Rep. Wesley Bell defeated Cori Bush to become a post-Squad progressive in the House

This article is the second in a six-part MSNBC Daily series, “Meet the Freshman,” featuring six of the newest faces in Congress (three Republicans and three Democrats) in a series of diverse columns exploring the backstories , policies and policies of new members. home districts and where they fit into this historic political moment. Can read the first article on Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, here.

Prosecutor Wesley Bell of St. Louis County, Missouri, made headlines in August when defeated Rep. Cori Bushto member of the “squad”in a Democratic primary that many saw it as a referendum about the party’s position on the war between Israel and Hamas. Now he comes to Washington to represent Missouri’s 1st Congressional District. And although he arrives with promises, Bell is followed by questions about what he really represents. Questions that affect your party more broadly..

Bell, 50, is originally from the relentlessly segregated suburbs of St. Louis. He won a seat on the Ferguson City Council after a police officer killed teenager Michael Brown and the city was convulsed with protests.

The New York Times took notice and profiled Bell, who had been a criminal justice professor at a local community college – in a short documentary. “In fact, I think he’s going to be like President Obama,” says one voter in the film, predicting a congressional run “at the very least.”

Bell continued to rise. In 2018, he unseated St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, who had earned the ire of the black community, which accused him of not doing enough to hold Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson accountable for the Brown’s murder. (A grand jury declined to bring charges.) The national media again took notice of Bell, who appeared to be in line with the burgeoning criminal justice reform movement. “People are aware of the need to address issues like mass incarceration, address issues like profiling, and address criminal justice reform in general,” he told the Times.

In fact, Bell remained in the middle lane. Although his office reviewed the Wilson case, it never filed charges against the former officer, a major disappointment to Bell supporters. (bell said his office could not prove that Wilson had committed a crime by killing the unarmed teen).

The decision not to prosecute Wilson was not the only disappointment. As a report compiled by activists near the end of Bell’s term noted, St. Louis’ prison population continued to grow under his supervisioneven though, as a candidate, he seemed to favor decarceration. Bell had also not made the sweeping reforms (in police accountability and sentencing, among other issues) that his statements on criminal justice issues seemed to presage.

“We have seen the office fail to implement meaningful changes on several important fronts.” the report said. “Many people were excited about the new leadership in 2019 and remained hopeful after the initial change, only to see a return to mass incarceration policies.”

Politically, staying within the mainstream of the prosecution was a smart decision by Bell. Completely avoided the backlash against progressive prosecutors that led San Francisco voters to impeach Chesa Boudin and, most recently, led Los Angeles County voters to vote against Jorge Gascon.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Bush, who also entered the political arena after Wilson killed Brown and in 2020 unseated 10-term incumbent William Lacy Clay, was on his way to becoming a progressive star. But as the “team” grew, it also became more marginalized, becoming more of a media sensation than a political force. A 2021 vote against President Joe Biden’s $1.2 trillion The bipartisan infrastructure bill may have been seen as principled. by some on the left. But for the centrist Democrats who lead the party, it was a futile show of defiance.

The October 7, 2023 attacks caused a rift between pro-Israel centrists and pro-Palestinian progressives. Bush was firmly in the latter camp, calling for a ceasefire just days after the Hamas-led massacre.

Jewish leaders in St. Louis (men and women he supposedly represented) called on Bush to tone down his rhetoric, such as when he claimed that Israel was committing “ethnic cleansing.” charging in an open letter that he was “intentionally fueling anti-Semitism and hatred.” the congresswoman denied the accusationrefusing to tone down his criticism of the Gaza campaign.

In June, another member of the “squad,” Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York, was shot down in a Democratic primary by a mediocre Democratic candidate, George Latimer, who had developed strong local alliances, and was buoyed by millions in spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC unapologetically sought to fund opponents of some of Israel’s biggest critics in Congress. And after overthrowing Bowman, he turned to Bush.

Tel Aviv and Gaza City are a long way from St. Louis. To be sure, people in the Gateway City and across the United States have strong and deeply held opinions about the Middle East. But for the most part, voters care about local issues. And by ignoring those issues, Bush gave Bell the opportunity he needed in those crucial summer weeks when the race would inevitably be decided.

Yes, AIPAC spent millions ($8 million to be exact), but Bell’s opinions about israel are as common as they come: “I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself and pursue those who carried out these attacks.” It’s not an incredibly original line. That was the point. Bell was indicating that he would stick to the centrist line. There would be no headaches for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., as reporters chased him through the halls of the U.S. Capitol to ask if he agreed with the representative’s latest musings Bell on the Middle East.

More to the point, Bell could credibly present that Bush is too concerned with domestic and international affairs to care about his own district. “When he ran four years ago, one of the main things he talked about was serving St. Louis, and a lot of voters told me there wasn’t a lot of scope.” Democratic strategist Braxton Payne told Jewish Insider. Israel was the opening. It was his legislative record, or lack thereof over two terms, that really doomed Bush.

Was Bell’s run for Congress the first time he faced true national scrutiny? Not everything was flattering. It turns out, for example, that he managed a Republican congressional campaign in 2006 (for an anti-abortion candidate, no less). That revelation contributed to the suspicion that Bell, who ran to unseat Republican Sen. Josh Hawley before abandoning that campaign and challenging Bush, was driven by ambition, not conviction. Washington is full of people like that, which is why normal people hate Washington. I hope Bell rediscovers his convictions and does not join their ranks.

More serious were the accusations that he had created a hostile workplace for women and misused funds for expensive dinners and trips — the kind of accusations that, if true, could easily spell the end of a promising career on the biggest, most scrutinized stage that is Washington.

We should expect Bell to arrive in Washington with his ethical and political compasses properly calibrated. Defeating Bush was a big deal, but it shouldn’t be the most important thing Wesley Bell has ever done. It’s too promising for that.