A CNN host said the (not-so) quiet part out loud in suggesting that Josh Shapiro “reads too Jewish” for the Democratic nomination. The panel, hosted by Elex Michaelson, included a conversation with Eric Messersmith about Senator Jon Ossoff’s potential in the 2028 presidential race. Earlier in the panel, Michaelson gave the usual dismissive description of the antisemitism epidemic in the Democratic party: “Some of the fringes of the DSA, not everybody in the DSA, are certainly pretty close to antisemitism, if not antisemitism.” Sure, Elex. And some of the fringes of the Spanish Inquisition didn’t love Jews either. Rather than counter that the antisemites would not be allowed to bully the rest of the party, Michaelson responded, “As Jew, some people read a little more Jewish than others. And Jon Ossoff may not read as Jewish as Josh Shapiro does, for whatever that’s worth.” Mr. Michaelson, a Jew himself, may be right, but his analysis ought to raise concerns that he’s standing on the wrong side. Shapiro was a serious contender for Kamala Harris’s vice president, who was ultimately passed over for Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. By any metric, Shapiro dwarfs Walz in eloquence, political acumen, and general intelligence. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to see what the Harris campaign didn’t like about him. I wonder, if antisemitism is confined to the fringe as Michaelson claims, why should Jon Ossoff “reading less Jewish” meaningfully increase his odds? Rather than exorcise the virulent antisemitism from their movement, the establishment has adopted a strategy of appeasement. The question is no longer “Why would it be offensive to nominate a Jew?” it’s “Who’s the least Jewish Jew we can nominate?” Ladies and gentlemen, the tolerant Left. Amidst instances like this one, it can be appealing for the fence-sitter to decry “extremism on both sides.” It is true that influencers Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly have embraced antisemitism wholeheartedly and make full-time jobs out of pushing the envelope when it comes to anti-Israel sentiment. But there are several key differences between the Left-wing problem and the Right-wing one. The antisemitic right-wing influencers seem far more numerous than they actually are. Recent polling still shows strong support for Israel and the Jewish people within the Republican party, and the opposite amongst Democrats. This is also reflected by elected officials in both parties. While the ranks of the Democrats are crawling with the likes of AOC, Ilhan Omar, and Zohran Mamdani, their Right-wing counterparts are few and far between. The closest thing is perhaps Representative Thomas Massie, who has an unsavory habit of crying “AIPAC” whenever things don’t go his way. Mr. Massie was primaried even as an incumbent in deep-red Kentucky. Simply put, even if there is an equivalency between Left and Right-wing commentators when it comes to antisemitism, that equivalency is not reflective of the parties. The antisemitism of the Right is still a largely online phenomenon relative to its sweeping, observable influence on the Left. After all, in the same week that Tucker Carlson left the Republican Party, multiple Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates unseated longstanding establishment Democrats in the New York primary races. Republicans rejected Massie, but Democrats embraced the DSA. Enough said. None of this is to dismiss the gravity of the far Right’s antisemitism problem. In recent years, sympathies towards extremism have become far more mainstream than they once were. J.D. Vance’s reluctance to condemn Tucker Carlson, for example, is legitimate cause for concern. But still, to any objective analyst, there can be no comparison between Vance and the festering antisemitism in the Democratic Party. The Democrats may nominate Jon Ossoff, but it will have to be because he distanced himself from Judaism, not because they distanced themselves from antisemitism. That’s not political pragmatism — it’s moral surrender.