A young, telegenic, charismatic governor of a vital swing state is a finalist for vice president—and then he loses out to a slightly older, more generic white guy. The first guy is an observant Jew at a time when a significant minority of the Democratic Party base has signed up with the Palestinian cause and shut down colleges, traffic, and other public events.
So, it must be antisemitism that explains why Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro isn’t the Democratic vice presidential nominee, right?
Well, possibly. But it strikes me as more complicated, and conservatives, of all people, should be wary of assuming an identitarian motive.
Personally, Shapiro would have been my pick. But I’ve been a Republican for most of my adult life and claim no expertise in internal Democratic politics. Shapiro seemed like a strong contender from the beginning, while Walz wasn’t mentioned initially and arrived late to the party (if one can call being “late” to a process that took less than two weeks). And yet, here we are.
We can’t prove a counterfactual. I’m not so naïve to say that there’s no way that Shapiro being Jewish wasn’t a factor (imagine him being “Chris Gentile,” asks Commentary’s John Podhoretz). And The Dispatch’s own Kevin Williamson makes a powerful case for how antisemitism remains a problem in progressive circles.
Yet Shapiro did have political vulnerabilities. His support for school vouchers would have been an issue for the Democratic base. (Harris’ first stop as an official candidate was the American Federation of Teachers conference in Houston.) Shapiro’s rhetoric against pro-Palestinian protesters was a shade harsher, even if his actual stances were almost indistinguishable from Walz’s. There was also a sexual harassment issue in Shapiro’s office.
Republicans, however, got to have it both ways. The Trump campaign reportedly funneled Shapiro-oppo to the media, intending to poison the well against the Pennsylvania governor, then declared after Walz’s selection that Democrats are antisemitic (while downplaying their role in elevating anti-Shapiro gossip).
Chutzpah, anyone?
Yet that was all downplayed or ignored by some on the right. “No Jews allowed at the top of the Democratic Party,” conservative commentator Erick Erickson declared on social media, to which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer tartly responded, “News to me.” My friend, writer Bethany Shondark Mandel, argued, “I guess you can’t be on a Democratic Presidential ticket and a Jew in 2024.” After I pointed out that Republicans have never had a Jew on the ticket, she responded, “It’s not a political liability for Republicans.”
Well, that’s true: Jewish representation isn’t a “political liability” for Republicans. It’s non-existent.
In addition to Schumer, all eight other Jewish senators are either Democrats or caucus with them. Of the 27 Jewish House members, 25 are Democrats. All four current Jewish governors are Democrats (Shapiro, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, and Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker). It’s easy for Republicans to say Democrats have a Jewish problem because, well, the GOP has hardly any Jews. Shapiro would have been the Democrats’ second Jewish vice presidential nominee (after Joe Lieberman in 2000); the next Republican one will be the party’s first. Meanwhile, the GOP’s most recent high-ranking Jewish House member—former Majority Leader Eric Cantor—lost in a primary 10 years ago.
Let’s also not forget about the former president. Donald Trump suffers no political downside from Republicans for calling Schumer a “Palestinian” or agreeing with a radio host calling second gentleman Doug Emhoff a “crappy” or “horrible” Jew—language he might have used against Shapiro had Harris picked him. Indeed, in his hour-long press conference Thursday, Trump unloaded on Shapiro anyway, calling him “a terrible guy.”
And let’s be blunt. Anyone who saw Shapiro playing the hype-man role in the Tuesday rollout of the Harris-Walz ticket could see the real reason Harris wouldn’t want him as her No. 2: In the words of several social media wits, he is “Baruch Obama.” Not only has Shapiro mastered Obama’s vocal cadence to an almost eerie manner, he also has incandescent star power and charisma. Preparing to discuss his faith, Shapiro said to the crowd, “I’m not here to preach at y’all.” Without missing a beat, spectators immediately started chanting, “Preach! Preach!” He had them eating out of his hands. It was hard not to hear echoes of Obama’s Democratic Convention “coming out” speech in Boston almost exactly two decades before.
Which raises an interesting question: Would then-Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry have wanted Obama on his ticket? No presidential candidate wants a running mate who outshines them. Walz has a certain kind of star power, but it’s not the same as Shapiro’s. If you want to say that Harris is a coward for not wanting to be outshined, fine. But that means she’s a typical politician, not an antisemite.
This notion of Harris being wary of Shapiro jibes with Politico reporting of the final hours of the decision-making process. Harris “clicked” with Walz in a way she didn’t with Shapiro. In office for six years, Walz’s more substantial progressive record spoke more to Harris. And Walz aggressively criticized Republicans, particularly in viral TV appearances that charged up Democrats nationwide at just the right moment (his comment that J.D. Vance is “weird,” in particular).
In contrast, Shapiro seemed to be working the inside game, promoting himself and gaining a greater sense of his specific role as vice president. And, in a follow-up call with Harris, Shapiro reportedly indicated a hesitancy about leaving the governorship.
So was Shaprio’s snub bigotry? To put it in a way that a job- or promotion-seeker might understand only too well: You’re an attractive candidate—who happens to be a member of a minority class—and you lose a big opportunity to a generic white guy. Is it because of who you are, or are there certain objective factors out of your control? On the other hand, was this job right for you in the first place?
In our current topsy-turvy world, Kamala Harris—contemptuously deemed the “DEI hire” by many conservatives—is assumed to be appeasing her party’s antisemites by not choosing the Jewish standout candidate, despite having arguably legitimate reasons. Conversely, conservatives and Republicans—who ostensibly argue for favoring objective criteria in “hiring” situations—default in this particular case to an identitarian baseline.
Welcome to 2024. One side effect of this era’s tribalism is seeing everything through the lens of immutable characteristics. It becomes far more difficult to see the “big picture” and entertain the notion that an individual or institution might have a panoply of reasons for making certain decisions—reasons that have nothing to do with identity affiliations. Once upon a time, the benefit of the doubt was given to such calculations. That eventually fell apart, first assailed by the left in an understandable, if often misguided, attempt to forcibly balance historical scales of equality.
Alas, the right has now picked up that critique, either from a legitimate grievance or a need to give the left a taste of its own medicine. Whatever the reason, doubling down on identity like this is ultimately bad for society.
Please note that we at The Dispatch hold ourselves, our work, and our commenters to a higher standard than other places on the internet. We welcome comments that foster genuine debate or discussion—including comments critical of us or our work—but responses that include ad hominem attacks on fellow Dispatch members or are intended to stoke fear and anger may be moderated.
You are currently using a limited time guest pass and do not have access to commenting. Consider subscribing to join the conversation.
With your membership, you only have the ability to comment on The Morning Dispatch articles. Consider upgrading to join the conversation everywhere.