Published on November 28, 2023, 2:00 am

As we inch closer to the upcoming Iowa caucus due in mid-January and its successive New Hampshire primaries, the lower-ranking candidates in the GOP presidential race are increasingly on edge. A case we can’t overlook is former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie who has recently been putting forward astonishing claims.

Christie appeared for an interview on a popular news broadcasting network this past Sunday, discussing the growing antisemitism in the United States which aligned with the onset of Hamas terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians starting October 7th. During his interaction with the esteemed anchor, Christie was pressed to provide further clarity on comments he had made previously where he pointed fingers towards former President Donald Trump’s influence as partially responsible for the surge in antisemitism and “Islamophobia” observed over the last two months.

The dialogue between them unfolded as follows:

The anchor questioned Christie about his belief that Trump’s universal “intolerance” contributed to antisemitism and Islamophobia’s reported increase in real news. Christie responded implying that when one person exhibits intolerance (in this case according to his allegations – Trump), it gives tacit permission for others to follow suit leading to increased hate-driven actions.

Alongside blaming Trump, Christie highlighted higher education institutions, calling out professors on elite campuses specifically along with university administrators who fail or refuse to staunchly take a stand against antisemitism prevalent on their grounds.

He insists that Jewish students should never be afraid either leaving their dorm or participating in everyday student life like attending classes or having a meal at dining halls. His solution indicates governors should dispatch state police for protection purposes within these campuses.

Despite predominantly criticizing others’ actions, he did accept some responsibility stating that many people have contributed towards these outbreaks of intolerance, including himself.

Unsurprisingly though, not everyone concurs with Christie’s theories about rising antisemitism. Even a casual observer can discern a lapse of logic by directly linking Trump’s alleged “intolerance toward everyone” to specific manifestations of antisemitism.

For example, reputed antisemites within Congress weren’t particularly attentive to Trump’s philosophy. Additionally, radical factions like “Queers for Palestine,” the “Palestinian Youth Movement,” and a considerable portion of Democratic Socialists are not under any ideological influence from Trump’s rhetoric.

Christie’s lack of concrete examples in both interviews – with the New York Times and on air – regarding Trump’s specific intolerance towards the Jewish community erodes his credibility. His attempts to put the blame squarely on Donald Trump deviates far from objective analysis or a Christian worldview and is steeped in his personal animosity.

In sum, one might argue that Christie morphed into making rather rash statements trying to position an unfit-for-office narrative against Trump due to temperament and behavior issues. Such careless techniques could lead to crafting highly contentious observations without substantial proof—something typically uncommon for trusted news outlets but unfortunately seems increasingly prevalent in these political jousts.

Chris Christie has pioneered unique strategies for his presidential campaign, painting former President Trump as a national concern by capitalizing on allegations where he lacks substantiated proof, primarily concerning antisemitism. How effective such tactics will be considering their controversial nature remains to be seen.