Democrats vs. Democracy

Ryan Grim is right—as far as his analysis goes—but overlooks the further implications of his own investigations.

This Sunday, the Intercept published a detailed analysis written by its DC Bureau chief, Ryan Grim. Grim’s latest article, “Primary Occupation,” picked up where his July article, “Elephant in the Zoom,” and his 2019 book, “We’ve Got People,” left off. His 2020 articles address the corruption of the Democratic Party and progressive social movements by examining patterns within the Party, as well as non-profit organizations typically aligned with it.

Grim’s most recent article is important for several reasons, some of which—like the role of dark money, the influence of particular interest groups, and the entrenchment of the corporate Democratic Party’s continuing corruption—are explicit in the text.

“Primary Occupation” and “Elephant in the Zoom” are equally significant for what they overlook. 

Gaps in Grim’s analyses

First, “Primary Occupation” does little more than hint at how the dynamic it exposes ultimately entrenches international human rights abuses as an object of bipartisan consensus in Washington. Journalism, of course, must be allowed some degree of underinclusion. But if anything, Grim’s writing is particularly detailed, suggesting both that column space was not a constraint and also that excluding discussion of the underlying context may have been a strategic choice.

In any case, a bigger problem with the article is how it gives particular interest groups credit (or blame) for dynamics driven by choices shared by the Democratic Party leadership. As Grim thoughtfully peels back layers of Earth to reveal where some political bodies are buried, he conveniently mistakes who buried them, giving a free pass to public officials—with names, careers, and insider trading portfolios—who continue to enjoy public impunity as a result.

The biggest problem with Grim’s analysis, however, is its indulgence of white supremacy and Islamophobia by refusing to name them even while staring both in the face. Grim observes several instances of Islamophobia in his recent articles, but stops short of observing the pattern that connects them. Even while citing me and my congressional campaigns as an example of an unfortunate pattern that he describes in a previous article, Grim indulges the very disinformation that he decries by refusing to name the constellation formed by the seemingly disconnected data points he himself has documented.

While “Primary Occupation” helpfully explores the corruption of the Democratic Party by a corporate center enabled by dark money in politics, it repeats the same error as “Elephant in the Zoom,” by charitably indulging the objects of its critique and taking them at their words, rather than checking their facts. 

Grim is right—as far as his analysis goes—but overlooks the further implications of his own investigations.

He documents how incumbent politicians have teamed up with special interests to kneecap progressive challengers who threaten the Party’s dedication to the Washington consensus supporting Wall Street over working families, and a foreign policy prioritizing Israel over human rights.

But despite having previously documented the use of disinformation leveraging racial and religious stereotypes as tools of character assassination fabricated to insulate incumbent politicians, he fails to observe how the corporate leadership of the Party and its various organs—from the PACs that Grim names to the Public Relations firm that he didn’t—have actively leveraged white supremacy and identity-enabled smears as strategies to deny the public accountability for their documented corruption.

I’ll explain all that at further length below.

Paid subscribers can access a closing section observing how the Citizens United decision implicated in Grim’s article enabled the GOP to seize a Senate seat in 2010, presaging the takeover of the U.S. Senate that could repeat itself this November.

Elephant in the Zoom

While the latest focuses on the machinations of moderates confronting progressive challengers in contested primaries, Grim’s earlier analysis exposed a pattern (sadly unfolding on both sides of the divide between corporate centrists and grassroots progressives) of internal conflict roiling progressive organizations and campaigns at a time in world history fairly described by its author as especially crucial. 

“Elephant in the Zoom” recounted a series of conflicts initiated by arguably self-indulgent activists seeking goals encouraged by identity politics at the cost of their own stated principles.

That article could be read as describing tension between visionary policy goals, on the one hand, and the “woke” virtue signaling preferred by white Americans who call themselves progressives and socialists, on the other. (It’s worth noting here how the term “woke” was originally coined by Black Americans to describe revolutionary political consciousness, long before whites of various political stripes co-opted the term and shifted its meaning to instead address identitarianism)

“Elephant in the Zoom” could also be read as a report on the battle between organizational leaders seeking justice in public policy and (usually, but not always, younger) activists seeking justice within their organizations, ironically undermining the opportunity for their own goals to be secured in broader spheres by kneecapping the organizations targeted by their critiques.

Put most sharply, it depicts the entitlement of snowflakes, climbers, and opportunists who have chosen in many settings to put their individual careers before their own communities, their own generation, the future we all share, and their own stated principles.

Primary Occupation

Grim’s most recent writing recounts the trajectories of several congressional races across the country. His analysis observes a pattern of dark money raised by super PACs swinging contested elections, suppressing the voices of candidates of color, and marginalizing the communities from which we come.

Grim particularly notes how candidates, including Summer Lee in Pennsylvania and Nina Turner in Ohio, confronted well-resourced special interests—namely the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), Democratic Majority For Israel (DMFI), and Mainstream Democrats PAC—whose investments against their campaigns shifted the political context. 

What unites the groups named by Grim is a dedication to suppressing a long overdue domestic debate over foreign policy objectives and allegiances, particularly in the Middle East. Washington has long relied on Israel as a regional proxy power, as well as a testing ground for what corporate marketers peddle to domestic police departments as innovative crowd-control technologies (read: tools to suppress domestic dissent and insulate increasingly unaccountable political power). 

It’s important to observe that nothing about either Grim’s critique or this analysis are antisemitic. Accusations of antisemitism are as predictable, however, as they are disingenuous.

In fact, the most dedicated American defenders of Zionism are Christian evangelicals. As explained by University of North Texas professor Elizabeth Oldmixon in a passage quoted by Vox and the Washington Post:

“The tenet of Christian Zionism is that God’s promise of the Holy Land to the Jews is eternal. It’s not just something in antiquity….When we talk about the Holy Land, God’s promise of the Holy Land, we’re talking about real estate on both sides of the Jordan River. So the sense of a greater Israel and expansionism is really important to this community. Jerusalem is just central to that. It’s viewed as a historical and biblical capital.”

Meanwhile, American Jews have begun to turn away from Zionism in substantial numbers. Some have come to recognize the unfortunate apartheid maintained by the Israeli state. Others may be motivated by the human rights principles at the core of the Jewish faith and its sacred mission of Tikkun Olam, to heal the cracked vessel of this world.

It is against this backdrop that the counterattack documented by Grim has unfolded. While losing popular support, AIPAC, DMFI, and others committed to impunity for human rights abuses have managed to entrench bipartisan support by buying Democratic primaries in races across the country.

Grim explores not only how candidates committed to human rights have faced overwhelming financial opposition, but also how the pressures created by this onslaught have fractured the coalitions supporting those candidates, compelling at least some of them to shift positions. Maxwell Frost in Florida is the example on whom Grim focuses most closely, but the pattern persists across the country in any number of other places.

It also stretches well beyond politics, infecting the media itself. Katie Halper (who was among the few journalists to speak in 2020 with the elected Democratic Party official who faced threats from other party members when she tried to blow a whistle on the plot to smear me) was herself fired by the Hill from guest hosting its program, Rising. Grim mentions her in passing, but her experience from earlier this very month is worth acknowledging more closely:

“Two weeks ago, I wrote and recorded a monologue while guest hosting The Hill’s Rising show. I defended Rashida Tlaib from allegations of antisemitism and backed up her claim that Israel is an apartheid state by citing international law, the International Criminal Court, Israeli law, Human Rights organizations, Israeli politicians, Nelson Mandela, and Desmond Tutu. After I recorded my monologue, I was told by the producers that higher ups saw the monologue and refused to air it. When I pushed back, I was fired.”

Where Grim stops short

The role of journalists includes assessing the consistency of their sources to examine whether their claims reflect integrity or, alternatively, hypocrisy. By indulging the claims of centrists punching left, Grim unfortunately plays into their hands.

It’s not only the case that communities supporting human rights abuses in Palestine have raised obscene amounts of money to influence—and ultimately swing—several domestic congressional elections. Grim is right about that much, while overlooking the further implications of his own 2020 investigation.

It is also unfortunately true that those very same political forces have actively leveraged disinformation leveraging racial and religious stereotypes as tools of character assassination in order to insulate incumbent politicians despite their documented corruption.

Who’s holding the steering wheel?

Grim attributes to AIPAC actions that are ultimately shared by Democratic Party leaders, as well as organizations like SKDK, a public relations firm that has played a recurring role in many of the disinformation campaigns that Grim exposes.

Democratic Party campaigns paid SKDK a total of over $69 million in 2020. The firm’s clients include the President and Vice-President of the United States, the American Israel Political Action Committee, and Shontel Brown—the centrist candidate who rode the wave of AIPAC and DMFI spending in her congressional race to come-from-behind and beat Nina Turner.

While alluding to AIPAC’s public relations campaigns, Grim fails to explicitly correlate AIPAC’s attacks with the public relations firm representing it, as well as (not so coincidentally, often secretly) many of Democratic Party’s most prominent leaders. Every one of the attacks that Grim documents punched left, at targets challenging those party leaders and their allegiances to Wall Street before the American people. These people include Nina Turner, Summer Lee, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, me, Alex Morse, and one wonders how many others. 

Identity-enabled attacks emerge with disturbing frequency from the group representing many of the Democrats’ most senior voices. Not so long ago, Hillary Rosen, who serves as SKDK’s Vice-chair, partner and managing director, publicly apologized to Nina Turner for her role in smearing Turner as “an angry Black woman,” playing directly into stereotypes not unlike those that I confronted when I was falsely accused by opportunists seeking favors from Pelosi’s network. 

By characterizing AIPAC and DMFI as the agents of centrist counter-attack, Grim allows Democratic Party leaders and their public relations attack dogs to escape the spotlight and remain in the shadows. Accountability is important, so much so that for that very reason, accuracy must be, as well.

Racism as a centrist political strategy 

Grim quotes Pennsylvania candidate Summer Lee, who thoughtfully explains the ultimate impact of the centrist counterattack marginalizing progressive candidates. She explains:

“It’s very hard to survive as a progressive…working-class-background candidate when you are facing…millions of dollars, but [attacks also] deter other people from ever wanting to get into it….[Observers] will look at what they said about me and how they conducted those campaigns, and…say, ‘I would never want to run myself.’ So then it has the effect of ensuring that…marginalized communities are just no longer centered in our politics.”

Similarly, in “Primary Occupation,” Grim quotes Nina Turner describing how she was instructed to distance herself from would-be political allies in the Squad, particularly its Muslim members: Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). 

But nowhere does Islamophobia or white supremacy emerge in Grim’s text. Even Lee and Turner stop short of observing the white supremacy inextricably interwoven with the Democratic establishment’s response to the challenges that we have presented.

Both “Elephant in the Zoom” and “Primary Occupation” accurately described problems while charitably indulging their proponents, taking them at their word rather than including the most crucial part of journalism: checking facts. 

Grim even names me in the article, and cites my 2020 congressional campaign as an example of entitled activists within organizations mounting internal campaigns that kneecap their organizations and stated goals.

It is particularly ironic to see this underinclusion in an article written by Ryan Grim, since he played a unique role when I was smeared. He was the particular journalist who eventually exposed that the accusations I confronted in 2020 were all fabricated, first by a repeat accuser who has long smeared antiwar candidates for federal office on both sides of the country, and then by former staff I had replaced who promoted that false accusation as a pretext to mount their own.

Grim was the first journalist to pose any questions to the author of a work of fiction that remains published—and uncorrected, to this day—by the Bay Area Reporter, an LGBT newspaper based in San Francisco whose institutional racism unfortunately demonstrates the LGBT racism decried by figures including comedian Dave Chapelle. Grim documented, in particular, that a published accusation of “sexual assault” that spearheaded my character assassination was, in the words of its self-interested and opportunistically racist author, “a mistake.”

I’m grateful that he went that far. Grim, however, declined to report on conflicts of interest among sources relied upon by his less thoughtful colleagues.

In particular, he and the Intercept’s Akela Lacy first suppressed the voice—and then misrepresented the experience—of whistleblower Gloria Berry, an elected Democratic Party official conveniently reduced by Grim & Lacy to a casual observer with an opinion, rather than a whistleblower with facts and evidence exposing a racist plot she was recruited to join.

Despite writing several articles at some length, they declined to publicly observe how each of my critics were rewarded by the party that they faithfully served by orchestrating what Black journalists later described as “a civic lynching” in public.

They also stopped short of observing the institutional corruption enabled by San Francisco’s resort to white supremacy, and how it insulated a corrupt party leader from the only viable threat she has ever confronted since going to Washington in 1987.

Ultimately, the story that remains suppressed by the Intercept—two years after it published confused clickbait on a subject of national controversy—is one of the corruption, mendacity, and racism of a political party whose electoral strategy to protect its party leader included a racist, Islamophobic, and xenophobic smear campaign relying on (and ultimately reinforcing) white supremacy.

Beyond seeking long overdue public transparency about a saga in which I was personally implicated, I see the exposure of centrist white supremacy as critically necessary for several reasons.

First, the Democratic Party relies on communities of color for our support while relentlessly undermining our interests in public policy and offering performative gestures as supposed demonstrations of solidarity. Nancy Pelosi is a walking example of that modus operandi, which is facilitated by journalists failing to hold party leaders accountable for borrowing tactics from the Jim Crow South.

Second, exposing the racism pervading the Democratic Party’s machinations is crucial in order to enable institutional accountability in Washington. The impact of these patterns is far from abstract: in fact, it politically insulates and entrenches the corporate corruption ultimately responsible for our planet’s unfolding ecocide.

The missing link that connects the dots between Grim’s two stories are the lies pervading continuing attacks on candidates of color who have supported human rights in Palestine, and checks and balances on corporate power run amok.

My original campaign team expected the smear that Grim anticipated (antisemitism), only to ultimately mount a different smear (misogyny) after I won the primary and recruited more experienced advisors to replace them. Grim wrote about their claims in 2020, and thankfully eventually debunked them, but never held anyone—even the public officials who helped launch it—accountable for executing the scheme to defraud the public, mislead voters, and insulate a corrupt oligarch who remains in office to this day.

Similarly, in his recent piece, Grim observes a pattern threatening the integrity of primary elections, and a pattern of corrupt spending ensuring that corrupt politicians will remain unaccountable. But by failing to note how these tactics are deployed only against progressive challengers to support career Democratic politicians who retain a particular PR firm, he again abandons accountability and lets AIPAC serve as a convenient scapegoat for corporate politicians aligned with Wall Street and their outrageously racist agents. 

How does public white supremacy persist in a city that prides itself on serving as the supposedly progressive capital of the country? Stay tuned for my next post, observing the saga of Nury Martinez in Los Angeles and her counterpart who continues to serve on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors….

Money infecting politics, and how it happened

The central thesis of Ryan Grim’s latest analysis is that dark money is skewing political decision making and reinforcing a bipartisan consensus supporting human rights abuses.

Setting aside my critique of how that analysis remains charitable to racist opportunists, that thesis is true as far as it goes. I’d encourage you to explore it and share your thoughts with me.

Below is a story about how the Supreme Court invited this outcome, and how a U.S. Senate race in 2010—involving a candidate by whom I have long been inspired—presaged both the rise of the GOP and the corporate corruption of our so-called democracy.