Amy Spitalnick’s recent “report,” titled Antisemitism x Democracy, claims to explore the connection between rising antisemitism and broader threats to democracy, advocating for a framework that integrates combating antisemitism with promoting an inclusive, multiracial democracy. However, the report demonstrates that Spitalnick resorts to extremist tactics — calling her political opponents names, claiming all people of a certain race or religion should think the same way, and uses the term “Democracy” incorrectly for the purposes of her partisan political agenda.

Calls Political Opponents Names

Claims All People of Certain Race or Religion Think A Certain Way

Next, Spitalnick also appears to engage in the extremist tactic of claiming that all people of the Jewish faith should think a certain way. She makes generalizations about groups’ behaviors and beliefs, which can give the impression of stereotyping. Here’s how this manifests:

The report frequently portrays Jewish people as having shared priorities or connections, particularly regarding “Democracy.” However, what she means by “Democracy” is merely adopting progressive values, which most people do not agree with. The report predictably imparts Spitalnick’s political agenda as her recommendation for the health of “inclusive, liberal democracies,” which might not resonate with all Jewish individuals, particularly those with conservative political leanings.

The report emphasizes the importance of building coalitions across racial and religious lines, but also attempts to whitewash antisemitism that may come from those coalitions, admitting that Jewish groups will feel sidelined in progressive spaces because they are seen as “white and therefore privileged.” Spitalnick does nothing to address the false perception that Jews are “white” and “privileged.”

Recommendations for a Balanced Approach

• Acknowledge Diversity Within Groups: Recognize the range of opinions and experiences within Jewish and non-Jewish communities.
• Avoid Overgeneralizations: Frame observations as trends or patterns rather than definitive characteristics of entire groups.
• Highlight Nuance: Discuss intra-group debates and variations, especially regarding sensitive topics like Israel, privilege, and intersectionality.

By incorporating these changes, the report could avoid any appearance of assuming that all members of a race, religion, or ideology think a certain way.

Uses the Term “Democracy” Incorrectly

Finally, Spitalnick transparently and cynically uses the term “Democracy” to confuse people, when she means that she is using the term to advocate for her own progressive values. The report uses the term “democracy” extensively, tying it to broader goals such as inclusivity, pluralism, and protection against antisemitism. However, there are several aspects of its usage that might be perceived as aligning more with the author’s political opinions than with a universally agreed definition of democracy:

1. Broad Definition of Democracy

The report defines democracy not just as a system of governance with free and fair elections but also as an ideal encompassing:

• Multiracial, inclusive societies.
• Protection of civil rights and liberties for marginalized groups.
• Cross-community solidarity and mutual safety.

While these values are vital and resonate with many, they expand the traditional, institutional definition of democracy to include a specific ideological framework. This broader definition may not align with the views of all audiences, particularly those who associate democracy with procedural fairness and pluralism without mandating specific social outcomes.

2. Partisan Interpretation of Threats to Democracy

The report focuses heavily on threats to democracy from the right, such as:

• White supremacy.
• Antisemitic conspiracy theories like the “Great Replacement.”
• Political violence, such as the January 6th Capitol attack.

While these are valid concerns, the report pays comparatively less attention to issues on the left, such as antisemitism in progressive spaces or how polarizing identity politics can alienate Jewish communities. This imbalance may create the perception that “democracy” is being used as a partisan term, implying that one side of the political spectrum is more aligned with democratic values.

3. Implicit Political Bias

• Alignment with Progressive Values: The report’s emphasis on “inclusive, multiracial democracy” and coalition-building aligns closely with progressive political ideologies. While these are important goals, they might not resonate with individuals who hold more conservative or libertarian views of democracy, which prioritize limited government, individual freedoms, and less emphasis on group-based coalition-building.
• Opposition to Specific Policies: Criticism of efforts like those targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs or certain educational reforms are framed as threats to democracy. This framing risks conflating political disagreements with anti-democratic behavior.

4. Overuse of Democracy as a Justification

The report repeatedly ties combating antisemitism to the survival of democracy, implying that the two are inseparable. While antisemitism is undoubtedly a societal ill that threatens inclusivity and trust, not everyone might agree that it is intrinsically tied to democratic governance. This framing could appear as an attempt to universalize the author’s viewpoint under the banner of “democracy.”

Recommendations for a Balanced Approach

1. Clarify the Definition of Democracy:
   • Specify whether the report is addressing democracy as a system of governance, a set of social values, or both.
   • Avoid conflating social justice aims with democratic structures, as this might alienate readers with differing views.
2. Acknowledge Diverse Perspectives:
   • Recognize that democracy can mean different things to different groups, including those who prioritize individual liberties or procedural fairness over broader social goals.
3. Balance Critiques:
   • Address threats to democracy from across the political spectrum with equal rigor to avoid the appearance of partisanship.
4. Separate Democracy from Ideology:
   • Discuss antisemitism and coalition-building as moral and practical imperatives without relying too heavily on the concept of democracy as a justification.

By sticking to core principles of democracy, such as electoral integrity, accountability, rule of law, and protection of individual freedoms, Ms. Spitalnick will avoid conflating democracy with specific social or political goals.