Jamaal Bowman lost last week’s primary to moderate Democratic challenger George Latimer. Coverage of the loss – both in the mainstream press and on the left – focused on his shifting positions on Israel and Palestine.

That’s fair enough. Israel and Palestine turned out central both to the campaign and its funders, in light of the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza. But this leaves out a broader ideological struggle within the Democratic Party between a more moderate and a more progressive wing. Latimer might have run on foreign policy issues, but he’ll also join Congress as a voice against ideas like Medicare for All.

However, the struggle between Democratic moderates and progressives typically doesn’t involve foreign policy.

Indeed, that fact is highly relevant to internal struggles within the Squad and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Most progressives don’t see foreign policy as central to their political project. They’re often willing to vote in favor of the foreign policy consensus on most issues, so long as those issues don’t involve U.S. troops literally on the ground. They give ground on foreign policy because it’s not central to their political vision. It’s not very important to them.

AIPAC exploited this very division in the ways it heavily poured funds into the Bowman vs. Latimer race.

But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself. Let’s start by talking about why Bowman lost. And then let’s ask what his loss means for DSA and the electoral left.

Continue reading