Uncategorized
The Moulton Moment and the Mamdani Effect: How the Democratic Party Is Abandoning Its Jewish Center
US Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) speaking at a press conference at the US Capitol. Photo: Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
When Representative Seth Moulton (D) of Massachusetts recently announced that he was returning donations from AIPAC and refusing future support, the story barely made national headlines. Yet this small act — a single line on an FEC filing — reveals something much larger. It marks the moment when an ambitious, mainstream Democrat concluded that distancing himself from the organized Jewish community is a political asset, not a liability, and when moral cowardice began to masquerade as conscience.
Moulton is no progressive firebrand. A Harvard-educated Marine veteran, he built his brand on national security and bipartisanship. His decision is not about ideology; it is about survival. Over the past two years, the Democratic Party has entered a new phase of moral performance politics, one in which proximity to Jewish or pro-Israel institutions carries reputational risk among the activists who increasingly shape primaries and online discourse.
Not long ago, Moulton faced an online firestorm for something utterly ordinary: defending his young daughters. During a 2024 interview, he said he did not want them “getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” The remark — hardly radical — provoked furious denunciations from progressive activists, staff resignations, and a public shaming campaign that painted him as transphobic. He had stumbled across a sacred boundary of the new moral order and learned its central rule: dissent is dangerous.
That experience left its mark. Now, as the next purity test forms around Israel, Moulton has taken no chances. By refunding AIPAC donations, he signals compliance with a rising moral code that defines virtue not by conviction, but by disavowal. In today’s Democratic ecosystem, the act of rejecting traditional Jewish institutions has become a badge of progressive credibility.
This transformation can be understood through what might be called the Mamdani Effect: the process by which Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) ideology, once confined to New York City, has begun reshaping the Democratic Party’s moral and political vocabulary. Named for New York State Assembly member Zohran Mamdani, one of the most visible DSA figures in state politics, this effect blends anti-capitalism, anti-Zionism, and performative solidarity into a single moralized aesthetic. It is a politics of accusation and purity: one advances not by building coalitions but by identifying oppressors and cutting ties.
New York City has served as the laboratory. Once the bastion of pragmatic liberalism — of Ed Koch’s centrist governance and the Jewish-Catholic labor coalition — the city’s politics now turn on moral spectacle. Candidates compete to condemn Israel, police “colonial complicity,” and signal distance from Jewish civic life. The new left does not want to coexist with traditional Democratic institutions; it wants to replace them with a moral movement that prizes purity over pluralism.
The pattern is spreading. Across the country, the activist wing of the Democratic Party has increasingly absorbed the language of the DSA: colonizer, decolonization, abolition. The Democratic Socialists of America formally calls for “the full decolonization of all the occupied lands of the United States” and has established working groups for “police and prison abolition,” and “BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions).” This rhetoric has migrated from campus protests into the language of progressive representatives — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) spoke at the 2020 DNC of repairing “the wounds of racial injustice, colonization, misogyny, and homophobia.” What began as fringe rhetoric now increasingly defines the emotional grammar of the party’s activist base.
Polling confirms the shift. Gallup found that in 2016, 53 percent of Democrats sympathized more with Israel than with the Palestinians; by 2025, that number had collapsed to just 21 percent, while sympathy for Palestinians soared to 59 percent — a nearly three-to-one reversal.
The shift represents a complete reversal from a 30-point advantage for Israel to a 38-point advantage for Palestinians among Democrats over nine years. Among younger Americans (Millennials), sympathies are now essentially tied, with 42 percent sympathizing with Palestinians and 40 percent with Israelis. What was once a bipartisan consensus on the legitimacy of the Jewish State has become a generational and partisan fault line.
For centrist politicians like Moulton, the implications are clear. The activists who dominate social media and small-donor networks increasingly treat Israel as shorthand for Western capitalism and “settler power.” In that moral framework, defending the Jewish State, or even maintaining ties to mainstream Jewish institutions, is suspect. So politicians adapt. Moulton’s decision to reject AIPAC funding is not an act of conviction but of fear: fear of the social media mob, fear of being labeled an oppressor’s ally, fear of losing favor with a base that now equates moral virtue with repudiation. What looks like moral clarity is in fact moral conformity.
That fear is corrosive. It does not only alienate Jews; it hollows out the liberal tradition itself. The Democratic Party that once celebrated pluralism now traffics in exclusion. The heirs of Bella Abzug and Daniel Patrick Moynihan are being replaced by the apostles of Zohran Mamdani: a politics that thrives not on solidarity but on sanctimony.
For American Jews, the cost of this transformation is profound. For nearly a century, Jews were among the architects of the Democratic coalition; builders of unions, schools, and civic institutions. They embodied the idea that liberal democracy worked: that minorities could flourish through education, engagement, and shared civic purpose. The synagogues that hosted voter drives, the Jewish Community Centers that welcomed refugees, the federations that funded civil-rights lawyers. These were not instruments of power but of civic faith. Yet as the party moralizes, belonging itself has become conditional. The new progressive creed demands repentance for association with power, success, or Israel.
Jewish institutions — synagogues, federations, philanthropic networks — are recast not as engines of community but as symbols of privilege.
The Moulton moment and the Mamdani Effect together capture the collapse of liberal pluralism into moral puritanism. What began as a movement for equality has hardened into a system of ideological compliance. Its adherents are sincere, but their sincerity is illiberal. They mistake outrage for justice and purification for progress. When mainstream Democrats start treating Jewish civic life as a reputational hazard, they do not merely abandon a community. They abandon the civic model that sustained American liberalism itself. The party that once trusted persuasion now rewards excommunication.
Yet there is still time to recover a better tradition. Courage is contagious. Moulton could have chosen differently; others still can. It is possible to defend women’s sports without fear. It is possible to support Israel’s right to exist without apology. It is possible, even now, to build a Democratic politics rooted not in shame but in shared responsibility.
This is the new political fault line: not left versus right, but Marxism versus capitalism, moral theater versus civic realism, conformity versus courage.
Moulton may think he is protecting his political future, but what he is really revealing is the fragility of a party that now punishes independence and rewards retreat. If Democrats wish to remain a serious moral force, they must rediscover what liberalism once knew: that pluralism is not complicity, and that solidarity requires standing with allies even when it is unfashionable.
As Alexis de Tocqueville warned nearly two centuries ago, “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” The Democratic Party’s crisis is not tactical but moral. Liberty cannot endure without the faith that binds citizens together and that faith begins with courage.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Uncategorized
Oil Prices Likely to Move Higher on Venezuelan Turmoil, Ample Supply to Cap Gains
FILE PHOTO: The Guinea-flagged oil tanker MT Bandra, which is under sanctions, is partially seen alongside another vessel at El Palito terminal, near Puerto Cabello, Venezuela December 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Juan Carlos Hernandez/File Photo
Oil prices are likely to move higher when benchmark futures resume trading later on Sunday on concern that supply may be disrupted after the United States snatched Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas at the weekend and President Donald Trump said Washington would take control of the oil-producing nation.
There is plentiful oil supply in global markets, meaning any further disruption to Venezuela’s exports would have little immediate impact on prices, analysts said.
The US strike on Venezuela to extract the country’s president inflicted no damage on the country’s oil production and refining industry, two sources with knowledge of operations at state oil company PDVSA said at the weekend.
Since Trump imposed a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers entering or leaving Venezuelan waters and seized two cargoes last month, exports have fallen and have been completely paralysed since January 1.
That has left millions of barrels stuck on loaded tankers in Venezuelan waters and led to millions more barrels going into Venezuelan oil storage.
The OPEC member’s exports fell to around 500,000 barrels per day in December, around half of what they were in November. Most of the December exports took place before the embargo. Since then, only exports from Chevron of around 100,000 bpd have continued to leave Venezuela. The global oil major has US authorization to produce and export from Venezuela despite sanctions.
The embargo prompted PDVSA to begin cutting oil output, three sources close to the decision said on Sunday, because Venezuela is running out of storage capacity for the oil that it cannot export. PDVSA has asked some of the joint ventures that are operating in the country to cut back production, the sources said. They would need to shut down oilfields or well clusters.
Trump said on Saturday that the oil embargo on Venezuelan exports remained in full effect. If the US government loosens the embargo and allows more Venezuelan crude exports to the US Gulf, there are refiners there that previously processed the country’s oil.
The weekend’s events were unlikely to materially alter global oil markets or the global economy given the US strikes avoided Venezuela’s oil infrastructure, said Neil Shearing, group chief economist at Capital Economics.
“In any case, any short-term disruption to Venezuelan output can easily be offset by increased production elsewhere. And any medium-term recovery in Venezuelan supply would be dwarfed by shifts among the major producers,” he said in a note.
Trump also threatened on Friday to intervene in a crackdown on protests in Iran, another OPEC producer, ratcheting up geopolitical tensions. Trump on Friday said “we are locked and loaded and ready to go,” without specifying what actions he was considering against Tehran, which has seen a week of unrest as protests over soaring inflation spread across the country.
“Prices may see modest upside on heightened geopolitical tensions and disruption risks linked to Venezuela and Iran, but ample global supply should continue to cap those risks for now,” said Ole Hansen, head of commodities research at Saxo Bank.
On Sunday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and their allies agreed to maintain steady oil output in the first quarter, OPEC+ said in a statement. Both Venezuela and Iran are members of OPEC. Several other members of OPEC+ are also embroiled in conflict and political crises.
The producer group has put increases in production on pause for the first quarter after raising output targets by around 2.9 million barrels per day from April to December 2025, equal to almost 3% of world oil demand.
Brent and US crude futures settled lower on Friday, the first day of trading of 2026, as investors weighed oversupply concerns against geopolitical risks. Both contracts closed 2025 with their biggest annual loss since 2020 marked by wars, higher tariffs, increased OPEC+ output and sanctions on Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
VENEZUELA
“The political transition in Venezuela adds another major layer of uncertainty, with elevated risks of civil unrest and near-term supply disruptions,” said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at consultancy Rystad Energy and a former OPEC official.
“In an environment this fragile, OPEC+ is choosing caution, preserving flexibility rather than introducing new uncertainty into an already volatile market.”
Trump said on Saturday that the US would control the country until it could make an orderly transition, but an interim government led by vice president and oil minister Delcy Rodriguez remains in control of the country’s institutions, including state energy company PDVSA, with the blessing of Venezuela’s top court.
A top Venezuelan official said on Sunday that the country’s government would stay unified behind Maduro amid deep uncertainty about what is next for the Latin American country.
Trump said that American oil companies were prepared to reenter Venezuela and invest billions of dollars to restore production there.
Venezuela is unlikely to see any meaningful boost to crude output for years even if US oil majors do invest the billions of dollars in the country that Trump has promised, analysts said.
“We continue to caution market observers that it will be a long road back for the country, given its decades-long decline under the Chávez and Maduro regimes, as well as the fact that the US regime change track record is not one of unambiguous success,” Helima Croft, RBC Capital’s head of commodities research, said in a note.
Uncategorized
US Pushes Oil Majors to Invest Big in Venezuela if They Want to Recover Debts
A demonstrator uses a megaphone during a protest against US military action in Venezuela, at Lafayette Square in front of the White House, following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US military has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Tyrone Siu
White House and State Department officials have told US oil executives in recent weeks that they would need to return to Venezuela quickly and invest significant capital in the country to revive the damaged oil industry if they wanted compensation for assets expropriated by Venezuela two decades ago, according to two people familiar with the outreach.
In the 2000s, Venezuela expropriated the assets of some international oil companies that declined to give state-run oil company PDVSA increased operational control, as demanded by late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
US oil major Chevron was among companies that negotiated to stay in the country and form joint ventures with state-run PDVSA, while rivals Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips left and filed for arbitration.
President Donald Trump said on Saturday that American companies were prepared to return to Venezuela and spend billions to reactivate the struggling oil sector, just hours after President Nicolás Maduro was captured and removed by US forces.
In the recent US administration discussions with oil executives in the scenario that Maduro was out of power, officials have said that US oil companies would need to front the investment money themselves to rebuild Venezuela’s oil industry. That would be one of the preconditions for them eventually recovering debts from the expropriations.
That would be a costly investment for firms such as ConocoPhillips, the sources said. Conoco for years has tried to recover some $12 billion from the Chavez-era nationalization of its Venezuela assets. Exxon Mobil also filed international arbitration cases, trying to recover $1.65 billion.
Trump began making public reference to the Venezuelan expropriations when he ordered a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers last month.
CONDITIONS FOR A RETURN
Whether or not the companies return would depend on how executives, boards and shareholders evaluate the risk of renewed investment in Venezuela, the sources said.
“ConocoPhillips is monitoring developments in Venezuela and their potential implications for global energy supply and stability. It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments,” a company spokesperson said in emailed comments to Reuters on Saturday. The company reiterated the statement on Sunday when asked about discussions with administration officials for this story.
Exxon did not immediately respond to questions from Reuters on Sunday.
Politico first reported on the recent discussions on Saturday.
Even if companies do agree to return to the country, it could be years before there is a meaningful boost to oil output. The South American country has one of the largest estimated reserves in the world, but production has plummeted over past decades amid mismanagement, lack of investment and US sanctions.
Besides uncertainty surrounding the contract framework for any operations there, companies considering a return would also need to deal with security concerns, poor infrastructure, questions about the legality of the US operation to capture Maduro and the possibility of long-term political instability, analysts have told Reuters.
Venezuela, a founding member of OPEC, produced as much as 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s, which at the time represented over 7 percent of global oil output. Production fell below 2 million bpd during the 2010s and averaged around 1.1 million bpd last year, or just 1 percent of global production.
Uncategorized
Latvia Police Board Vessel After Baltic Sea Telecom Cable Breach
Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Silina attends a press conference on the day of the Eastern Flank Summit in Helsinki, Finland December 16, 2025. Lehtikuva/Heikki Saukkomaa/via REUTERS/File Photo
An undersea telecoms cable was damaged in the Baltic Sea on Friday and Latvian investigators on Sunday boarded a ship in connection with the incident, the country’s state police said in a statement.
The Baltic Sea region is on high alert after a string of power cable, telecom link and gas pipeline outages since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the NATO military alliance has boosted its presence with frigates, aircraft and naval drones.
Lithuania’s National Crisis Management Centre said the cable runs from Sventoji in Lithuania to Liepaja in Latvia, two coastal towns some 65 km (40 miles) apart, and that it was not immediately clear what caused the incident.
“At this time, neither the vessel nor its crew is detained, they are cooperating with the police, and active work continues to clarify the circumstances,” Latvian police said on X.
Latvia’s Prime Minister Evika Silina said the damage had occurred near Liepaja.
“The incident has not affected Latvian communications users,” she wrote on X.
The latest incident is made public five days after Finnish police seized a cargo vessel en route from Russia to Israel on suspicion of sabotaging an undersea telecoms cable running from Helsinki across the Gulf of Finland to Estonia.