BThe Wall Street Journal just published a piece on Michigan's Senate race, and the headline is basically: can an unapologetic progressive Muslim win in the middle of America?
BAbdul El-Sayed. He's the Democratic nominee, and the Journal says his faith and his Middle East positions are now the center of the campaign.
BRepublicans have been hammering his background and his associations. And the piece is asking a real question: is this a test of whether that kind of candidate can win statewide?
BIt's a fair question, but it's also a depressing one. His faith shouldn't be the story. His policies should be.
BBut it's not just his faith. The Journal says his progressive leanings and his Middle East positions are part of it too. That's fair game in a campaign.
BHis positions, sure. But the way it's framed—'Muslim background'—that's not a policy debate. That's a dog whistle.
BNo, no, wait. If a candidate's faith shapes their worldview, voters get to weigh that. Same as any other candidate's religion.
BExcept we don't see front-page stories asking if a Catholic can win. Or an evangelical. It's only a 'test' when it's a Muslim.
BThat's because it IS a test, and the Journal is reporting what's actually happening in the race.
BAnd by reporting it that way, they're making it more of a test. That's the part I push back on.
BOkay, but the piece also says he's unapologetic. He's not hiding it. That's the interesting part—he's running as himself.
BAnd that's what I respect. Let the voters decide on the whole person, not just one part.
BSpeaking of how we talk about politics, there's a Bluesky post that's been making the rounds. The Texas Catbus Massacre account—
BThat's a name.
BThey wrote: military flyovers at football games, not politics. One player protesting genocide in Gaza by writing a girl's name—politics.
BThat's a sharp point. We've normalized one kind of political display and called the other one out of bounds.
BAnd it's not just football. It's every institution. The line between what's 'political' and what's just 'normal' is drawn by whoever's in charge.
BThe flyover is paid for by the military. It's a recruitment tool. But nobody calls it politics because it's wrapped in a flag.
BRight. And a player writing a name on his wrist tape—that's a personal statement. But that's the one that gets called political.
BThe post doesn't name the player or the girl. But the point stands. We decide what's political based on who's doing it.
BAnd that's the whole game. If your side does it, it's patriotism. If the other side does it, it's politics.
BI think that's exactly right. And it's why these conversations get so heated. Nobody thinks they're being political.
BDifferent world entirely: the Journal piece and that Bluesky post are both about the same thing—who gets to be 'normal' in American politics.
BAnd who gets to be 'other.' That's the fight underneath every one of these stories.