There’s a mini-debate among Democrats at the moment over the propriety of fighting against the deportation and imprisonment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia when other issues beckon, and I made my own thoughts known at New York:
As the story of the abduction, deportation, and detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia plays out in El Salvador and U.S. federal courts, the politics of the situation are roiling many waters. For the most part, Republicans are following President Trump’s lead in wallowing in the misery of Abrego Garcia and other deportees; exploiting unrelated “angel moms” and other symbols of random undocumented-immigrant crimes; and blasting Democrats for their misplaced sympathy for the “wrong people.” Even as Team Trump risks a constitutional crisis by evading judicial orders to grant due process to the people ICE is snatching off the streets, it seems confident that public backing for the administration’s mass-deportation program and “border security” initiatives generally will make this a winning issue for the GOP.
For their part, Democrats aren’t as united politically on the salience of this dispute, even though virtually all of them object in principle to Trump’s lawless conduct. Most notably, California governor and likely 2028 presidential contender Gavin Newsom warned against dwelling on it, as The Bulwark reported:
“Asked to comment on the ongoing standoff between Trump, El Salvador, and the U.S. judicial system, Newsom scoffed. ‘You know, this is the distraction of the day,’ he said. ‘This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it …’
“’Those that believe in the rule of law are defending it. But it’s a tough case, because people are really — are they defending MS-13? Are they defending, you know, someone who’s out of sight, out of mind in El Salvador? … It’s exactly the debate [Republicans] want, because they don’t want this debate on the tariffs. They don’t want to be accountable to markets today … They want to have this conversation. Don’t get distracted by distractions. We’re all perfect sheep.’”
Newsom is reflecting an ancient Democratic “populist” prejudice against non-economic messaging, which was revived by the 2024 presidential election, in which warnings about the threat to democracy and to the rule of law posed by Trump were widely adjudged to have failed to sway an electorate focused obsessively on the economy and the cost of living. And it’s true that the Abrego Garcia case arose precisely as Trump made himself highly vulnerable on the economy with his wild tariff schemes.
But the emotions aroused by the administration’s cruelty and arrogance in launching its mass-deportation initiative have struck chords with major elements of the Democratic base, particularly among those attuned to the constitutional issues involved. And it’s not a secret that even though Trump enjoys generally positive approval ratings on his handling of immigration issues, they begin to erode when specifics are polled. It’s also quite likely that whatever the overall numbers show, deportation overreach will hurt Trump and his party precisely in the immigrant-adjacent elements of the electorate in which he made crucial 2024 gains.
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of communications strategies that turn message discipline into message bondage, persuading political gabbers and writers to grind away on a single note and ignore other opportunities and challenges. In the current situation facing Democrats, strategic silence on a volatile issue like immigration (which was arguably one of Kamala Harris’s problems during the 2024 campaign) enables the opposition to fill in the blanks with invidious characterizations. In politics, silence is almost never golden.
Perhaps more to the point, as G. Elliot Morris argues, there are ways to link messages on different issues that reinforce them all:
“One way to focus messaging on both the economy and immigration, for example, might be to show how unchecked executive power is dangerous. After all the most unpopular parts of Trump’s agenda — tariffs and deportations for undocumented migrants who have been here a long time and committed no crimes — are a direct result of executive overreach.
“The power that gives Trump the ability to levy extreme tariffs was given to the president when Congress expected him to be forgiving of tariffs on an individual basis as an act of diplomacy, not to plunge the world economic order into crisis. Similarly, the judiciary has said Trump’s deporting of Abrego Garcia, as well as hundreds of Venezuelans, runs afoul of multiple Court orders.”
Even if you conclude that “unchecked executive power” is too abstract a line of attack for today’s paycheck-focused swing voters, it shouldn’t be that difficult to hit two messages simultaneously, particularly since the message on Trump’s tariffs doesn’t require a whole lot of reiteration from Democrats: Voters can see it in the stock market, and soon enough they will likely see it in the prices they are paying for goods and services.
But the real clincher in persuading Democrats to take the Abrego Garcia case very seriously is this: Anything less than full-throated opposition to the administration’s joyful embrace of Gestapo tactics and un-American policies in deportation cases will undoubtedly dishearten constituents who already fear their elected officials are unprincipled cynics who won’t lift a finger to fight Trump without first convening a focus group of tuned-out swing voters. Politicians don’t have to emulate Senator Chris Van Hollen’s decision to fly down to El Salvador and meet with his imprisoned constituent to recognize that his willingness to do so was impressive and authentic. As he told my colleague Benjamin Hart in an interview earlier this week, “The issue here is protecting the rights of individuals under our Constitution … I do believe this is a place that we need to stand up and fight.” It’s hard to do anything else without shame.
I’m so sad. I got up this morning and grabbed my laptop and was astonished to find that the President of the United States had just won the Nobel Peace Prize. It was supposed to be either a Colombian MP or a Saudi prince or a democracy activist in China, but it was Barack Hussein Obama, whose name hadn’t even been mentioned.
I was incredibly excited … until I turned on TV and started looking at websites. All day long I saw a weary round of arch and cynical commentary from the press, flip and dismissive remarks from much of the public. Interspersed with warmhearted congratulations from foreigners, Twitter was larded with nasty remarks from Americans about their own President receiving one of the greatest honors the world can bestow.
Republicans couldn’t even say the word “congratulations,” and all over America people suddenly started feigning a concern for the credibility of the prize itself. Looks as if they’d let the Norwegian parliament worry about that (it’s their responsibility) and just be glad a little.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which was unanimous (!!!), was very clear about its reasons, and as one of them pointed out, there are precedents for Obama’s award. Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik hadn’t brought down the Berlin Wall when he won, but it was the start of a process that ultimately did. Mikhail Gorbachev won for instituting Perestroika, long before Eastern Europe was freed and the Soviet Union broke up. But he had started a process that ultimately would. Both men changed the rhetoric, the focus and the methodology.
But even if we don’t think he deserved it, can’t we be happy? It is surely worth celebrating that an American President is revered abroad. In some countries, polls show he’s trusted more to do good in the world than those countries’ own leaders. I don’t have to look too far back at all to find a time when a Nobel for the President would have been unthinkable. In many, if not most, other countries, they’d be dancing in the streets over this honor. In America, most of my countrymen seem to range in their remarks from vicious to blase.
Tonight I put on MSNBC for some more news and got “Caught on Camera,” where they spent ten minutes celebrating the young man whose video of himself dancing in scores of other countries went viral and made him a celebrity. It was a completely sunny and uncritical feature, as it should have been. No such luck for the guy whose message of peace went viral and who now has a Nobel Prize for his pains — there wasn’t a moment of real joy on the news all day, except of course for the man in the street in Kenya. Simply because Obama has relatives there, they thought it was good news for them.
And I thought this would be a happy day.
When Bin Laden, Rush Limbaugh, the Likud, Sarah Palin, Ahmadinijad and Charles Krauthammer all howl in perfect six-part high-falsetto harmony like the Platters on a PBS reunion show, you know the Nobel committee has landed a shot directly to Lucifer’s balls.