thursday confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, former televison host Dr. Mehmet Oz.
Since Trump nominated Oz—who previously ran as a Republican for a U.S. Senate seat in Pennsylvania—a wide range of critics have argued that the celebrity cardiothoracic surgeon "is profoundly unqualified to lead any part of our healthcare system, let alone an agency as important as CMS," in the words of Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.
After Thursday's 53-45 vote to confirm Oz, Weissman declared that "Republicans in the Senate continued to just be a rubber stamp for a dangerous agenda that threatens to turn back the clock on healthcare in America."
Weissman warned that "in addition to having significant conflicts of interest, Oz is now poised to help enact the Trump administration's dangerous agenda, which seeks to strip crucial healthcare services through Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act from hundreds of millions of Americans and to use that money to give tax breaks to billionaires."
"As he showed in his confirmation hearing, Oz will also seek to further privatize Medicare, increasing the risk that seniors will receive inferior care and further threatening the long-term health of the Medicare program. We already know that privatized Medicare costs taxpayers nearly $100 billion annually in excess costs," he continued, referring to Medicare Advantage plans.
CMS is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, now led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—who, like Oz, came under fire for his record of dubious claims during the confirmation process. Weissman said that "Dr. Oz is joining a team of snake oil salesmen and anti-science flunkies that have already shown disdain for the American people and their health. This is yet another dark day for healthcare in America under Trump."
In the middle of Trump's tariff disaster, the Senate is voting to confirm quack grifter Dr. Oz to lead the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services.
[image or embed]
— Jen Bendery (@jbendery.bsky.social) April 3, 2025 at 12:29 PM
Oz's confirmation came a day after Trump announced globally disruptive tariffs and Senate Republicans unveiled a budget plan that would give the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the expense of federal food assistance and healthcare programs.
"While Dr. Oz would rather play coy, this is no hypothetical. Harmful cuts to Medicaid or Medicare are unavoidable in the Trump-Republican budget plan that prioritizes another giant tax break for the president's billionaire and corporate donors," Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said ahead of the vote.
"None of Dr. Oz's 'miracle' cures that he's peddled over the years will help seniors when their fundamental health security is ripped away to make the rich richer," Carrk continued. "And while privatizing Medicare may enrich Dr. Oz's family and big insurance friends, it will cost taxpayers far more and leave millions of patients vulnerable to denials of care and higher out-of-pocket costs."
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), was similarly critical, saying after the vote that "at a time when our population is growing older and the need for access to home care, nursing homes, affordable prescription drugs, and quality medical care has never been greater, Americans deserve better than a snake oil salesman leading the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services."
"Dr. Mehmet Oz has been shilling pseudoscience to line his own pockets. He can't be trusted to defend Medicare and Medicaid from billionaires who want to dismantle and privatize the foundation of affordable healthcare in this country," the union leader added. "AFSCME members—including nurses, home care and childcare providers, social workers and more—will be watching and fighting back against any effort to weaken Medicare and Medicaid. The 147 million seniors, children, Americans with disabilities, and low-income workers who rely on these programs for affordable access to healthcare deserve nothing less."
"While your kids are getting ready for school, kids in Gaza were once against just massacred in one," said one observer.
Israeli airstrikes targeted at least three more school shelters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, killing dozens of Palestinians and wounding scores of others on a day when local officials said that more than 100 people were slain by occupation forces.
Gaza's Government Media Office said that at least 29 people—including 14 children and five women—were killed and over 100 others were wounded when at least four missiles struck the Dar al-Arqam school complex in the Tuffah neighborhood of eastern Gaza City, where hundreds of Palestinians were sheltering after being forcibly displaced from other parts of the embattled coastal enclave by Israel's 535-day assault.
Al Jazeera reported that "when terrified men, women, and children fled from one school building to another, the bombs followed them," and "when bystanders rushed to help, they too became victims."
Warning: Video contains graphic images of death.
A first responder from the Palestine Red Crescent Society—which is reeling from this week's discovery of a mass grave containing the bodies of eight of its members, some of whom had allegedly been bound and executed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops—told Al Jazeera that "we were absolutely shocked by the scale of this massacre," whose victims were "mostly women and children."
An official from Gaza's Civil Defense, five of whose members were also found in the mass grave on Sunday, said: "What's going on here is a wake-up call to the entire world. This war and these massacres against women and children must stop immediately. The children are being killed in cold blood here in Gaza. Our teams cannot perform their duties properly.
Gaza Health Ministry spokesperson Zaher al-Wahidi said that the death toll was likely to rise, as some survivors were critically injured.
Dozens of victims were reportedly trapped beneath rubble of Thursday's airstrikes, but they could not cbe rescued due to a lack of equipment.
The IDF claimed that "key Hamas terrorists" were targeted in a strike on what it called a "command center." Israeli officials routinely claim—often with little or no evidence—that Palestinian civilians it kills are members of Hamas or other militant resistance groups.
Israel also bombed the nearby al-Sabah school, killing four people, as well as the Fahd School in Gaza City, with three reported fatalities.
Some of the deadliest bombings in the war have been carried out against refugees sheltering in schools, many of them run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)—at least 280 of whose staff members have been killed by Israeli forces during the war.
The United Nations Children's Fund has called Gaza "the world's most dangerous place to be a child." Last year, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time added Israel to his so-called "List of Shame" of countries that kill and injure children during wars and other armed conflicts. More than 17,500 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Thursday's school bombings sparked worldwide outrage and calls to hold Israel accountable.
"While your kids are getting ready for school, kids in Gaza were once against just massacred in one," Australian journalist, activist, and progressive politician Sophie McNeill wrote on social media. "We must sanction Israel now!"
There were other IDF massacres on Thursday, with local officials reporting that more than 100 people were killed in Israeli attacks since dawn. Al-Wahidi said more than 30 people were killed in strikes on homes in Gaza City's Shejaya neighborhood, citing records at al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital in Gaza.
Al Jazeera reported that al-Ahli's emergency room "is overwhelmed with casualties and, as is so often the case over the past 18 months, the victims are Gaza's youngest."
Thursday's intensified airstrikes came as Israeli forces pushed into the ruins of the southern city of Rafah. Local and international media reported that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families fled from the area, which Israel said it will seize as part of a new "security zone."
Human rights defenders around the world condemned U.S.-backed killing and mass displacement, with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—whose bid to block some sAmerican arms sales to Israel was rejected by the Senate on Thursday—saying: "There is a name and a term for forcibly expelling people from where they live. It is called ethnic cleansing. It is illegal. It is a war crime."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are fugitives from the International Criminal Court, which last year issued arrest warrants for the pair over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel is also facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
According to Gaza officials, Israeli forces have killed or wounded at least 175,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including upward of 14,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath rubble. Almost everyone in Gaza has been forcibly displaced at least once, and the "complete siege" imposed by Israel has fueled widespread and sometimes deadly starvation and disease.
"Working-class candidate v. billionaire political race. I'm here for it," wrote one longtime progressive strategist.
Dan Osborn, an Independent U.S. Senate candidate who struck a chord with working-class voters in Nebraska and came within striking distance of unseating his Republican opponent last year, announced Thursday that he's considering another run, this time challenging GOP Sen. Pete GOP Ricketts, who is up for election in 2026.
"We could replace a billionaire with a mechanic," Osborn wrote in a thread on X on Thursday. "I'll run against Pete Ricketts—if the support is there." Osborn said that he's launching an exploratory committee and would run as Independent, as he did in 2024.
Ricketts has served as a senator since 2023, and prior to that was the governor of Nebraska from 2015-2023. By one estimate, Ricketts has a net worth of over $165 million—though the wealth of his father, brokerage founder Joe Ricketts, and family is estimated to be worth $4.1 billion, according to Forbes.
A mechanic and unionist who helped lead a strike against Kellogg's cereal company, Osborn lost to Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) by less than 7 points in November 2024 in what became an unexpectedly close race.
Although he didn't win, he overperformed the national Democratic ticket by a higher percentage than other candidates running against Republicans in competitive Senate races, according to The Nation.
"Billionaires have bought up the country and are carving it up day by day," said Osborn Thursday. "The economy they've built is good for them, bad for us. Good for huge multinationals and multibillionaires. Bad for workers. Bad for small businesses, bad for family farmers. Bad for anyone who wants Social Security to survive. Bad for your PAYCHECK."
Osborn cast the potential race as between "someone who's spent his life working for a living and will never take an order from a corporation or a party boss" and "someone who's never worked a day in his life and is entirely beholden to corporations and party."
"We could take on this illness, the billionaire class, directly," he said.
Osborn, who campaigned on issues like Right to Repair and lowering taxes on overtime payments, earned praise from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who told The Nation in late November that Osborn's bid should be viewed as a "model for the future."
Osborn "took on both political parties. He took on the corporate world. He ran as a strong trade unionist. Without party support, getting heavily outspent, he got through to working-class people all over Nebraska. It was an extraordinary campaign," Sanders said.
In reaction to the news that Osborn is exploring a second run, a former Sanders campaign manager and longtime progressive Democratic strategist Faiz Shakir, wrote: "working-class candidate v. billionaire political race. I'm here for it."