by Isaac Schorr
John Fetterman is a little less lonely these days, but not because his courage has proven contagious to Democratic elders.
The Pennsylvania progressive has been branded a Benedict Arnold for speaking the truth about the ascendant, anti-civilizational forces within his own party
Bernie Sanders “keeps pushing these communists and these . . . awful anti-American people,” Fetterman argued last month after the collapse of Graham Platner’s candidacy in Maine.
His “anti-American” modifier was of special import because it cut to the core of the conflict.
The Democrats’ bloody civil war isn’t about health care, or immigration, or LGBT issues, or marginal tax rates.
It’s about two irreconcilable worldviews: one that celebrates the United States as exceptionally commendable, and the other that scorns it as exceptionally reprehensible — often using Israel as a proxy.
In Michigan, a pair of lawmakers are at last acknowledging this hard, inconvenient truth.
Rep. Haley Stevens, the establishment pick to represent the Democrats in the Great Lakes State’s Senate race, has taken the gloves off against Abdul El-Sayed, the short-tempered, Jew-baiting Hasan Piker fanboy who boasts a double-digit polling lead ahead of Tuesday’s primary.
“Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans,” Stevens posited in a scorching tweet Thursday.
Rep. Hillary Scholten, a Stevens supporter and her colleague in Michigan’s House delegation, went even further, expressing doubt that she’d back El-Sayed if he prevails Aug. 4.
“I will not stand beside someone who has allowed distinctly anti-American sentiment to enter our public dialogue,” said Scholten, citing El-Sayed’s decision to campaign alongside Piker, he of “America deserved 9/11” infamy.
It’s heartening to see some Democrats, any Democrats, join Fetterman’s camp.
Where’s everyone else?
Stevens is desperate and highly motivated; Scholten is an anonymous congresswoman.
It’s to their credit that they’re speaking out, but neither has the power to turn their party’s ship around.
And those who might be able to move the needle remain unwilling to do so.
Take former President Barack Obama.
He has a policy of staying above the primary-election fray, but Obama has never shied away from advising Democrats on what course to take at a pivotal moment — remember his crusade against Peak Woke?
Instead of pushing back against the anti-American revanchists, though, Obama has signaled his support for them by sanitizing the radicalism and praising the tactics of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the apology-tour president who spent the weeks after Oct. 7 setting the stage for the blood libels to come won’t stand in the breach; he shares too many common convictions with the radicals.
The same cannot be said of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has described himself as a guardian of the Jewish people and opposed Obama’s concession-filled Iran nuclear deal.
No one could mistake Schumer for Ronald Reagan, but he’s historically stood up for his country and the relatively just, peaceful and prosperous world order it upholds.
Which is what makes his listless response to his party’s descent into the unpatriotic fever swamp so dispiriting.
Sure, Schumer is supporting Stevens now, just as he threw his weight behind Gov. Janet Mills’ doomed campaign against Platner.
But in both races, his boilerplate endorsement statements and cash haven’t cut it.
Voters are hungry for authenticity and confidence.
The anti-American faction has no difficulty projecting both: They are open about their disdain of this country, and secure in their belief that fair is foul and foul is fair.
Schumer, on the other hand, has refrained from honestly speaking the truth about them — much less refusing them support in general elections.
Why should anyone take his endorsement of Stevens seriously after seeing how he bent like a cheap folding chair for Platner?
The minority leader is desperate to be majority leader, and El-Sayed is the favorite to represent Democrats on the ballot in November.
So mum’s the word.
He’s also likely calculated that letting loose on El-Sayed would prove fruitless after the establishment’s stinging losses in Maine and New York City.
He feels impotent, because at this point he is.
Throwing money at the problem this late in the game is no substitute for showing moral clarity at the first whiff of these noxious ideas and hateful people.
And if you’re expecting prospective 2028 front-runners like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris to push back come campaign season, don’t.
They’re soulless, finger-to-the-wind followers interested only in what’s best for their careers.
Obama’s content, Schumer’s craven, and the rest of them just don’t care enough to fight the good fight.
These spineless weaklings have, for their various reasons, picked the path of least resistance over that of the righteous.
But they have underestimated the long-term cost of that calculation.
Because the party they’ll be left with will be not misguided, but morally repugnant.
https://nypost.com/2026/08/02/opinion/abdul-el-sayeds-michigan-rise-exposes-democrats-moral-morass/
