Once again, Progressives use illiberal, anti-democracy tactics to undermine our country.

Thanks for your patience while I cut down a huge essay into four parts as I wrap my head around a recent debate at the 92nd St Y, “Is Donald Trump Good for the Jews?”

In earlier essays I took apart the Democratic argument, as presented by Rahm Emanuel, that Trump is bad for the Jews. I just don’t buy it, not when my options are the keffiyeh cosplayers, Queers for Palestine and when pathologically anti-Israel activists like Zohran Mamdani run for mayor of New York—all while telling me that they embrace terrorist violence in the name of social justice. Sorry guys, ethics don’t work that way. We’ll get to Martin Luther King jr later for his moral reminder.

The meta takeaway of the debate is far bigger than the topic at hand.

The Pulitzer-prize winning New York Times columnist Bret Stephens sponsored the debate, “Is Donald Trump Good for the Jews,” under the aegis of his journal, Sapir (sapphire, for the Jewish color blue and biblical references). A good friend is their managing editor, it’s an excellent publication which you can receive in print for free.

It was a stimulating night, intellectually lite but interesting to see the relative merits of Rahm Emanuel and Jason Greenblatt (former Trump exec and White House advisor), two super smart, super rich guys with direct ties to the most powerful men on the planet.

Last week I went to a debate “Is Donald Trump Good for the Jews” with Bret Stephens, Rahm Emmanuel and Jason Greenblatt (Trump exec and 1.0 admin staffer) at the 92nd Street Y, a Jewish cultural organization on the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

In a follow up essay I’ll get into why Rahm Emanuel’s perspective about Trump being bad for the Jews is obsolete, yet popular, in shrinking blue bubbles. Before we get there, for this essay, I’ll show how “Y” movements help explain why there’s widespread left-wing support in North America and Europe for violent Islamism.

Zachary Thacher discusses the pervasive issue of misinformation in contemporary media, particularly focusing on the legacy media's role in shaping narratives around COVID-19, crime, and political values. He critiques the lack of objective reporting and highlights the challenges posed by multiculturalism and political Islam. Thacher calls for a reevaluation of media consumption and political alignment to foster a more informed citizenry. If it sounds like a robot wrote that summary, it's because a robot wrote that summary.

Growing up in a halcyon, late 20th Century Massachusetts milieu meant the Boston Globe and the New York Times were read each morning at the kitchen table. NPR’s local affiliate, WBUR, played on the radio throughout the day and on every drive. At night, my parents watched the WGBH PBS News Hour in rotation with NBC, CBS and ABC.

What happened to it?

Is capital “D” Diversity a policy goal that needs defending?

Should we rally to protect the past decades of initiatives that emerged from the center and far left and, until recently, have became mainstream?

To answer, I think we first have to ask: what do DEI proponents mean by Diversity?

To make America an unqualified success that delivers on these values, we need a competitive political system where the best performing policies and practices rise to the top. We don't have that now. And it's not because an external force interfered with or thwarted the Democrats. Their wounds are self inflicted. I don’t see them capable of change or mounting a credible alternative to the Republicans.