This summer's Republican national convention ratified that Donald Trump’s Republican party is not George W. Bush's. But today’s Democratic party also looks nothing like Al Gore’s, and the two men who best epitomise that change are former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

When Vice President Al Gore tapped Lieberman to be his running mate in 2000, he made history by adding a Jew — an Orthodox Jew! — to a major party ticket. At the time, CNN reporter John King called the selection “a bold stroke.”

The New York Times reported, “questions were raised early on and again last night about whether Mr. Lieberman's religion would work against him.” They cited former Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who oversaw vice presidential vetting, saying: “the question of Mr. Lieberman's religion had been raised but . . . Mr. Gore ‘shut it down.’’’ In another article that day, The New York Times reported, “Mr. Gore, Mr. Lieberman and their wives addressed Mr. Lieberman's Jewishness as a topic not to avoid, but to celebrate.” Lieberman quoted from the Hebrew bible and used a Yiddish word, while his wife honored her Holocaust survivor parents. That article noted, “Mr. Gore had selected [Lieberman] despite his religion and any possible anti-Semitic backlash.”

The thing is, there was no antisemitic backlash. Twenty years on, Jewish Insider reported, “Reflecting on the 2000 campaign, neither Lieberman, nor his top aides could recall a single incident of antisemitism.”

That absence of Jew-hatred isn’t surprising. Ditto for the campaign’s adapting to Lieberman’s Sabbath observance and dietary requirements. Americans are tolerant and have long respected Jews like Lieberman, who took his religious observance seriously. It was a given that Gore and Lieberman would be pro-Israel, and if you’d asked their position on antisemitism, they would’ve considered it an odd question.

Nobody knew then, but an era was ending. Lieberman ran before Qatar donated lavishly to American universities and before DEI broadly infiltrated American institutions, teaching Americans that Jews are “oppressors.”

Twenty-four years on, Israel has become a litmus test for Jews in left-wing spaces, leftists use “Zionist” as a pejorative, and the Democratic party embraces its many anti-Zionists. Given that context, open antisemitism has naturally infected the Democrats’ public Veepstakes discussion. On social media and in media outlets, partisans have trained most of their hostile fire on Josh Shapiro for supporting Israel and opposing campus antisemitism.

In assessing Shapiro’s prospects, John King observed, “He’s a first-term governor, he’s Jewish, there could be some risks in putting him on the ticket.” The formerly Zionist New Republic published a piece calling Shapiro “egregiously bad on Palestine,” as he’s “outspoken” on Israel and has “done far more than most Democrats to attack pro-Palestine antiwar demonstrators, in ways that call into question his basic commitment to First Amendment rights.” Apparently, Shapiro’s comparing antisemitic campus protesters to white supremacists especially grated. Slate ran an article echoing the free speech charge, as well as the prediction that Shapiro would splinter Democrats’ coalition. When The Nation’s writers debated Harris’ options, Shapiro was criticised because he “slandered pro-Palestinian protesters as racists.” The Nation's accompanying Venn diagram of possible picks illustrated Shapiro's repelling "part of the coalition."

Shapiro’s detractors consider him too pro-Israel and sympathetic to Jews facing antisemitism, but a closer look at his statements paints a more complex picture. For example, when a Philadelphia magazine interviewer asked Shapiro in February if someone can disagree with Israel “without being straight-up labelled an antisemite,” Shapiro demonstrated that he’s an attentive student of Democratic party communications.

Shapiro assured his interviewer that his Mideast views “are quite nuanced. I believe in a two-state solution. And I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is a horrible leader and has been a destructive force in the Middle East. You may or may not agree with that, and that’s okay. But we have to be very clear in condemning antisemitism and Islamophobia, which have no place here.”

This is a variation on elected Democrats’ now standard “I love Israel, but I hate Bibi” framing. Shapiro slams Bibi as “a destructive force in the Middle East,” but not terrorists. And after being asked specifically about antisemitism, Shapiro references Islamophobia, because elected Democrats don’t condemn antisemitism without also condemning Islamophobia.

What Shapiro actually thinks about Israel or campus protesters is irrelevant, though. Harris tops the ticket, has a record, and knows these issues animate her base. Shapiro would be the administration’s point man on everything Jewish, and he would be expected to deploy the knowledge gleaned from his Jewish education and numerous Israel trips to deflect (entirely fair) charges that Harris is hostile to Israel and weak on combating antisemitism.

Since a “longtime friend” told Philadelphia magazine Shapiro is incredibly ambitious, he might willingly become Harris’ shield. But what would potentially benefit Harris, Shapiro, and the Democratic party wouldn’t help rank-and-file American Jews, who would face increased pressure to be the “right” kind of Jew. It’s tragic that one of the country’s two major parties has been Corbynised, and it’s ominous that it’s now led by a woman who has done nothing to stop it.

Melissa Langsam Braunstein (@slowhoneybee) is an independent writer in metro Washington.