A Different Kind of Senate Campaign in Michigan
Abdul El-Sayed’s nomination for the U.S. Senate in Michigan has become about more than the usual differences between two political candidates. El-Sayed, a physician, epidemiologist, former Detroit health director, and Muslim American of Egyptian heritage, is running against Republican Mike Rogers. His nomination placed his religion, heritage, and name alongside his political ideas in the national spotlight. That attention matters because Michigan could play an important role in determining which party controls the Senate. Still, voters deserve a campaign that gives them something more useful than fear. They should be able to examine El-Sayed’s record, experience, policies, and political philosophy just as carefully as they examine Rogers. There is nothing wrong with Republicans strongly challenging El-Sayed’s positions because that is what political campaigns are supposed to do. El-Sayed should also be expected to explain controversial positions clearly and answer difficult questions from voters and the press. The problem begins when disagreement over policy becomes mixed with suggestions that a candidate should be feared because he is Muslim, Egyptian American, or has an Arabic name. At that point, voters may stop examining what the man actually believes and start reacting to what somebody has encouraged them to imagine about him. A democracy works better when we judge a candidate by what he proposes to do with power rather than by whether his name or religion makes some Americans uncomfortable.
The Politics of Making Somebody an Outsider
Political campaigns have always understood that fear can sometimes move people faster than a complicated policy argument. One way to create that fear is to make an opponent seem like somebody who does not really belong. President Donald Trump and other Republicans have attacked El-Sayed while placing considerable attention on his Muslim identity. Trump has also emphasized El-Sayed’s full name and contrasted photographs of the candidates’ families while arguing that they represent different versions of America. El-Sayed answered that they do represent different political visions, but he described those differences in terms of equality, affordability, and economic priorities. There is nothing unusual about two candidates claiming they represent different visions of America. Elections are supposed to give voters a choice between competing ideas about where the country should go. The trouble comes when a foreign-sounding name, ancestry, religious clothing, or faith becomes a reason to question whether somebody is truly American. Once that happens, the argument begins moving away from policy and toward making somebody an outsider. Instead of asking what the candidate would do in office, voters may start asking whether somebody who looks, worships, or sounds different can really be one of us. America has traveled down that road before, and history gives us good reason to recognize where that kind of thinking can lead.
Criticism Is Fair, but Evidence Still Matters
None of this means El-Sayed should be protected from tough political criticism. He is running for one of the most powerful elected offices in the country, and voters have every right to examine him closely. His positions on health care, policing, immigration, Israel, Gaza, government spending, and other issues are fair subjects for serious disagreement. Mike Rogers and other Republicans are entitled to argue that those policies are wrong for Michigan. Voters are also free to decide that El-Sayed is too progressive, too inexperienced, or simply not the person they want representing them. That is democracy doing what democracy is supposed to do. What should concern us is when religious identity itself becomes evidence of extremism without proof. A Muslim candidate should not have to answer for every extremist who has claimed Islam any more than a Christian candidate should have to answer for every extremist who has claimed Christianity. Political accountability should begin with what a candidate has actually said, supported, opposed, and done. That same standard should protect conservative, liberal, Republican, Democratic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and nonreligious candidates alike. Once evidence no longer matters, anybody can be made to look dangerous if an opponent finds a frightening enough label to put beside their name.
The Difficult Question About Israel
El-Sayed’s position on Israel deserves careful attention because voters should understand what he has actually said rather than what either side claims he said. When CNN’s Kasie Hunt repeatedly asked whether Israel has a right to exist, El-Sayed did not give the simple yes-or-no answer she was seeking. He said Israel exists and questioned why political candidates are not similarly asked whether Palestine has a right to exist. He also argued that Jewish Israelis and Palestinians deserve equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination. El-Sayed then shifted the discussion toward whether Israel should receive American taxpayer support. His position is that some of those resources should instead be invested in Michigan and other needs at home. Critics can reasonably argue that refusing to clearly affirm Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state leaves an important question unanswered. El-Sayed argues that the question itself creates a political trap and that his concern is equal self-determination and how American tax dollars are spent. Those are meaningful differences that deserve serious examination. Voters do not need either side to invent his position because there is enough information available to examine what he actually said. People can listen to his answer, consider what he avoided saying as well as what he did say, and decide for themselves whether they find his position acceptable.
Foreign Aid and Putting America First
El-Sayed has argued that American tax dollars should go toward schools, health care, and other needs at home rather than military support for Israel. He has also compared that position with American assistance to Egypt, where his family has roots. His argument is that he is questioning foreign aid rather than singling out one country because of ethnicity or religion. Americans can reasonably disagree about whether that is good policy. Some believe military assistance to Israel serves American security interests and supports an important ally in a dangerous region. Others believe that aid should be reduced, conditioned, or redirected because of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians or because domestic needs should come first. Those are serious arguments about national security, human rights, government spending, alliances, and America’s responsibilities in the world. Reducing that complicated debate to El-Sayed being Muslim does not help voters understand any of those issues. His ancestry does not tell us whether his foreign-policy position is wise or foolish. His religion does not tell us whether redirecting foreign aid would help Michigan families. Those questions have to be answered with evidence, policy, and an honest discussion of the consequences.
The Power of a Frightening Word
Political language becomes powerful when a frightening word takes the place of a serious argument. A campaign does not always have to prove that somebody is dangerous if it can repeatedly connect that person with something voters already fear. Words such as terrorist, jihadist, communist, socialist, fascist, radical, and extremist can become shortcuts that keep us from looking any deeper. Trump has called El-Sayed a communist, while El-Sayed describes himself as a capitalist with progressive economic views. That leaves voters with the responsibility of doing something social media does not always encourage us to do. We have to look beyond the label. We should ask what economic policies El-Sayed actually supports, what he has said about violence, and what positions he has taken on constitutional rights. We should also examine what he did while serving in public office. Those questions take more time than looking at a meme or listening to a campaign slogan. Political labels can sometimes describe somebody accurately, but repeating a label over and over does not make it true. Democracy becomes weaker when we allow emotionally powerful words to do our thinking for us.
The Arabic-Numeral Myth
The claim that a Muslim politician wants to force Americans to use “Arabic numerals” shows how easily unfamiliar words can be used to frighten people. The numbers Americans use every day—0 through 9—are already commonly known as Hindu-Arabic numerals. The number system developed through Indian mathematics and eventually reached Europe through the Islamic world. In other words, Americans have been using these numbers all our lives. We use them when we write a check, dial a telephone number, calculate taxes, read an address, record a birthday, or look at the time. Still, the phrase “Arabic numerals” can sound foreign or threatening to somebody who does not know what it means. That is where misinformation can slip through the door. A person hears the word “Arabic,” connects it with something unfamiliar, and reacts before stopping to check the facts. Sometimes a few moments of research can clear up a claim that was designed to keep people angry for days. That is why checking basic facts matters so much in an age when misinformation can travel around the country in a matter of minutes. The bigger lesson is not about numbers at all but about how easily fear can grow from a word we never stopped to understand.
Fear Works Best When We Do Not Check
False political claims are nothing new because politicians and their supporters have been spreading them for generations. What has changed is how quickly those claims can reach millions of people through social media. Accurate information may be only a few clicks away, yet people sometimes accept a story because it confirms something they already believe. If somebody already believes Muslims are dangerous, a frightening claim about a Muslim candidate may sound believable before they examine the evidence. The same thing can happen when people already hold strong beliefs about immigrants, Black people, conservatives, liberals, Christians, Jews, or almost any other group. Psychologists often call this tendency confirmation bias. It means we are more likely to accept information that supports what we already believe and question information that challenges us. This is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem because human beings across the political spectrum can fall into the same trap. That is why we sometimes need to investigate the political story we most want to believe. The stronger our emotional reaction becomes, the more important it may be to slow down and check what is actually true. Democracy cannot work very well when we demand evidence from our political opponents while giving our own side permission to say almost anything.
America Has Seen This Before
America has a long history of treating certain groups as though they were somehow less American than everybody else. Catholics were once accused of being unable to remain loyal to the United States because of their connection to the pope. Jewish Americans have faced conspiracy theories claiming they secretly control powerful institutions. Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II partly because ancestry was treated as evidence that their loyalty might be questionable. Black Americans demanding civil rights were sometimes described as communist agitators instead of citizens demanding rights promised by the Constitution. After September 11, Muslim and Arab Americans faced another wave of suspicion that too easily connected their identity with terrorism. These periods were not identical, and we should be careful about pretending that they were. Still, there is a pattern worth recognizing. A group already considered unfamiliar becomes connected with some larger threat, and fear of that group becomes politically useful. Years later, people often look back and wonder why more Americans did not recognize what was happening. The uncomfortable truth is that fear can become extremely persuasive when people have been convinced that their country, culture, safety, or way of life is being threatened.
What Michigan Voters Really Have to Decide
Michigan voters ultimately have a much more practical decision to make than much of the social-media argument would suggest. They have to choose between Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers for a seat in the United States Senate. Both men have political records, beliefs, alliances, and policy positions that voters can examine. Rogers has every right to challenge El-Sayed on health care, taxes, policing, immigration, foreign policy, spending, and other important issues. El-Sayed has the same right to challenge Rogers on his record, economic positions, political alliances, and relationship with the Trump administration. Outside political organizations are also spending heavily to influence how Michigan voters see this race. That means people should expect advertisements designed not only to inform them but also to shape how they feel about each candidate. The best defense is not automatically believing one campaign and distrusting the other. Voters should separate documented facts from suggestions and political theater. They should ask what each candidate proposes, what those proposals would cost, who would benefit, and what tradeoffs might come with them. Those questions require more work than reacting to somebody’s name, but they tell us much more about whether that person deserves a seat in the United States Senate.
A Name Will Not Lower the Grocery Bill
For many Americans, the concerns that matter most are still the ordinary problems they face every day. People want affordable groceries, dependable jobs, manageable housing, accessible health care, safe neighborhoods, decent schools, and enough financial security to believe tomorrow might be better than today. A candidate having an Arabic name does not tell us whether any of those things will improve. Neither does having a Christian name, Jewish name, Black name, Latino name, or traditional Anglo-American name. What matters more is policy, competence, judgment, political power, economic conditions, and what somebody actually does after taking office. Identity is not completely meaningless because our experiences can influence how we understand the communities around us. But identity should never become a substitute for examining what somebody plans to do with public power. Americans lose something when politicians successfully turn economic frustration into fear of people who look or worship differently. While everybody is arguing about whether somebody’s name sounds American enough, the rent is still due. The grocery bill is still sitting on the kitchen counter. At the end of the month, that mortgage payment does not care whether the senator is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or anything else.
The Responsibility Belongs to Us
Political campaigns will continue trying to influence us because influencing voters is what campaigns are designed to do. That means some responsibility has to rest with those of us who decide what information we are willing to believe. We have access to more information than any generation of American voters before us. Still, having information available does not automatically make us informed. We have to open the article, examine the source, listen to the complete answer, compare different accounts, and sometimes admit that something we wanted to believe was not true. That responsibility applies no matter which political party we support. El-Sayed should be challenged when his positions are unclear, controversial, or difficult to defend. Rogers deserves the same level of examination. Trump should be judged by what he actually says and does, just as his political opponents should be. Nobody should be protected from legitimate criticism because of religion, race, party, ancestry, or ideology, but nobody should be condemned by suggestion alone. Democracy requires enough curiosity and discipline from all of us to ask one basic question before passing something along: Is this actually true?
Summary
Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan Senate nomination has created a debate involving both legitimate political disagreements and questions about how his Muslim identity is being used against him. His policies deserve the same careful examination we should expect for any candidate seeking national office. Voters have every right to disagree with him on Israel, Gaza, health care, policing, taxes, government spending, or any other issue. Mike Rogers deserves the same careful examination of his record and proposals. What should not replace that debate is fear based on somebody’s religion, ancestry, appearance, or name. Political labels can be powerful, but a frightening label is not evidence by itself. Social media makes it especially easy for false or misleading claims to spread before anybody stops to check them. That problem affects people across the political spectrum. Responsible citizenship requires us to examine even those stories that support what we already believe. We should judge candidates by their records, policies, judgment, character, and what they intend to do with public power. Elections are serious enough that Americans should demand something more substantial than fear.
Conclusion
A democracy becomes weaker when a candidate’s name matters more than the candidate’s record. Americans have every right to question Abdul El-Sayed closely because he is asking voters to trust him with enormous political power. The same standard should apply to Mike Rogers and every other candidate seeking public office. We should ask difficult questions about policies, experience, judgment, spending, national security, and the consequences of what each person proposes. We should also pay attention when political campaigns try to turn religious or cultural differences into fear. History has shown us how easily unfamiliar names and identities can be used to make fellow Americans seem like outsiders. We do not have to agree with somebody’s politics to recognize when that is happening. We can oppose a candidate strongly while still demanding that the case against that person be based on facts. That standard protects everybody because today’s political outsider could be somebody from our own community tomorrow. At the end of the day, Americans still need leaders who can deal with housing, health care, jobs, education, public safety, national security, and the cost of living. Fear may help somebody win an election, but a frightening name on a campaign advertisement will not put groceries on the kitchen table.