AIPAC, also known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has long been a powerful force in American politics. With a mission to “strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship,” AIPAC has built a reputation as a key player in shaping foreign policy and influencing elections. However, recent events have shown that AIPAC’s approach may be backfiring, particularly in Democratic primaries.
In a recent primary race for a key House seat in New Jersey, AIPAC’s chosen candidate, former state assemblyman Jeff Van Drew, was defeated by political newcomer and progressive underdog Amy Kennedy. Many saw this upset as a rejection of AIPAC’s influence and a sign that their spending and support may no longer be a winning strategy in Democratic primaries.
AIPAC has a long history of supporting candidates who align with their pro-Israel agenda. This typically includes providing financial support and organizing events for candidates to speak at their annual conference. However, as the Democratic party continues to shift to the left, AIPAC’s choices may not always align with the values of progressive voters.
Kennedy’s win in New Jersey is a prime example of this disconnect. While Van Drew had received AIPAC’s endorsement and significant financial contributions, Kennedy, who is married to former congressman Patrick Kennedy, had openly criticized AIPAC’s influence and called for a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Kennedy’s victory also highlights a growing trend within the Democratic party, as progressive candidates with a more nuanced stance on Israel gain momentum. This shift is fueled by a younger and more diverse generation of voters who are more critical of Israel’s policies towards Palestinians and are pushing for a more just and equitable approach to the conflict.
AIPAC’s strategy of backing more centrist candidates may have worked in the past, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is losing traction within the Democratic party. The organization’s support and spending are now perceived by many as a liability rather than a benefit, particularly in highly contested primaries.
This was evident in the lead-up to the New Jersey primary, where Kennedy’s campaign took advantage of AIPAC’s endorsement of Van Drew by using it as a rallying cry to mobilize progressive voters. The strategy paid off, with Kennedy winning by a comfortable margin and securing her spot on the ballot for the general election.
While AIPAC’s influence may be waning in Democratic primaries, it still holds significant sway in the general election. The organization spent over $4 million on lobbying efforts in 2019, and its annual conference is a highly anticipated event for politicians of all stripes. However, as the Democratic party continues to shift, AIPAC will need to re-evaluate its strategy to maintain relevance and influence.
In the wake of Kennedy’s win, many are questioning the role of AIPAC in democratic elections. Some argue that their support for candidates is undermining the democratic process and skewing the playing field in favor of candidates who align with their agenda. Others see AIPAC’s influence as a necessary evil, as they represent a significant constituency within the Jewish-American community and have a vested interest in protecting Israel’s security.
Regardless of one’s stance on the matter, it is clear that AIPAC’s strategy is facing challenges within the Democratic party. The organization will need to adapt and find ways to connect with progressive voters if it wants to remain a relevant and influential player in American politics.
In conclusion, Kennedy’s victory in the New Jersey primary serves as a wake-up call for AIPAC. The organization’s spending and support for candidates may have been a winning strategy in the past, but it is now becoming a potential kiss of death in Democratic primaries. As the party continues to evolve, AIPAC will need to evolve with it if it wants to maintain its position as a key player in American politics.