logo
Tea for Two

Tea for Two

Yahoo14-03-2025

From the Boiling Frogs on The Dispatch
Even when he's right, it's hard to sympathize with Chuck Schumer.
And I do think he's right on the merits to steer Democrats away from a government shutdown. They 'don't have the cards,' to borrow a phrase from another recent national fiasco.
It isn't just the ideological differences I have with him that make sympathy difficult. It's the fact that he's terrible at retail politics. He's taken a bad situation for his party and made it worse.
On Thursday he published an op-ed explaining why he'll support the House GOP's bill to fund the government through September. It's awful, awful, awful legislation, he assured his base, but the alternative would be worse. If the government shuts down, Elon Musk and his flying monkeys will have a pretext to DOGE-ify the entire federal bureaucracy by shuttering the left's favorite agencies and furloughing thousands of workers. And when the shutdown ends, they'll get to decide who comes back to the job and who's permanently expendable.
A shutdown standoff would also be a gift to Donald Trump by diverting public attention from the dumbest trade war in history. 'Right now, Mr. Trump owns the chaos in the government,' Schumer wrote. 'He owns the chaos in the stock market. He owns the damage happening to our economy. The stock market is falling, and consumer confidence is plummeting.' We've all heard the old saying about what to do when your enemy is making a mistake. Well, Trump is making a mistake by tariff-ing global investors into a panic. Schumer is acting accordingly.
Besides, if Democrats did shut down the government, we all know Trump would eventually convince 50 percent of the country that doing so somehow caused the market correction that's already happened.
I think Democratic voters might have grudgingly tolerated a capitulation by their leader in the Senate if Schumer had been clear about his intentions all along. But he wasn't, because he's terrible at politics.
Literally one day before announcing his support for the Republican legislation, he was heard telling reporters that his caucus was 'unified' in supporting a 30-day funding alternative instead. Nor did he show his cards when the GOP's bill came up for a floor vote in the House, despite the fact that numerous Democrats from reddish Trump-friendly districts were preparing to risk their necks by opposing it. Imagine casting a vote in the name of party solidarity that you know will be unpopular back home—only to find out that doing so was pointless because the Democratic leader in the other chamber was planning to help Republicans pass their bill anyway.
Having opposed the GOP funding legislation almost unanimously, House Democrats are now a little miffed at Schumer. And by 'a little miffed,' I mean 'thinking of marching into the Senate to confront him and lining up primary challengers for his next election in New York.' Social media on Friday was a volcano of grassroots outrage at his betrayal after he raised their hopes that the party was about to fight, fight, fight by forcing a shutdown on a president they despise—and then wimped out.
Every conservative of a certain age who's watching this play out is thinking the same thing: I've seen this movie before.
Former Republican strategist Rory Cooper is one such conservative. On X on Friday, he summarized the current Democratic disarray with sarcasm: 'A political party divided over shutting the government down, and the base of the party doesn't think leadership is fighting hard enough, and leadership has almost no options. First time?'
It's not his first time, nor mine. This is the stuff of which Tea Parties are made.
Many left-wingers who are furious today at Schumer are leaning into the parallel. 'I would not be surprised to see, if not quite a Tea Party equivalent, a wave of challengers against old Democratic incumbents in particular,' the leader of one progressive activist group warned the New York Times. 'It is not going to be ideological. It's going to be style.' Search Twitter and you'll find angry commentary about the Democrats' Senate surrender littered with similar references.
The analogy is obvious.
In 2008, burdened by an unpopular president and economic turmoil, Republicans lost the White House and both houses of Congress. The party was left with an identity crisis and a morale problem. Bushism was exhausted and discredited, and a charismatic 'transformational' president from the other party looked poised to make the GOP a minority indefinitely with the new coalition he had built.
The Tea Party was the right's solution to the morale problem. Lacking a national political leader, it fomented an angry populist backlash to the president's agenda. In doing so it eased the Republican identity crisis for a while, as Barack Obama's agenda polarized Tea Partiers into Reaganesque demands for smaller government and 'constitutional conservatism.' Only later, in 2016, would it become clear how threadbare and opportunistic that identity was.
What was novel about the Tea Party was that it blamed its own side's 'out of touch' political establishment for America's failures as much as it did the other's.
Because the right's reaction to Obama cosplayed as an ideological reawakening, congressional Republicans were derided as turncoats and deemed part of the problem if they strayed toward the center on policy. But in reality, populist venom for moderate 'Republicans In Name Only' was as much a reaction to style as substance. Conciliatory GOPers who preferred to work with Democrats instead of confronting them aggressively—who weren't willing to 'fight'—were marked for political death via primary challenges. They would be replaced in time with uncompromising obstructionist blowhards who set unachievable goals and then, once elected, duly failed to achieve them.
If you followed politics between 2009 and 2015, that's the movie you watched. Today it feels like we're watching the sequel.
In 2024, burdened by an unpopular president and economic turmoil, Democrats lost the White House and both houses of Congress. The party has been left with an identity crisis and a morale problem. Culturally progressive educated-class neoliberalism, as embodied by Kamala Harris, seems exhausted and discredited. A charismatic 'transformational' president from the other party aims to make Democrats a minority indefinitely with the new blue-collar coalition he's building—or, perhaps, by accruing autocratic power incrementally until the constitutional order disintegrates.
Into that crucible walks the Senate Democratic leader, the very face of the liberal establishment, declaring that he won't use the one bit of leverage his party still has over federal policy. He prefers to work with Republicans, however reluctantly, instead of confronting them aggressively in the name of achieving some goal that not only won't be achieved but that no one seems able to define.
The left is spoiling for a fight to solve its morale problem, and Chuck Schumer won't give them one. The 'out of touch' Democratic establishment begins to look like as much of a problem as Republicans are. (The numbers don't lie!) To force that establishment to take a more combative attitude toward the enemy, the base reasons that it may have no choice but to primary Schumer. We've seen this movie before.
There are other symmetries. Angry audiences at congressional town halls? The original Tea Party had plenty of those. So does the new one. Performative outbursts during presidential addresses to show defiance for the cameras? Tea Party 1.0 and Tea Party 2.0 have that in common as well. Scapegoating a Senate leader as the establishment villain-in-chief? The original Tea Party had that. Ditto for Schumer and the new version. Orchestrating a government shutdown that won't accomplish anything useful except to show how angry the out-party is?
The first Tea Party gave us that in 2013 and it ended up making a national figure of one ambitious populist. The new Tea Party wants another with a hero of its own.
The Tea Party of 2009 to 2015 didn't crave more conservative government. It craved resistance. It was born in a spirit of resistance and thus it expected its representatives to resist always and everywhere. It was an expression of populist id, and so naturally it came to despise the institutional superego in all forms. Its core belief was that politics is a matter of will: All it had to offer was will, therefore every political problem became a test of conviction.
In time it betrayed everything it claimed to stand for and, in its current decrepit authoritarian form, has driven the country to the brink of economic and civic ruin. Can you sense how excited I am to see the Democratic analogue?
In fairness, it isn't a perfect analogue.
One difference between the old Tea Party and the new one is the circumstances of its birth.
Unlike in 2008, the losing party wasn't bludgeoned at the polls last November and relegated to a filibuster-proof rump in the Senate. The president may be under the impression that he won the biggest, strongest, most beautiful landslide ever, but the hard truth is that he failed to reach 50 percent against a lackluster opponent who was saddled with inflation and a dead-weight incumbent.
Democrats have real policy failures to address, starting with their negligence on the border and their indulgence of 'woke' shibboleths that many Americans find alienating. But unlike the GOP 17 years ago, they have nothing on the order of the Iraq war, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, or the financial crisis to answer for. Because they're not as desperate for a radical change in direction as the original Tea Party was, their new Tea Party might not be as radical in nature.
A second difference, related to the first, is that Democrats seem to understand that they need to move to the center. That wasn't so for the first Tea Party.
The swerve back toward Reaganite conservatarianism in 2009 was driven by a sense that Republican leaders had too often painted in ideological 'pale pastels' instead of the 'bold colors' that the Gipper endorsed. George W. Bush was a center-right establishment dynast, son and heir to a 'pale pastel' president, and his job approval stood at 25 percent on Election Day 2008. The GOP's candidate on the ballot that year was John McCain, a soft-on-immigration Senate dinosaur, and his opponent ended up winning the largest number of popular votes in American history to that point. Then, in 2012, with the Tea Party dominant, Republicans somehow nominated a former governor of Massachusetts(!) who had pioneered a health-insurance reform that inspired Obamacare.
Right-wingers could look at Bush, McCain, and Mitt Romney and reasonably surmise from election results that centrism was a loser. Bolder ideological colors of the sort that produced midterm landslides in 2010 and 2014 for the Tea Party were the trick. And so, in 2016, Republican voters chose bolder colors. Boy, did they ever.
The lessons are different for modern liberals. Joe Biden was a 'pale pastel' compared to the boldly colored Bernie Sanders and not only did he defeat Trump, he set a new record for popular votes in doing so. Meanwhile, below the surface, blue-collar voters who had dependably voted Democratic in the past were beginning to drift right, scared off by creeping left-wing radicalism about open borders, defunding the police, and transgenderism. That nearly cost the party a victory in 2020 and quite possibly did cost it a victory in 2024.
The sense that Democrats have moved too far left is shared by Democrats themselves. Last month Gallup found that the share who believe the party should become 'more moderate' had jumped since 2021, rising from 34 percent to 45 percent. The share who said that it should become 'more liberal' declined over the same period, from 34 percent to 29.
Even if a new left-wing Tea Party gets off the ground, political reality should make it less likely to radicalize than its right-wing forebear. To win a Democratic primary, a Tea Party candidate will presumably need to meet the growing demand for moderation among the party's voters that was absent in the GOP circa 2009. As the progressive activist I quoted earlier told the Times, the new movement 'is not going to be ideological. It's going to be style.'
It's a nice thought, at least. Others seem to share it. I hope it works out for them! But I don't think it will.
I find it hard to believe that an insurgent political movement bent on dethroning its party's establishment can be aggressive 'stylistically' without becoming aggressive ideologically too.
The fact that the primary challenger of choice for Chuck Schumer looks to be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proves the point. If all liberals are looking for is a pugnacious contrast in 'style' with the senator, it seems weird that they're rallying behind the most prominent young socialist in the country, no?
The nature of a Tea Party points remorselessly toward policy radicalism. Imagine how absurd it would be if Schumer's challenger declared during a primary debate, 'I agree with him on everything, except that we really need more shutdowns.' Try as one might to be radically combative about tactics yet substantively moderate about policy, the ethic of 'fighting' on which such movements are founded—especially fighting members of their own party establishment—will inevitably encourage 'fights' over policy as well. Inevitably, the challenger's need to distinguish himself as a 'bold' alternative to the incumbent will lead him to endorse bolder colors on policy as well.
And if you end up getting elected for your willingness to 'fight,' you can't be a voice of restraint in Congress without betraying your mandate. That probably explains why so many right-wing Tea Partiers slid easily from 'constitutional conservatism' into whatever the hell Mike Lee is now. Trump's politics work just as well as Reagan's if all you're looking to do is fight, so it was easy for Tea Party populists to shift from one to the other despite the ideological incongruity. When you're in Congress to stick it to the enemy, the important thing is to stick it to them; it doesn't much matter what shape the stick happens to take.
So if Republicans propose a reasonable-ish compromise in some policy dispute that establishment Democrats are inclined to accept, a Tea Party Democratic congressman sent to Washington to 'fight' will reflexively conclude that that compromise is a nonstarter.
The ethic of resistance becomes an end in itself. After 16 supremely moronic years, I think our country has had more than enough of it.
Combative contrarianism wouldn't be the only radicalizing influence on a Democratic Tea Party either. Age gaps will also be a factor. Given the public's post-Biden disquiet about American gerontocracy, it's a cinch that left-wingers recruited to challenge figures like Schumer will be much younger in order to underline how 'out of touch' the current Democratic leadership is. Young politicians aren't prone to restraint and moderation in the best circumstances, but the age difference will further encourage them to offer fresh, daring, exciting ideas on policy in contrast to the elderly incumbent's pale pastels.
And then there's Trump.
Fundamentally, the left's desire to oust Schumer is driven by the sense that, like Michael Corleone, they need a 'wartime consigliere.' Trump is waging a war of sorts on the federal government and will wage one in due course on the entire constitutional order, and an old man who feebly chants 'we will win!' yet shirks from the first opportunity for battle just ain't gonna cut it as commanding general. Even more so than in his first term, Trump is destined to negatively polarize liberals against his policy positions. Which means that a Tea Party candidate will have cover to tack to the left in a Democratic primary—and possibly even an incentive to do so—despite any early vows of moderation.
'Is this a crisis or not?' a frustrated David Graham wrote of Schumer's decision to oppose a shutdown. That's the unofficial motto of any insurgent political movement that prioritizes 'fighting' over the goals it's ostensibly fighting for. And the thing about a crisis mentality is that, once you adopt it, every form of radicalism is justified in the name of ending the crisis, including radicalism on policy. You would think Americans would have learned their lesson by now, but evidently not. Here we go again.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll

Miami Herald

time23 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll

During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'

Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.

Washington Post

time24 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.

ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.

Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here.
Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here.

Washington Post

time24 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Democrats ignored border politics. Now the consequences are here.

Democrats have gotten the border issue so wrong, for so long, that it amounts to political malpractice. The latest chapter — in which violent protesters could be helping President Donald Trump create a military confrontation he's almost begging for as a distraction from his other problems — may prove the most dangerous yet. When I see activists carrying Mexican flags as they challenge ICE raids in Los Angeles this week, I think of two possibilities: These 'protesters' are deliberately working to create visuals that will help Trump, or they are well-meaning but unwise dissenters who are inadvertently accomplishing the same goal. Democrats' mistake, over more than a decade, has been to behave as though border enforcement doesn't matter. Pressured by immigrant rights activists, party leaders too often acted as if maintaining a well-controlled border was somehow morally wrong. Again and again, the short-term political interests of Democratic leaders in responding to a strong faction within the party won out over having a policy that could appeal to the country as a whole. When red-state voters and elected officials complained that their states were being overwhelmed by uncontrolled immigration over the past decade, Democrats found those protests easy to ignore. They were happening somewhere else. But when red states' governors pushed migrants toward blue-state cities over the past several years, protests from mayors and governors finally began to register. But still not enough to create coherent Democratic policies, alas. It's open season on former president Joe Biden these days, and he doesn't deserve all the retrospective criticism he's getting. But on immigration, he was anything but a profile in courage. Security advisers including Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas wanted tougher border policies starting in 2021. But political advisers such as chief of staff Ron Klain, who sought amity with immigration rights progressives in Congress and the party's base, resisted strong measures. Though Biden was elected as a centrist, he leaned left — and waited until the last months of his presidency to take the strong enforcement measures recommended earlier. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Trump played shamelessly on public anxieties about the border. Some of his arguments, like claims that hungry migrants were eating pets, were grotesque. They were simply provocations. But Biden and Kamala Harris didn't have good answers, other than indignation. They had straddled the issue through Biden's term, talking about border security but failing to enact it, and the public knew it. Democrats finally came up with a bipartisan border bill in 2024 that would have given the president more authority to expel migrants and deny asylum claims, and more money to secure the border. Republicans, led by Trump, were shameless opportunists in opposing the bill. They didn't want Biden to have a win. In the end, Democrats didn't have the votes — or, frankly, the credibility on the issue. Biden took executive action in June 2024, limiting entry into the United States. But it was too late. He could have taken that action in 2021. Since Trump took office in January, he has been building toward this week's confrontation in the streets. ICE raids have steadily increased in cities with large migrant populations, as have nationwide quotas for arrests and deportations. Trump declared a national emergency on Inauguration Day that gave him authority to send troops to the border to 'assist' in controlling immigration. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem seized every photo opportunity to convey a militarized approach to the coming clash. Over these months, the immigration issue has been a car crash skidding toward us in slow motion. Since his first term, Trump has clearly wanted a military confrontation with the left over immigration or racial issues. Gen. Mark A. Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, helped talk Trump out of invoking the Insurrection Act in 2020 to contain the unrest that followed the death of George Floyd. But this time, Trump faces no opposition. He is surrounded by yes-men and -women. The saddest part is that Democrats still have no clear policy. Some blue-state mayors and governors have pledged to provide 'sanctuary' for migrants, but they don't have good arguments to rebut Trump's claim they're interfering with the enforcement of federal law. In some cases, sanctuary has meant refusing to hand over undocumented migrants convicted of violent crimes, former DHS officials tell me. That's wrong. The courts have limited Trump's most arbitrary policies and his defiance of due process, but not his authority to enforce immigration laws. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) this week chose sensible ground to fight, by filing a lawsuit challenging Trump's authority to override gubernatorial power by federalizing National Guard troops when there isn't a 'rebellion' or 'invasion.' There is no evidence of such extreme danger — or that local law enforcement in Los Angeles can't handle the problems. But Newsom's smart pushback doesn't get Democrats out of addressing an issue they've been ducking for more than a decade: Do they have the courage to enforce the border themselves? Over the long run, taking border issues seriously means more immigration courts, and more border-control people and facilities — and a fair, legal way of deciding who stays and who goes. But right now, it means Democratic mayors and governors using state and local police to contain protests, so that troops aren't necessary — and preventing extremists among the activists from fomenting the cataclysm in the streets that some of them seem to want as much as Trump. Yes, of course, we need new bipartisan legislation to resolve the gut issue of how to protect the 'dreamers' and other longtime residents who show every day that they want only to be good citizens. But on the way to that day of sweet reason, Democrats need to oppose violence, by anyone — and to help enforce immigration policies that begin with a recognition that it isn't immoral to have a border.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store