Many Americans who face challenges in meeting their rent, mortgage, and basic living expenses likely feel that the upcoming midterm election isn’t primarily about affordability. Matthew Continetti, who is connected to Bill Kristol, suggests in The Wall Street Journal that this election is less a reflection on Donald Trump’s presidency and more a commentary on “antisemitism.” According to him, the term supersedes other pressing issues like the current state of war with Iran, fluctuating diesel prices, or the various controversies surrounding the Trump administration. While he argues that affordability is transient, he contends that antisemitism represents a “permanent stain.”
Before reaching this bold assertion, Continetti examines the rhetoric of prominent progressive figures in the Democratic Party, giving them a failing grade for their stance on Israel. He frames the midterms as a critical juncture: a choice between a future that mirrors the horrors of Nazi Germany or, well, something else…. He briefly touches on the Republican side, mentioning rising antisemitism there as well.
“Antisemitism is not solely a Democratic issue,” he remarks, having an established position at the American Enterprise Institute. He claims that anyone involved in Republican circles must have noticed a growing anti-Israel sentiment among younger conservatives. Even though some antisemitic figures like Rep. Thomas Massie have faced scrutiny and candidates like Dan Bilzerian were blocked from the ballot due to their prejudiced views, antisemitism seems to linger on various platforms online.
Massie, who has drawn criticism for opposing limitless funding for foreign nations—be it Ukraine, Israel, or anywhere else—has stood out in his opposition to foreign interventions and war efforts. He’s even called out prominent pro-Israel donors like Miriam Adelson, who he says funded his political rival. Unlike many of his Republican colleagues, he actively speaks out on matters of free speech and government suppression. This stance evidently puts him at odds with figures like Continetti, who appear more interested in maintaining party loyalty and pleasing donors rather than taking a more principled stand.
The definition of antisemitism, used increasingly and sometimes flippantly, seems to have lost its meaning over time. Continetti mirrors what happened with terms like “racism,” which have been redefined to include anything disliked by critics. In a similar vein, he refers to respected voices like Ruth Wisse and Natan Sharansky in his discussions, yet ultimately defaults to a subjective measure, claiming, “I know it when I see it.” This approach may be fine for assessing whether a film crosses certain lines but is problematic when judging political opponents—it can easily lead to misuse and misinterpretation, especially in Massie’s case.
Moreover, Continetti equates Massie with Dan Bilzerian, a controversial internet figure known for his problematic statements, including neo-Nazi rhetoric and Holocaust denial. This comparison lacks nuance and may serve as a tactic to undermine critics of Israel further. It’s an oversimplified and flawed logic; just because both figures criticize Israel doesn’t mean they belong in the same category. It’s akin to arguing that since all serial killers eat food, that means everyone who eats food is a serial killer.
Continetti tosses around the term “antisemitism” without fully realizing how it diminishes actual social concerns. If a genuine neo-Nazi were to gain power with intentions to target Jewish Americans and other minorities, the alarms would likely not be taken seriously anymore. By labeling critics of Israel as antisemites or likening them to neo-Nazis, Continetti and his peers may inadvertently set the stage for a future where real threats go unaddressed.
Comparing Massie to Bilzerian is misleading—one is principled, even if flawed; the other feels more like a caricature.
