Are leaders going to lead based on principle or social-media popularity?
In recent weeks, Democratic presidential candidates have been peppered with questions about AIPAC—an American grassroots pro-Israel organization—and whether they’ll accept support from the group and its millions of Democratic members.
While this weaponized litmus test ignores that AIPAC has never endorsed a presidential candidate, few answers from the prospective 2028 nominees have included support for pro-Israel Americans exercising their rights and a clear rejection of the effort to exclude millions of Democrats from the party.
This issue was discussed on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on March 27. On a panel with Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, and media personalities and TV hosts Stephen A. Smith and Laura Coates, Maher highlighted that the orchestrated campaign to pressure candidates to “reject AIPAC money” is designed to brand one set of contributors—pro‑Israel Americans—as uniquely tainted.
Slotkin noted that she stopped taking money from AIPAC several years ago due to a values-based disagreement over its support for Republicans who voted against certifying the 2020 election. Maher quipped: “Convenient for you.” Indeed. On its face, it sounds like a justifiable position, except it is entirely indefensible.
Has she ever singled out the corn growers or coal miners? Does she talk about her values-based opposition to the air-traffic controllers or those working to provide care for cancer patients? Each of those groups has PACs that back the senator and some of the same Republicans she called AIPAC out for supporting. Yet only AIPAC and pro-Israel Democrats are subject to special scrutiny.
Coates buttoned up the conversation with a finer point, saying, “If people are, in a fad-based way, deciding, ‘Oh, is this unpopular? If it’s going to get me less likes, then I will stand against that.’ That makes me very skeptical about what you’ll stand for at all.”
If leaders are going to lead by click count rather than principle, is everything up to the mood of the mob?
To “reject AIPAC” is to alienate millions of Democrats who are a vital part of the party’s coalition, applying a double standard to pro‑Israel American citizens who believe in a secure Israel, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and standing with a fellow democracy that champions liberal values. AIPAC members fight for an alliance that helps Americans: creating jobs, advancing health care, tackling climate change and developing new technologies that improve lives.
AIPAC isn’t a monolith. It is one of the last groups in Washington that still brings Democrats and Republicans together, bucking the trend of polarization that defines contemporary politics. Its members don’t instinctively or inherently support Israel’s prime minister or the settlements or how Israel fought the wars since Oct. 7, but they do come together to build bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel partnership.
Millions of AIPAC members are lifelong Democrats who marched for civil rights, rallied for former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and turned out for the Women’s March. They are union members and veterans, students and small‑business owners, and they care deeply about reproductive rights, voting access and preserving democracy.
They are some of the most engaged activists in the Democratic Party. AIPAC members have raised more than any other group to strengthen the mainstream core of the party. They are the top supporters of members of Congress in the Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Pacific Islanders Caucus.
Many critics in Congress or running for office blast AIPAC for its “dark-money, billionaire-backed” super PAC, while they are happily supported by groups like Justice Democrats, J Street or the Working Families Party, which have their own dark-money, billionaire-backed super PACs. The hypocrisy is robust and unchecked.
Nearly every recent attack against AIPAC—whether about its campaign tactics, its funders, its ads—applies a standard not applied to any other group. AIPAC isn’t the first to deploy these tactics, but the disproportionate focus on the organization makes it appear to be the outlier.
The real issue isn’t the super PACs or the campaign tactics. It’s who’s using them.
There’s a real fight about the future of America’s relationship with Israel. That’s expected in a democracy, and AIPAC’s members will be active in the debate. But the opponents of the U.S.-Israel partnership don’t want a debate; they want to win by driving pro-Israel Americans out of the game. Our leaders are failing the moral test by refusing to stand up to a mob demonizing fellow citizens. Instead, they’re feeding it oxygen.
AIPAC is an ally in the fight for democratic values at home and abroad, and Democrats who are serious about governing a broad, diverse coalition should embrace that ally and its millions of Democratic members.
