-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Nestled between two large lakes, near the northwest tip of Michigan’s lower peninsula, you’ll find more than 1,000 acres of land dedicated to the performing arts.
The list of children who have spent time there and gone on to have distinguished careers is extensive. Oscar winner Da’Vine Joy Randolph. Grammy winner Norah Jones. Emmy winner Felicity Huffman. The backdrop where they rehearsed, befriended and dreamed of fame is lush and picturesque. Getting accepted into the Interlochen summer camp meant “you got it, kid.” Paying for the century-old school meant “you got money, kid.”
Or know someone who does.
This is one place where Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell hunted for victims, according to documents released by the Department of Justice. Epstein, who attended the school as a 14-year-old bassoonist in 1967, began making regular visits between 1994 and 2000. Using his wealth and power to present himself as a generous alumnus to administrators, Epstein lured children into his sex-trafficking operation by promising to pay for the next year’s tuition.
I could never vote for someone who hears the details of what happened to Epstein’s victims and chooses obstruction for political reasons. Justice for those survivors is a red line for me.
Everyone has a red-line issue. Some Americans draw the line at abortion access. For others, it’s gun policy.
During the 2024 Democratic presidential primary, for the more than 100,000 Michiganders who voted “uncommitted” rather than supporting President Biden, the red line was his handling of the war in Gaza. Polls show the war contributed to Vice President Harris’ defeat later that year as well. And here we are, two years later, and war in the Middle East again will be a deciding factor.
Only this time, it does not appear to be a question about the Democrats’ message so much as it is about the messenger. While it is true the Trump administration’s handling of the economy and wars in Iran and Gaza have made him unpopular — even among Republicans — it is also true the faith of Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, is a red line for some.
Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) recently posted on social media that “every single Muslim holding public office in America is a trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic”; President Trump said without evidence that the 41-year-old epidemiologist El-Sayed “hates Jews”; and his 2020-election-denying opponent, Mike Rogers, dropped an ad targeting Democrats who felt “hopeless because the person who won does not represent your values.” Rogers also has tried to link El-Sayed to comments other people have made about 9/11, not being bashful at all about using Islamophobia to drum up support.
It’s exhausting. It’s disappointing. And sadly, likely effective.
Amir Hassan is a Christian who was endorsed by Trump, but only 1 in 3 Republicans voted for him in a House primary in Michigan, preferring the candidate Tom Smith, even though he had dropped out of the race weeks earlier. Republican state Rep. David Martin said he “hates to think” that Hassan’s Arabic name cost him the election.
“Anybody who has sat with Amir Hassan and heard his testimony and his belief and his faith in Jesus Christ would have been convinced,” Martin told local outlets afterward. “It’s sad. I mean, look at John F. Kennedy. They thought he’d have more allegiance to the pope than to the country and to the Constitution. Obviously, we’ve gotten well past that.”
When I recently asked Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) about Americans’ resistance to voting for someone who wasn’t a Christian, he brought up the same point about Kennedy and anti-Catholic sentiment.
At a town hall with El-Sayed near the University of Michigan on Wednesday, Raskin discussed Kennedy’s acceptance speech from the 1960 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, in which the future president said: “I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will waste his franchise by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant.”
Raskin, who is Jewish, frames the decision facing voters in this year’s midterm elections as being about a different red line: “Those of us who have been fighting Donald Trump and his authoritarianism and corruption and violence against American citizens and immigrants for 10 years now understand that this is an essential referendum about the future. Where we have democracy or where we have autocracy. This is our chance to cut this reign of lawlessness and terror in half in this election. That is the overarching question here.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) attended the town hall to support El-Sayed as well, and she concurred about the stakes. She said she is tired of being asked about distracting nonissues — such as comments from the fringe-left online personality Hasan Piker — when “we are facing far more important issues like the cost of living and war.”
I don’t think any Democrat would disagree with her. There are far more pressing concerns than any gadfly’s remarks. The question is, where will all of those concerns rank when voters in Michigan are staring at a ballot with the name Abdul El-Sayed? Will they draw the line at abetting pedophiles? At “lawlessness and terror”? Or at electing a Muslim?
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that justice for survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse is a personal “red line” and that any politician who obstructs accountability for such crimes is beyond consideration, using that moral boundary to illustrate how voters often prioritize one defining issue above all others.
- The article contends that American politics is increasingly organized around such “red lines” — from abortion and gun policy to the war in Gaza — and suggests that Michigan’s Senate race will test whether voters weigh those policy stakes more heavily than anxieties about a candidate’s religious identity.
- The piece suggests that Abdul El-Sayed’s campaign crystallizes this tension: while his progressive positions on healthcare, money in politics and U.S. policy toward Israel and Gaza are central to his appeal, his Muslim faith has itself become a dividing line for some voters, with opponents amplifying Islamophobic narratives and questioning his values rather than his platform.
- The article highlights rhetoric from political figures who cast Muslims in public office as a security threat and from Trump, who accuses El-Sayed of hostility toward Jews, and argues that these attacks rely on prejudice rather than evidence, redirecting attention away from concrete issues such as war, the economy and democratic norms.
- The piece notes that El-Sayed’s candidacy echoes earlier moments of religious bias in U.S. politics, invoking John F. Kennedy’s 1960 plea that voters focus on “critical issues” rather than Catholic identity, and it uses Jamie Raskin’s argument to frame the Michigan contest as a referendum on democracy versus authoritarian “lawlessness and terror,” not on whether a Muslim can serve in the Senate.
- The article reports that Rep. Debbie Dingell is frustrated by media focus on fringe controversies rather than core concerns like the cost of living and war, and it suggests many Democrats agree that material and democratic stakes should overshadow identity-based fears, even as the piece questions whether those priorities will hold when voters confront a ballot with El-Sayed’s name.
- Ultimately, the article poses a stark question: when Michigan voters decide between El-Sayed and his opponents, will they draw their red line at complicity in abuse and authoritarianism, or at electing a Muslim, implying that choosing identity over issues would represent a troubling failure of civic judgment.
Different views on the topic
- In contrast, several Democratic strategists and elected officials argue that policy red lines must be tempered by electoral pragmatism, warning that El-Sayed’s progressive agenda could cost the party a pivotal Senate seat in a swing state and noting that figures like Rep. Haley Stevens and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were embraced as safer, more centrist choices with a proven ability to win in competitive districts[1][2][3].
- Establishment Democrats and allied groups have stressed that El-Sayed’s support for Medicare for All, his call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and his push to cut off U.S. military aid to Israel are out of step with Michigan’s broader electorate, arguing that such positions risk alienating moderates at a time when control of the Senate and the country’s response to wars in Gaza and Iran are on the line[1][4][6].
- Pro-Israel organizations and conservative commentators dispute the article’s framing of the race as primarily about democracy versus prejudice, instead portraying El-Sayed’s criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and his role in the “uncommitted” movement as evidence of an extreme posture that could undermine longstanding U.S. support for Israel and signal a troubling shift within the Democratic Party[4][7].
- Republican leaders and outside groups working to elect Mike Rogers argue that the central stakes of the Michigan race are ideological rather than identity-based, depicting El-Sayed as a far-left activist whose plans for sweeping healthcare reform, higher taxes on the wealthy and an end to unconditional aid to Israel would harm the economy and weaken national security, and committing tens of millions of dollars to defining him that way before November[1][2][5][6].
- Some political analysts contend that, even apart from overt bigotry, religion and identity inevitably shape voter behavior, especially in a battleground state where Trump has twice prevailed; they argue that El-Sayed’s Muslim background, his sharp criticism of U.S.–Israel policy and his alliances with progressive icons may deepen cultural divides and push swing voters toward candidates perceived as more traditional or less polarizing[4][6][7].
- At the same time, progressive commentators and organizers offer a different reading of the same facts, asserting that El-Sayed’s narrow victory despite heavy spending against him shows that many Michigan Democrats were willing to prioritize issues — such as universal healthcare, economic populism and opposition to unconditional military aid to Israel — over both establishment warnings about electability and undercurrents of religious bias[2][3][8].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
The latest effort is coming from the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. They just announced a $3 million program in conjunction with some nonprofits groups to test and clean the soil at homes still standing in the areas impacted by the Eaton Fire.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
