Did a vice presidential vetting process cross a troubling line?
A Washington Post op-ed by James Kirchick has raised concerns about the Kamala Harris campaign’s handling of Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro during vetting for a potential running mate. Kirchick highlighted a question posed to Shapiro about whether he had ever acted as an agent for the Israeli government. Additionally, a preview of Shapiro’s upcoming book, "Where We Keep the Light," reveals his frustration with what he called unnecessarily contentious inquiries from Harris’ team, including comments on financial burdens and political stances, leading him to decline the offer.
Harris’ press office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The issue centers on Shapiro, a prominent Democrat known for his supportive views on Israel.
Critics argue that the vetting process veered into problematic territory. The nature of the questions, especially regarding Shapiro’s ties to Israel, has ignited a broader discussion about fairness and underlying biases in political evaluations.
According to Fox News, Shapiro himself recounted a particularly striking moment from the vetting, stating, “Have you ever been an agent of the Israeli government?” That question, he noted, felt deeply offensive and out of bounds for a process meant to assess suitability for office.
Let’s be clear: asking about foreign allegiances in such a pointed way risks reviving old, ugly stereotypes. If the intent was to gauge loyalty, there are far less loaded ways to approach it. This misstep hints at a troubling lack of sensitivity.
Kirchick pointed out that some have wrongly claimed Shapiro served in the Israel Defense Forces. In reality, Shapiro took part in a high school volunteer initiative, working on a kibbutz and aiding at a military base. This distinction matters when assessing the validity of concerns raised during vetting.
Misinformation can fuel unfair scrutiny, as Kirchick noted with, “what sets off progressives isn’t the principle of serving in a foreign army, but serving in the army of the Jewish state.” That double standard, if true, suggests a deeper issue with how certain affiliations are judged. It’s a selective outrage that needs addressing.
Israel, often described as a key democratic ally of the U.S., shouldn’t be a lightning rod for suspicion. Yet, Kirchick suggests figures like Dana Remus and Eric H. Holder Jr. may view such ties as potential security risks. That perspective raises questions about trust in longstanding alliances.
Shapiro’s book preview also detailed pressure on political topics, like his stance on University of Pennsylvania protesters opposing Israel’s actions in Gaza. Some of these protesters, he noted, intimidated Jewish students, adding complexity to the debate. The vetting even floated the idea of apologizing for prior comments on such matters.
Forcing contrition over principled stands smells of political expediency. If Shapiro’s views on Israel are controversial to some, that’s a debate worth having openly—not through backroom ultimatums. It’s a tactic that undermines genuine discourse.
Kirchick further argued that progressives often overlook their own historical contradictions, citing examples like support for America’s adversaries during the Vietnam War era. This pattern, he suggests, reveals a selective moral compass when it comes to foreign conflicts.
The vetting also reportedly touched on personal matters, with Remus suggesting the role might financially strain Shapiro and his family. That angle, alongside policy probes, led him to step away from the opportunity. Pressuring a candidate over personal finances while questioning national loyalty is a bitter combination. It risks alienating not just Shapiro, but a wider base that values both integrity and support for allies like Israel. Such missteps could fracture party unity.
In the end, Kirchick warns that dismissing key supporters through questionable tactics shows a troubling direction. The Harris team’s silence so far only amplifies the need for clarity. American politics deserves better than whispered doubts and divisive vetting games.