Scott Goodstein | January 19, 2026

Catalyst Campaign’s founder, Scott Goodstein, writes about the Anti Defamation League’s (ADL’s)  leadership problems in Moment Magazine, the journal founded by Elie Wiesel.

Goodstein writes:

The ADL was founded in 1913 to defend Jews and to work in partnership with the NAACP and the Urban League to fight the KKK and end segregation. This legacy is not a symbolic part of its history. It is the core of what made the ADL one of America’s most respected civil rights institutions.

The ADL recently erased most references to this civil rights history from its website, apparently in an effort to appease FBI Director Kash Patel and the Trump administration. This retreat comes at the worst possible moment. Black-Jewish alliances are under strain. Misinformation is spreading faster than truth across social media. Tens of thousands of college students are being exposed to false narratives that portray Jews as “white colonizers.” How can we teach young Jews to be proud and stand strong when the organization created to defend them is erasing its own identity? How can our allies trust the ADL when they see it backing down in the face of neo-Nazi threats while focusing its attention on attacking New York’s first Muslim mayor before he has even taken office?

Over the past year, the ADL has repeatedly refused to challenge the Trump movement or call for accountability when, for example, Republican staffers were exposed sending text messages praising Hitler. Instead of issuing  any serious call to action, ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt issued a single weakly worded X post. He hasn’t demanded accountability or organized a coalition of human rights groups to demand resignations or consequences. The issue didn’t rise to the level of even an official statement through the ADL’s official press center. This is not leadership.

The ADL can only protect Jews by restoring its integrity, taking consistent moral positions, standing proudly on its civil rights history and confronting hate in every political direction.

The ADL’s pattern of erasing its own research appears similarly intended to appease MAGA-aligned critics. After public criticism from Elon Musk and others in the Trump administration after the death of Charlie Kirk, including complaints about references to Kirk’s organization Turning Point USA, the ADL removed thousands of pages of research from its Glossary of Extremism, including research on American hate groups. This is the same Elon Musk that the ADL attempted to defend after he used a Nazi salute at an event the evening of Trump’s second inauguration.

The ADL has also missed opportunities to note when leaders on the political left use clear hate speech. When Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin declined to repudiate the phrase “Globalize the Intifada” during an interview on PBS about the Mamdani campaign, relying instead on vague language about the Democratic Party’s “big tent,” the ADL did not speak out or urge civil rights, labor or human rights leaders to denounce the normalization of hate speech in any political party. As for hate speech on the right, surely the ADL can do more than send out tepid X posts condemning Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes. Why is it not directly confronting powerful institutions like the Heritage Foundation, whose CEO Kevin Roberts has normalized dangerous rhetoric in one of the nation’s largest think tanks?

To many observers, it appears that the ADL is playing favorites to maintain access to political power. This strategy is causing real damage to the organization’s reputation and weakening its ability to protect the Jewish community.

Read Scott Goodstein’s full opinion at Moment Magazine

Scott Goodstein | March 14, 2025

Catalyst Campaign’s founder, Scott Goodstein, writes, “as Democrats, we should know that a last-minute paid “ground game” that gets dropped into the battleground days before an election hasn’t worked in years.”

Once upon a time, in a precinct long, long ago, there was a campaign that built voter contact programs solely from those who lived in the targeted neighborhood. The entire community shopped at the same grocery stores and even saw one another at the bank, gym, and library. In other words, this was totally different from today’s “ground game,” manned by people who drive from hours away, armed with clipboards, shiny new campaign t-shirts, and ready to tell residents exactly how they should vote.

While a ton of articles have been written about the importance of the “ground game” in the final days of the Harris campaign, no one is discussing the increasing problems and decreasing rate of return of this tactic. Time Magazine’s October election article, “Democrats Bank on Ground Game Advantage in Pennsylvania,” opens with the author observing that “most of the people on Elana Hunter’s list weren’t answering the door,” but does not dig into the actual problem. The same is true with campaign analysis in hundreds of other news outlets. The New York Times wrote a lengthy piece comparing Vice President Kamala Harris‘ in-house door-knocking operation to the Trump campaign’s outsourced field operation. The article highlights both sides bragging about how many doors they knocked on and how much paid staff was hired. But, neither side (nor the writers) discuss how few people answer their doors or even care what the stranger is selling.

This analysis misses the real problems of modern-day door-knocking: Voters don’t open their doors anymore, voters do not know their neighbors, and undecided voters are more skeptical than ever about talking about politics.

Year-round precinct work with “local captains” who knew their “turf” and how each neighbor would vote disappeared as the campaign industry grew and political parties stopped building traditional ward systems. Instead, they were replaced with volunteers and paid voices that only knocked on doors during major elections. This transition from a known, trusted neighbor to an unknown door knocker has made modern campaigning a data-driven competition that ignores effectiveness as it optimizes toward knocking on the most doors.

Nonetheless, message and messenger still matter in all aspects of campaigns, especially in the field. Door-to-door salesmen are a relic of history (Even the legendary Fuller Brush company started transitioning out of door-to-door sales in 1985).

Public safety studies show neighborhoods are more responsive to community policing programs when public safety officers know the people they serve. Why would political campaigns be different?

Technology has also had a major impact on door-knocking. It’s now been a decade since the invention of video door camera technology. According to a 2024 Consumer Reports study, 30% of Americans use video door cameras. These changes in neighborhood dynamics and consumer behaviors are realities that must be faced.

Read Scott Goodstein’s full opinion at CommonDreams.org