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.
ditto on what DC in CA said. I am doing phonebanking to the swing states and planning to do GOTV during the days before the election. I am glad the numbers are looking good- but shouldn’t we be focused on making them even better?
Splendid news! Let’s just hope (and pray-) that the crucial third debate goes as well as the first two did.
—
BTW, what kind of “message” do you think Kerry should send to undecided voters in the debate? (I assume there will be some sort of closing statement again). Off the top of my head —
1) He should promise to be a “uniter” by solemnly pointing out the U.S. is at war and Congress likely will remain in Republican hands. He should hint that this might mean compromises on spending priorities, so that at least the deficits could be reduced. I think many fiscal conservatives and independents would like this.
2) He might touch the cultural issue (the red wine, fluent french, his windsurfing hobby etc.) and beg culturally conservative voters not to dismiss him out of hand if they agree with his economic policies.
3) He should point out that his opponent has expressed his unwavering determination to continue the same policies for another four years, if re-elected. In other words, the current policies in the Middle East will continue to be pursued and the handling of the federal economy won’t change. He should ask voters who think they were better off in 2000 to take a chance on him. I think it is a very powerful argument, since “Shrub” and his followers are strugging to portray 2001-04 in a positive light and mostly duck the issue altogether.
4) He should defuse the extremely silly “global test” smear/scare campaign by explaining that it is merely a common sense term for saving American lives and dollars before going to war. In 1991, the other Gulf states largely reimbursed the U.S. for the cost of Gulf War I. Not so this time.
5) Debate tactics. In the first debate, he was polite, well informed and surprisingly clear and succinct. More of the same, please! I would also like to see him damn the president with faint praise by first agreeing with the conventional wisdom that “Shrub” is a decent man who does what he thinks is best of the country. Having said that, he should then gently question whether “Shrub” really is qualified for the job, in the light of this Administration’s numerous screw-ups at home as well as abroad. “Grand vision” alone is not enough, he should say — the U.S. now needs competent management to turn Iraq and the federal economy around. It’s a very powerful argument. Saying “Shrub” is an immoral liar won’t work. Saying he simply isn’t up to the task of running the country just might work, since there is ample evidence for it.
MARCU$
These are all nothing more than a good start.
Yes, they are a very good and encouraging start, but let us all do what we can to keep those trend lines going.
A good start. Now let’s do what we can – canvassing, phone banking, and other GOTV activities – to make for a great finish.
Nice Cherrypicking, but here’s a few you forgot. Btw, ARG = Kerry’s Private Poll.
Marist: Bush 49, Kerry 46, Nader 1
Reuters/Zogby Tracking Poll: Bush 46, Kerry 44, Nader 2
Florida: Quinnipiac: Bush 51, Kerry 44
Rasmussen:
Pennsylvania: Bush 47% Kerry 47%
Colorado: Bush 48% Kerry 44%
Michigan: Bush 46% Kerry 46%
Virginia: Bush 50% Kerry 44%
I think tide is turning. After the debates, GW will finally be exposed as being way over his head as president. (if not already) I’m still one of those who think the race will be a route for Kerry, similar to Reagan over Carter in 1980