Democrats' Failure to Ostracize Terrorism Apologists Makes Them Complicit and Justifies Voting Against El-Sayed
Source: Margot Cleveland. "Democrats Won't Distance Themselves From Terrorist Apologists." October 29, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says that a free society has to push out anyone who supports or excuses terrorism. She argues that Abdul El-Sayed and a few other Democratic politicians have done exactly that through their statements and associates, and that the party's leadership has only scolded them. Because of this, she claims Democrats are complicit and urges Michigan voters to reject El-Sayed.
Conclusion
Democratic Party leaders, by refusing to drive terrorism apologists like Abdul El-Sayed out of politics and polite society, are complicit with them and enable more such politicians, so Michigan voters should reject El-Sayed.
Premises
- A free society cannot survive unless terrorists, their supporters, apologists, and those who associate with them are driven from polite society and politics.
- Abdul El-Sayed has made statements that excuse or sympathize with terrorism (e.g., 'hurt people do hurt people' after a synagogue attack, refusing to unequivocally condemn the Iranian government, and a leaked remark that 'a lot of people in Dearborn are sad' about Khamenei's death).
- El-Sayed has purposely associated with terrorism sympathizers, including inviting Hasan Piker to campaign and sitting for an interview with Osama Siblani, who called Hamas and Hezbollah 'freedom fighters'.
- Other Democratic officials, such as Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud and NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, have also excused terrorism or honored its supporters.
- The Democratic Party as a whole has, at most, chastised these statements and associations, and only some Democrats have withdrawn support from El-Sayed and similar politicians.
- Chastising is an insufficient response given the standard that apologists and their associates must be driven from politics.
Assumptions
- El-Sayed's, Hammoud's, and Mamdani's statements and associations fairly constitute apologism for terrorism rather than criticism of Israel, expressions of empathy, or other legitimate positions.
- Association with a controversial figure implies endorsement of that figure's views.
- Failing to ostracize apologists makes a party morally complicit and will encourage more such politicians.
- A few individuals (El-Sayed, Hammoud, Mamdani) are representative enough to characterize the Democratic Party's stance.
- Democratic leaders are motivated by a desire for power rather than principled disagreement over how to respond.
- Social and political ostracism is the appropriate and effective mechanism for protecting a free society, and is compatible with free speech and pluralism.