Excerpt
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week in politics, including the House Democrats' resolution condemning hate and bigotry, congressional investigations of President Trump and the field of 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): A vote in the House of Representatives to condemn bigotry, and the 2020 Democratic presidential field comes into a little better focus, just two of the stories shaping our week, and topics for analysis by Shields and Gerson.
That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is away.
Hello to both of you.
So, Mark, let's talk about this anti-bigotry resolution the House passed yesterday. It was originally they were looking at talking just about anti-Semitism, but they decided to do something bigger than that, passed overwhelmingly.
What do you make of this approach by Democrats? What were they dealing with here?
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: They're dealing with a problem within their own caucus, which is the diversity. It's the strength of the Democratic Party, and it's also a problem.
It was a challenge for Nancy Pelosi to deal with it. And this is a — it was a major controversy that had to be confronted. And confront it, they did, albeit in public, in sort of difficult and painful fashion.
Judy Woodruff: Controversy, Michael, of course, was a series of statements by the Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. The Democrats were feeling pressure that they had to say something.
And, as we said, initially, it was going to be accusing — or not naming her, but it was going to say anti-Semitism is something to be condemned, words to that effect. Was it equally effective for them to do what they finally did, or not?
Michael Gerson, Washington Post: Well, there is an insurgent wing of the Democratic Party, progressive insurgent wing, very savvy with social media, very energetic highly active. Those are all good things.
They picked exactly the wrong issue in this matter. What we're talking about is an anti-Semitic trope that was familiar from the middle of the 20th century. And because the Holocaust is a special category of wrong, anti-Semitism is a special category of hate.
And I think the Democrats lost some ground by not being able to say something obvious because of these divisions within their own party. It was a defeat for Pelosi, Speaker Pelosi.
Judy Woodruff: Lost some ground how? You mean the leadership of the party?
Michael Gerson: They were pushed back on an issue where they — I think Nancy Pelosi was clearly right in the way that she wanted to approach this.
Mark Shields: I guess I disagree with Michael in this sense.
I think there's no question that — on what he says on the Holocaust and the truth of anti-Semitism. I don't think criticism of Israeli policy, under the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who has just collaborated with a racist, a racist coalition in order to hold on to power, while he's indicted, on the witch-hunt, as he calls it, by a weak attorney general, as he calls it, because he's facing political defeat, I don't think criticism on that should be confused with anti-Semitism.
And there's been a divergence. Jewish American voters have been the most loyal of Democratic voters. They voted 4-1 for the Democrats in 2018. And there's been a divergence with Israeli — for Jewish Israelis.
Right now, Donald Trump is the most popular of any country in the world in Israel, only second to the Philippines.
Judy Woodruff: Most popular leader.
Mark Shields: Most popular leader [in Israel].
And there's a divergence. American Jewish voters do not feel that way about him. And the fact is, if we're going to talk about anti-Semitism, I think you have got to say, this administration has been guilty, not simply as charged.
I mean, the closing argument they made in this campaign, Judy, was a charge of international money. And they put up the images of Janet Yellen and Lloyd Blankfein, and George Soros, did Donald Trump.
This isn't — I'm not in any way defending or rationalizing what I think the congresswoman from Minnesota has said rashly, but I do think that this — there has to be clearly the difference between anti-Semitism and critical — criticism of the Netanyahu regime.
Michael Gerson: Well, I just say that, when you talk of dual loyalty of Jewish citizens of the United States, that's not criticism of Netanyahu.
And that's what we're talking about here. That's why this could have been a very clear voice and act of the new Democratic House. And, instead, I think that message got blunted in a process that the speaker lost.
Mark Shields: Well, I guess I think the speaker had a — didn't seek this fight, didn't want it.
And, certainly, it's not something the Democrats — the Democrats had to confront it. There's no question about it. But, I mean, we're talking about a President, Judy — let's be very blunt about it — who, when the white supremacists marched through the streets of Charlotte with torches, saying, "Jews will not replace us," said there's good people on both sides.
I mean, so this is — if you want to see anti-Semitism…
Michael Gerson: And we should condemn him too. I'm for that.
(CROSSTALK)
Judy Woodruff: But, Michael, your point is that the Democrats needed to say something strong.
(CROSSTALK)
Michael Gerson: Yes, in reaction to a specific charge that was made and with a specific history.
But I think they did what they could.
