Cautious Optimism: Americans Still Know How to Stop the Extreme Fringe

This article was originally published in Makor Rishon in June 2026.

Maureen Galindo’s defeat in the Democratic primary in Texas shows that even in a polarized America, open antisemitism can still be stopped at the ballot box

In America in recent years, we have grown accustomed to seeing extremists make headlines, dominate social media, and dictate the public agenda. That is why the event that took place this week in Texas’s 35th District, where Democratic Party voters rejected a primary candidate who had crossed a clear antisemitic line, deserves closer attention.

The United States is moving toward the midterm elections in November 2026, in which all seats in the House of Representatives and some Senate seats will be up for election. Even before the general election, each party chooses its candidates in primary races. In recent weeks, the Democratic Party in Texas was torn between the extremist Maureen Galindo and Johnny Garcia. Galindo finished first in the initial round of voting but did not secure the more than 50 percent required for victory. She was therefore forced into a runoff against Johnny Garcia.

Galindo has taken an extremely radical line against the State of Israel. She seeks to turn support for Israel itself into an illegitimate and dangerous political position. Galindo represents a phenomenon that is expanding within the American radical left: a gradual shift from criticism of Israel to aggressive denial of its legitimacy and of the legitimacy of its supporters. For example, she spoke about imprisoning “American Zionists” and referred to political opponents in language reminiscent of dark regimes.

Democratic leaders in Texas and Washington condemned Galindo quickly and publicly. They called her statements abhorrent and disqualifying. Some even made clear that if she were ever elected to Congress, they would pursue severe measures against her.

In the second round of voting, Galindo lost to Garcia, who will be the Democratic Party’s candidate in the general election in November. The fact that she was stopped inside the Democratic Party before the general election is the heart of the matter.

In a political era in which outrage has become an engine for clicks, donations, and votes, the collapse of Maureen Galindo’s congressional campaign is an event worth pausing over. It matters because her rhetoric crossed a line so blatant, so dangerous, and so repulsive that even America recoiled.

Antisemitism in America is rising. Jewish students are being harassed on prestigious campuses, synagogues require armed security, and protest movements are increasingly blurring the line between opposition to Israel and open hatred of Jews. Social media platforms turn extremist ideas viral at dangerous speed.

The important question is whether democratic societies still possess the internal strength required to reject open extremism before it becomes normalized. Galindo’s defeat shows that the answer in the United States, at least in this case, is still yes.

America has already experienced dark periods in the past. It has often moved between radicalization and a return to balance. In moments of fear, anger, and distrust, radical voices gain temporary momentum. They appear larger than they really are because outrage dominates headlines and social media. But in the end, again and again, it becomes clear that most of the public seeks stability, fairness, security, and basic decency. Still, there is no room for complacency.

History teaches that antisemitism does not disappear. It adapts itself to the spirit of the times. Like a virus, it looks for weakened institutions, economic anxiety, and social breakdown. The deterioration can be very rapid. Fortunately, extremism can be stopped when the public refuses to grant it legitimacy, as happened in Texas when a candidate who openly fantasized about persecuting Jews was blocked before she could enter the center of political power.

For now, America is still capable of rejecting extremists. For all of us, in a period of real concern about what is happening on campuses, on social media, and in Western politics, that is a reason for cautious optimism.