You're welcome to read for free, but if you want to chip in to defray the cost of the newsletter, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link lets you use a credit card. If you have trouble, let me know. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey (if it asks, last four phone digits are 9479).

Friends,

Tomorrow is July 4, a good time to decide if will accept Benjamin Franklin's offer of a republic--if we can keep it. In 2021, for the first time in our history, a sitting president supported a coup against the United States. Nearly his entire party backed him and 147 Republicans voted to overturn the election that Trump came close to overturning by violence on January 6.

Those 147 deserve special opprobrium, but any Republican running for any office who does not explicitly stand with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) against Donald Trump's perfidy does not deserve our support, regardless of where they stand on other issues. No issue or basket of issues is more important than our democracy.

The Supreme Court is packed with right-wing idealogues, three of whom were appointed by that same president, five of whom "were appointed by presidents who initially took office after losing the popular vote." This Supreme Court has reversed long-settled precedent on guns, abortion, climate change and regulatory authority, separation of religion and state, and Indigenous sovereignty where, true to form, the Court overruled a precedent set in 1831.

What do all these cases have in common? Ja'han Jones explains that Republicans want "a country in name only. They want each state to operate as its own fiefdom, free to inflict whatever harm it pleases on its residents without any government agencies telling it that it can’t. And barring fierce opposition, that’s the world they might get."

Democrats can't get more done in Congress because all 50 Republicans and two Democrats insist on maintaining the filibuster, which makes an already undemocratic institution (two senators per state regardless of population) even more undemocratic.

Our system is broken, but we need to win within the system to change the system. The most important factor driving your votes, your political contributions, and how you invest your time should be party affiliation. Nothing is more important. The Republican Party stands for racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, and insurrection. Strong words? Look at this Supreme Court. Look at Republicans in Congress.

This country needs sweeping institutional reform. At a minimum, we should eliminate the filibuster, codify Roe v. Wade, pass voting rights protections, admit D.C. and (if it wants to) Puerto Rico as states, and expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13--and then pass sweeping gun safety and campaign finance reform legislation, knowing that a sane Supreme Court will overturn Heller and Citizens United (and that Republicans won't complain; after all, this Supreme Court has made clear the role of stare decisis). None of these should be controversial, but while Republicans radically transform our country into a dystopian autocracy, some Democrats wring their hands about fixing what broke a long time ago.

We all say we value "compromise," but for most of us, that means compromising on what other people think is important, not on what we think is important. Elections are binary choices. We cannot compromise. There is no "pick two from column A and three from column B" on the ballot. It's one party or the other, and if you vote Republican, or if you directly or indirectly support Republican candidates, you are supporting insurrection--because that is the Republican agenda. As Paul Krugman writes, the Republican Party "cannot be appeased or compromised with. It can only be defeated."

Krugman is right, and on some days, that's the Democratic message. But Democrats can't expect the media to report the truth or the American people to accept these facts if Democrats send mixed messages. One day, Republicans are a direct threat to our democracy, the next day they are the fellows across the aisle who we work with and who we are proud to work with. It doesn't make sense.

When Democrats talk about bipartisanship they normalize the Republican Party. The term "bipartisan" has become meaningless. All it takes is one member of one party to support a bill for members of the other party, or organizations that support the bill, to claim it has “bipartisan” support. The recently-passed gun safety bill was “bipartisan,” but the truth is that Democrats unanimously supported it and Republicans overwhelmingly opposed it. That's the story--but if Democrats tout it because it is bipartisan, how do you expect the media to report it? Democrats gave Republicans an unearned media victory. The story should have been that nearly all Republicans stood against better legislation, and only a handful supported the legislation that passed.

A bill is not good because it is bipartisan or bad because it is partisan. A bill is good or bad based on the extent to which its provisions help or hurt the country. I don’t want a legislator who can “work across the aisle.” I want a legislator who can pass good legislation, and I don’t care if it’s on a party-line vote or how many members of the opposition come along for the ride, especially if by "opposition" you mean not loyal opposition, but opposition to democracy and free and fair elections.

 

Making the world safe for ice cream. Enough with the gloom and doom: Settlers can now buy ice cream without the inconvenience of driving into Israel! Thanks to the hard work of so many organizations that have their priorities straight, we averted a major crisis and dodged a speeding bullet when Unilever sold its Ben & Jerry's Israeli operations, allowing ice cream sales to continue in the West Bank.

Unilever's historic ice cream decision means that instead of selling ice cream in Israel but not in the West Bank, Unilever will not be selling ice cream in the West Band or Israel because Unilever divested from its ice cream business in Israel.

Ben & Jerry's never engaged in BDS because Ben & Jerry's was clear from the start that it would continue to sell in Israel; Ben & Jerry's was never boycotting Israel. The confusion was caused by the wording of some statel-level anti-BDS laws, which do apply to the West Bank--which Israel has not annexed and thus is not part of Israel, and from right-wing pro-Israel advocacy who see conflation of Israel with the West Bank as a good thing.

Conflating Israel and the West Bank makes it easier to accuse Israel of apartheid because while pre-1967 Israel does not resemble apartheid at all, the situation in the West Bank does or soon will, at least according to former Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert, as well as two former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa (you don't have to agree, but it's hard to argue that they are antisemitic or uninformed).

So A+ in hasbara to everyone who says or implies that the West Bank is part of Israel, especially the drafters of these anti-BDS laws (and the genius legislators who vote for them) and those who most vociferously battled Ben & Jerry's evil decree. If you forgot what Ben & Jerry's originally proposed to do, or not do, read their FAQs. For more background, here's the scoop on Ben & Jerry's.

Boycotting settlements is not inherently antisemitic, so kol hakavod to everyone who falsely accused Ben & Jerry's of antisemitism, thus making it harder to identify and fight real antisemitism. McDonald's sells in Israel but not the West Bank, just like Ben & Jerry's wanted to do. Are they antisemitic? Are they demonizing Israel? Or were they just smart enough not to sell in the West Bank in the first place, obviating the need to leave? Are those criticizing Ben & Jerry's (two Jews) but not McDonald's (Irish? Scottish?) holding Ben & Jerry's to a double standard? Now who's antisemitic?

I'm sorry. It is hard to take seriously a manufactured controversy that some in the Jewish community are losing their minds over that was never BDS, never antisemitic, never anti-Israel, and never a boycott of Israel. But now we can all rest easy. The West Bank is safe for ice cream. This is bigger than the Abraham Accords. If someone does not get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, or at least some fries, I'll be shocked. Having achieved this Messianic victory, perhaps now we can turn our attention to the trivial issues of reaching a two-state solution and solving Iran, which in contrast should be a piece of cake (or a scoop of Chunky Monkey).

Last week's newsletter.

ICYMI. The Jewish stake in Jan. 6 is bigger than you think (I'm quoted).

Tweets of the Week. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Sawyer Hackett.

Twitter Thread of the Week. Jason Steed.

Facebook Post of the Week. Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL).

Fourth of July Video Clip of the Week. If Paul Revere was gay.

This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read. And it's the original source of the viral Top Ten Signs You Might be at a Republican Seder.

So if someone forwarded this to you, why not subscribe? It's free! Just click here. 

Donations are welcome (because this costs money to send). If you'd like to chip in, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account; the link allows you to use a credit card. If you'd rather send a check, please reply and I'll send you mailing information (please do NOT send checks to the P.O. Box). Venmo to @Steven-Sheffey (last four 9479) is fine too.

You’re reading this. So are other influentials. If you want the right people to know about your candidate, cause, or event, reply to this email to discuss your ad.

The Fine Print: This newsletter usually runs on Sunday mornings. If you receive it as an ICYMI on Wednesday it's because you didn't open the one sent on Sunday. Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations that I support or am associated with. I reserve the right to change my mind as I learn more. I am willing to sacrifice intellectual consistency for intellectual honesty. I might be wrong: Read opposing views and decide for yourself. A link to an article doesn't mean that I agree with everything its author has ever said or that I even agree with everything in the article; it means that the article supports or elaborates on the point I was making. I take pride in accurately reporting the facts on which I base my opinions. Tell me if you spot inaccuracies, typos, or other mistakes so that I can correct them in the next newsletter (and give you credit if you want it). Advertisements reflect the views of the advertisers, not necessarily of me, and advertisers are solely responsible for the content of their advertisements. I read, value, and encourage replies to my newsletters, but I don't always have time to acknowledge replies or to engage in one-on-one discussion. I'm happy to read anything, but please don't expect me to watch videos of any length--send me a transcript if the content is that important. Don't expect a reply if your message is uncivil or if it's clear from your message that you haven't read the newsletter or clicked on the relevant links. Dedicated to Ariel Sheffey, Ayelet Sheffey, and Orli Sheffey z''l. ©2022 Steve Sheffey. All rights reserved.