When a party devolves into a bunch of entitled ethnic groups, and judges a person’s worth by his or her place on the hierarchy of victimhood, clashes are inevitable among those groups. You’ll see some unite against others in a power move, and the party will stick with the ones it thinks will bring them more advantage, and the ones who frighten them the most in terms of possible retaliation. Thus we have the current state of affairs in the Democratic Party.

The Democrats need (or certainly think they need) what has become their base, the far left (otherwise known by the self-designated euphemism “progressives”). It most definitely needs black voters, because without them as a near-unanimous bloc the Democratic Party would be moribund. It also needs Hispanics—although they don’t seem to be particularly embroiled in the current struggle.

The Jews are far more expendable if the other groups decide they have to be tossed under the bus. First of all, they are not very numerous. Granted, despite their tiny numbers, they have a few influential members in Congress—notably, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. But note that word: “minority”—because, unlike the House, Democrats do not control the Senate at the moment.

So Schumer has little to say about the radical new members of the more obstreperous House (actually, one wonders at this point if even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has all that much to say). Schumer is also what’s known these days as an old white guy, so he doesn’t count in the intersectional hierarchy, because he’s at the very bottom. Note that the Democrats long ago got rid of that even-more-paleo dinosaur otherwise known as “who dis?” Joe Lieberman.

As for the money provided by Jewish donors in the past, I believe the calculation is that it will keep coming, because those donors are generally secular leftists who hold no particular love for Israel and who see no problem with the growing but still mostly-subtle anti-Semitism exhibited by some of its newer members.

From the article:

…[There is] widespread anxiety in the caucus over how to handle the latest bout of remarks from Omar — one of the first Muslim women to serve in Congress — after she suggested that pro-Israel advocates had “allegiance” to Israel. The remarks offended multiple top Democrats, who said it alluded to painful, decades-old stereotypes that Jews had “dual loyalties.” Multiple Jewish lawmakers, including Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) stood up in the caucus meeting to explain why Omar’s latest remarks were so offensive and potentially dangerous. But other Democrats — including a Jewish lawmaker — stood up to defend Omar and say they didn’t see the remarks as deeply offensive… Omar did not speak in the meeting, multiple sources said, although she was spotted chatting with some Democrats one-on-one and received hugs from others. Democratic leaders, including Pelosi, are attempting to soothe relations within the caucus after abruptly halting plans to vote on a measure condemning anti-Semitism, which some lawmakers complained would had gone too far in targeting Omar. The House Foreign Affairs Committee is now rushing to rewrite that resolution to condemn hate speech more broadly to win over a group of lawmakers — including progressives and lawmakers of color — who have rushed to Omar’s defense.

They are falling all over themselves to show how tolerant they are of Omar. Meanwhile, Ilhan Omar has moved the Overton window for anti-Semitic statements from members of Congress, just as planned. Will most of the general public even notice?

[ADDENDUM: And this news probably warrants an entire post of its own, but I’m taking a little break at the moment. So please read it.]