Josh Gottheimer

On Wednesday, Congressmen Josh Gottheimer and Mike Lawler introduced a bipartisan House resolution condemning the antisemitic rhetoric of Hasan Piker on the far left and Candace Owens on the far right. Antisemitism is a moral problem, not a partisan one, and this resolution treats it as such.

As the first Jewish Latina lawmaker elected in the United States and the legislator who passed Holocaust and genocide education legislation in Arizona, I take the normalization of antisemitism personally. This resolution is a welcome statement of principle. But a statement is only as good as the action that follows it, and that is where my concern with my own party begins.

The New York Times once convulsed in internal revolt over publishing an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, with staffers insisting it endangered lives. That moment was supposed to clarify the boundaries of acceptable discourse. Instead, it serves as a useful contrast, because the Times is now elevating Piker, a self-described Marxist streamer who used the paper’s prestige to argue that “petty theft might be the new political protest.” Institutions that once prided themselves on filtering out this kind of rhetoric are now legitimizing it.

It’s beyond question that Piker opposes the Republican Party, which he labels the “biggest domestic terrorist group in America.” But does that make him a good Democrat?

Piker gained notoriety for saying America deserved the Sept. 11 attacks and applauded the jihadi who wounded Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a Navy SEAL who lost his eye in Afghanistan, as “a brave F** soldier [who violated] his eyehole.”

He has been banned from Twitch seven times, several for using racial slurs, another for calling for the murder of a U.S. senator. He laughed at a Jewish woman who expressed fears over antisemitism and lambasted a Jewish viewer days after the Oct. 7 massacre.

Piker consistently celebrates America’s adversaries. He avowed that “Hamas is a thousand times better than the fascist settler colonial apartheid state,” stated he has “no issue” with Hezbollah, platformed a suspected Houthi member, and justified Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory.

His endorsement of Hamas during Oct. 7 is chilling. He justified the killing of babies as legal and moral. He stated: “It doesn’t matter if rape happened on Oct. 7. It doesn’t change the dynamic for me.” He described reports of sexual violence as “rape fantasies” and “rape hallucinations.”

He called a listener who opposed Hamas a “Bloodthirsty pig dog” and called pro-Israel Americans “f*ing rabid ultra-Zionist pigs.” He verbally abused a Vietnamese refugee on stream: “F you, old lady. Shut the F** up, you stupid FG idiotic old lady… F this refugee.”

Democrats who elevate Piker are playing a losing hand. Despite the allure of his online following, Piker, now known for xenophobia, terror support, misogyny, and cruelty, will taint the Democratic brand and alienate the very voters candidates hope he will bring: women, minorities, Jewish voters, and moderates.

As an elected Democrat, I know our tent is big, but it should not be big enough for Piker. Our consultants are right to energize the youth vote. But demeaning our brand through association with vulgar demagogues is a losing strategy. If we give control of our messaging to hateful people like Piker, they will run away with our image, and what is left will look nothing like the rights-oriented Democratic Party that millions of us have always called home.