Hasan Piker, the far-left streamer, is having a bit of a moment. Democrats are quarreling over whether he should be kept at arm's length.

What kind of opinionator is Piker? He said in 2019 that the United States "deserved 9/11." When someone challenged him online about his anti-Israel rants, Piker replied with vituperation: "You f——-g baying pig. You f——-g bloodthirsty violent pig dog." In the same clip, referring to Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Piker praised the Al Qaeda terrorist who disfigured him. "What the f—k is wrong with this dude? Didn't he go to war and like literally lose his eye because some mujahideen — a brave f——-g soldier — f——d his eye hole with their d—k?"

Frankly, that should be enough right there to exclude that person from polite society. Some of us knew in 2015 that Donald Trump was a sociopath. We knew because he said things that were cruel, crude and demeaning to other people. If the Republican Party and the country had drawn a line against him then, for mocking a handicapped reporter, making light of rape, disparaging the heroism of John McCain or vowing to commit war crimes, we would have spared ourselves the current debacle.

Speaking of making light of rape, Piker did precisely that regarding the conduct of Hamas on Oct. 7. "It doesn't matter if f——-g rapes happened on Oct. 7," Piker said. "That doesn't change the dynamic for me."

He has repeatedly praised the Chinese Communist Party, claiming it's the country from which we have the most to learn. He justified Russia's annexation of Crimea: "I call it a part of Russian territory, b—-h. I call it Crimea River, a Russian river." His level of concern for the suffering that communist regimes have inflicted is summed up in his commentary regarding a Vietnamese woman who testified about what she endured: "F—k you, old lady. Shut the f—k up you stupid f——-g idiotic old lady. Suck my d—k, old lady. Goddam. F—k this refugee."

So that's who we're talking about. Now to the matter of antisemitism.

There are two arguments advanced for why Democrats should campaign with Piker — as Abdul El-Sayed, candidate for U.S. Senate in Michigan plans to do — and appear on his show. One is that he is reaching an angry audience that Democrats should want to tap. The other is that Piker has a fair point, that he's right to hate Israel and that it's time Democrats dropped their even-handedness.

My colleague Tim Miller made both of these points recently. Israel, he asserted, is a "malign influence in the world." And he went further, essentially endorsing an antisemitic trope: "If you had said a few months ago that 'Israel is going to drag America in a war that has nothing to do with us based on their influence over our political leaders,' that would have been called antisemitic and yet that is what happened."

There are a few disheartening lapses here. The first is that Trump must own his own choices. Tim didn't patronize Trump in this way when he repeatedly bent over for Vladimir Putin, or when he did extraordinary favors for the Gulf states, or when he intervened repeatedly to prop up Viktor Orban. Why, in this case, is the fault for Trump's notorious suggestibility not on Trump?

Benjamin Netanyahu may have been successful in playing upon Trump's vanity, and damn him for that if you like, but the people who put such an emotionally unstable person in the White House deserve a far larger share of blame.

The second lapse is Tim's suggestion that the war with Iran "has nothing to do with us." I think this war is a disaster, but it's just not the case that the United States has nothing at stake here. To sum up 50 years in a few sentences: The Islamic Republic of Iran has been making asymmetric war on the United States since its inception. A thorough list of the hijackings, kidnappings, assassinations and other terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests can be found here.

Finally, Tim makes the pragmatic point that many people, particularly young men, are angry about the war and looking for leaders who will channel their rage. For Democrats to blackball Piker, he argues, is political malpractice.

That's doubtful. Ignoring hateful people is a good policy. And if Democrats pander to the bigots and haters on the left, as Republicans have done with the bigots and haters on the right, there will be nothing left of the pro-democracy movement. It will be red shirts versus brown shirts, as in Weimar Germany.

Finally, Tim argues that Democrats will be helped electorally by appealing to angry constituencies such as those who tune into Piker. On the contrary, Democrats need to win over people who previously voted for Trump but are more moderate in outlook, as Tim has often argued in the past. As Gov. Abigail Spanberger, who defeated her opponent in 2025 by 15 points, admonished a few years ago, the words "defund the police" had badly damaged Democratic candidates. She continued, "We need to not ever use the word 'socialist' or 'socialism' ever again. ... We lost good members because of that." As it happens, Piker is a fan of "defund the police."

The public doesn't need persuading that the war was a huge mistake. They already believe that. Democrats need not flatter Piker or his audience in order to win elections. On the other hand, if they taint themselves with his hateful rhetoric and extremist views, they will be making a moral and strategic mistake.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her book, "Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism," is available now.

Photo credit: Jon Tyson at Unsplash