Why the left’s knives are out for Shapiro | Will Bunch Newsletter

Earlier this month, we lived through the hottest day in the history of Planet Earth since we started keeping records. Twice! In back-to-back days. Meanwhile, police body cam footage showed a cop in Springfield, Ill., essentially executing an unarmed Black woman named Sonya Massey after some confusing instructions over a pot of boiling water. Both stories should have been top-of-the-hour news, but got buried under the blizzard of 2024 election stories. Maybe on Jan. 21, 2025, we’ll finally wake up to the big mess that the 47th president will need to address.

If someone forwarded you this email, sign up for free here.

When it comes to politics, they are some of the loudest voices in Pennsylvania: left-leaning activist types who protest the fracking industry, rally for more public school funding, or join anti-war marches. When the Democrats put forward a 2022 gubernatorial candidate in then-Attorney General Josh Shapiro from the party’s center flank — with iconoclastic views on some issues important to progressives, like school vouchers — the noise coming from his left flank was truly remarkable.

Utter silence.

That’s because Shapiro, unchallenged in the 2022 primary, faced a GOP fall opponent in Doug Mastriano — a Christian nationalist state senator with ties on the extreme right, a record of 2020 election denial, and a fondness for the Confederacy — who was seen by many voters as a threat to democracy. Disagreements over issues like the future of fracking didn’t seem important compared to fears of what a Mastriano administration might do.

Two years later, Shapiro is considered one of the nation’s most popular governors — with an approval rating that’s gone as high as 61%. And with the surprise elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the Democrat ticket and the party scrambling to make up lost ground in Pennsylvania, the largest swing state, Shapiro is one of the top contenders to become Harris’ running mate.

But that means the 51-year-old Shapiro’s rivals for the job aren’t right-wing Republicans like Mastriano but other Democrats like popular Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, the former astronaut married to anti-gun activist Gabby Giffords. Pennsylvania’s progressives, who bit their tongues in 2022 and have seen their grievances largely ignored in Harrisburg, are reverting to form. Many are speaking out against their home-state governor as a Democratic veep — raising questions among the party’s base that could derail his bid.

Upper Darby’s Colleen Kennedy, who represents Delaware County on the Democratic state committee, echoed other critics in saying that they’ll work hard for Harris no matter whom is picked. However, they contend, while Shapiro has some strong achievements that are comparable to his VP rivals, parts of his record make him a weaker choice for the Democrats.

“Shapiro has repeatedly pursued education policies that would permit discrimination against queer and trans students, disabled students, working class students, and immigrant students,” said Kennedy, in a criticism of his support for a school voucher plan. “We must continue to attract the political support of young people, who want to see accountability of rogue police departments, not student arrests” such as the raid on a pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of Pennsylvania urged by the governor.

Karen Feridun, a leader of the anti-fracking Better Path Coalition, told me that for vice president the Democrats “need all hands on deck dealing with the climate crisis, not guys like Shapiro who openly support continued fossil fuel production.” She added that “I think he will drive away the youth vote she needs between his terrible positions on both Gaza (including his intolerance of dissent) and climate.”

The basic conundrum for Harris and national Democrats is this. Would her drive for 270-plus electoral votes against Donald Trump be best-served by a center-left Democrat with crossover appeal to independents and moderate Republicans, especially in a critical swing state? Or would a candidate who alienates the left depress some of the young-voter enthusiasm that’s been evident since Harris emerged as President Joe Biden’s replacement?

The progressive case against Shapiro falls largely in four areas:

— School choice. More than two dozen public-education advocacy groups signed a letter urging Harris to not pick Shapiro as vice president, citing his statements of support both as a 2022 candidate and as governor for school vouchers that would funnel taxpayer dollars to help families send their kids to private schools. Ironically, those proposals backed by state Republicans and megadonor Jeff Yass haven’t become a reality under Shapiro, and in 2023 he vetoed an $100 million voucher-style program after initially saying he’d sign it. And Shapiro advocates note the 2024 budget he did sign boosted funding for public schools by $1.1 billion. But the Pennsylvanian’s willingness to even entertain vouchers puts him at odds with other Democrats vying to be veep.

— Fracking and the environment. While environmentalists hoped Shapiro, who tangled with the oil and gas industry as AG, would crack down on fracking as governor, many leading groups say they’re deeply disappointed in his record. Physicians for Social Responsibility in Pennsylvania charged that Shapiro has “radically changed his environmental policy priorities and began to court fossil fuel companies.” Critics have blasted his support for projects like hydrogen hubs that use fracked gas and for the return of fracking to Dimock, the rural town whose pollution was featured in the documentary Gasland. The Shapiro administration insists it is aggressively going after polluters.

— Student protests and Gaza. No issue has divided the Democratic coalition like the war in the Middle East. Shapiro’s strong support for Israel is arguably in line with other top Dems, but critics cite his reluctance to call for a cease-fire in Gaza and in particular his strong stance against pro-Palestinian student demonstrators, using his platform to urge Penn to shut down its protest encampment and even seeming to compare pro-Palestinian activists to “white supremacists” in interviews. But Shapiro has also spoken out against Palestinian civilian casualties, and his supporters say activists’ focus on the one VP finalist who is Jewish smacks of antisemitism.

— Handling of sexual harassment. The Shapiro administration last year agreed to pay $295,000 to a former female aide who accused a long-time political associate of the governor — Mike Vereb, his legislative secretary, a cabinet post — of making unwanted sexual advances and frequent lewd talk. Female lawmakers in both parties have criticized the administration — which cites a non-disclosure agreement for not talking about the case — for an alleged lack of transparency. The Democratic candidate for state treasurer — political outsider Erin McClelland — sent shock waves through the veepstakes when she tweeted that she wanted a VP “who doesn’t sweep sexual harassment under the rug.”

That is exactly the kind of allegation that can prove toxic in an intra-party squabble among Democrats. The Shapiro situation is vexing because — even as critics like Kennedy point out — his overall record of liberal gains in a politically divided state is pretty good. The governor is also a master at performative but effective politics, which looks brilliant when he pushes to get a collapsed bridge on I-95 reopened in days instead of months.

But other bipartisan gambits — especially his repeated endorsements of school voucher programs — look like a massive unforced error for a man with higher ambitions in the Democratic Party. I find his continued support for fracking after a state-backed report found an increased risk for some types of childhood cancer for kids growing up near active wells to be morally unconscionable.

It’s no wonder that progressives seem to be lining up in the VP contest behind Minnesota’s Walz, who like Shapiro has some policy wins on cherished liberal issues like expanding free school lunches but isn’t lugging around political baggage like the Pennsylvania governor. Whether Harris, said to have close ties to Shapiro, sees it the same way will tell us a lot about her White House bid.

But for local progressives, the emergence of Shapiro as top-tier veep contender is a double-edged sword. Feridun told me she would work like crazy to get a Harris-Shapiro ticket elected — “not just because of Trump” but also with the goal of “getting him (Shapiro) the hell out of the governor’s office.”

Question: What happens to PA if (Josh) Shapiro were to become the VP? — Soniapie (@Soniapie13) on X/Twitter

Answer: Well, the short answer to that is an easy one: Shapiro would resign at some point between winning the November election and taking the oath as vice president on Jan. 20, 2025, and Lt. Gov. Austin Davis would become the 49th governor of Pennsylvania at the young age of just 35. The intrigue would be around how Davis would govern and whether as the state’s first African American governor he would make any major policy changes. It’s hard to predict because Davis is something of a tabula rasa. His biography is (mostly) compelling, as the son of a union bus driver and first in his family to attend college. His four years as a state House member, when Democrats were in the minority, offers little insight on how he might lead. It will be a heck of a story, though.

No surprise that last week’s question about who will win in the newly forged Donald Trump vs. Kamala Harris matchup a) drew a big response and b) was sort of unanimous in either predicting that Harris will win or at least optimism that she could win in a race that seemed hopelessly lost when President Joe Biden was the candidate. Edward Pratowski said that “after one Trump administration, we know what the alternative is. How could Kamala Harris not have the vote of every woman in the country?” But Doug Webster is still worried about Republican dirty tricks around the vote counting. “The GOP dark money pool for this kind of thing is broad, deep, determined and often secretive,” he warned.

📮This week’s question: It might well be moot by this time next week, but I’m curious whom readers think the Harris campaign should tap for vice president. For a chance to be featured in my newsletter, email me your answer. Please put “Veep pick” in the subject line.

From Ben Franklin to Pink, Philadelphia and its suburbs have produced a slew of great Americans. But over the last 300-plus years, the Cradle of Liberty has also sent forth a fair share of not-so-shining stars. Consider Jack Posobiec. A child of Norristown, Posobiec went on to achieve low-level fame as a fiery leader of the Temple University College Republicans, and then started falling down a rabbit hole. In 2017, he drew attention for promoting the utterly baseless Pizzagate conspiracy theory about an alleged child sex-ring involving top Democrats and a D.C. restaurant where Posobiec filmed a video that disrupted a kid’s birthday party (he insists he was making fun of the theory.) The Southern Poverty Law Center in 2022 listed Posobiec as an extremist, citing his ties to groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as well as neo-Nazis and even the Polish far right.

In today’s MAGA world, Posobiec’s checkered past has allowed him to constantly fail upward, earning a TV commentary gig on the One America News Network and even a book contract. Earlier this month, Posebiec co-authored a tome — federal inmate Steve Bannon wrote the forward — titled “Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them). The “unhumans” in the title are American progressives, in keeping with the longstanding fascist tradition of dehumanizing their enemies to prepare for unspeakable horrors. This book that belongs in the dustbin of history is instead doing well (#64 on Amazon best-sellers, on Monday) with the help of an endorsement from one of America’s leading political figures:

Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president.

“In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags,” Vance wrote as a blurb for the book that was published on July 9 — or presumably while Donald Trump was vetting Vance to potentially serve a cholesterol-laden heartbeat away from the presidency. (Donald Trump Jr. and pardoned pro-Trump felon Michael Flynn also wrote blurbs). “Today, they march through HR, college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.”

Vance’s endorsement of a book by a fringe extremist and conspiracy theorist has only been noted in a few left-leaning publications like The New Republic. It ought to be a bigger deal, even disqualifying for national office. Vance, ironically, is a lot like Posobiec, a former garden-variety conservative who finds himself saying more and more extremist things, like calling Democrats “childless cat ladies,” in order to get noticed in a warped right-wing ecosphere of disinformation or slander. What’s scary is that history has shown that dehumanizing rhetoric gets turned into action when weak men like Vance get a whiff of real power.

I’m quite often on vacation on July 30, but 11 years ago I stuck around to write about the military whistleblower now known as Chelsea Manning and to voice my displeasure with Barack Obama’s dismal record on press freedom. A military judge, while finding Manning guilty on other counts, rebuffed the most serious allegation of giving aid to the enemy, a potential death-penalty crime. I wrote: “The record number of efforts to prosecute whistleblowers and to intimidate future truth-tellers, the alarming efforts to criminalize reporting by Fox News, the Associated Press and others, and a generally callous attitude toward freedom-of-information laws are all terrible enough, but an aiding the enemy conviction for Manning’s leak would have been the hardest kick in the groin.” Read the rest: “...Manning and the American way of justice.”

By submitting your written, visual, and/or audio contributions, you agree to The Inquirer’s Terms of Use, including the grant of rights in Section 10.