Let's Burst The A.I. Bubble Together!

Phil Schumacher: Regarding your column on Friday, I am all for getting tougher with bad faith actors like Trump et al and those who commit fraud. But It seems to me that the strategy of tougher enforcement has been tried in the past and failed. In Obama’s first term he ramped up immigration enforcement in the hope that by showing he was tough on border security then he would have the credibility to reach a deal with Republicans on comprehensive immigration reform. Even though critics called Obama “deport-in-chief”, no deal was ever reached and immigration was used against Democrats by Trump and others to win in 2016. I fear in the current media environment the publicized crimes of non-citizens would be broadcast across conservative media while actions against corrupt Trump official or others would be ignored resulting in even more demonization of immigrants. If Dems follow your plan, how do they/we avoid this outcome that could potentially make things worse for non-citizens?

Become a member

Thanks for this note. It was a challenging column to write—both in trying to get my head around what I think the obligation to defend democracy entails in these disparate contexts, and then in accepting where my conclusions pointed. But once I achieved clarity, I wrote it to challenge readers, in a respectful way, because it at least thematically clashes with our current an all-hands-on-deck moment to rein in out of control immigration police.

That is, I worried it would be poorly received, but ended up pleased with most of the feedback, including this.

As to the echoes of Obama’s first term, I would draw a key distinction: Obama ramped up interior enforcement hoping to build enough good will across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform. What I’ve proposed is publicizing much less controversial enforcement actions to pacify the public and compete in the information environment with right-wing agitprop. It’s the small difference between Biden’s DOJ prosecuting fraud in Minnesota in a low-key way, and Biden’s DOJ (or even his White House) bragging about busting up a fraud ring in Minnesota. Same legal outcome, different politics.

But that political difference could be the difference between democracy and fascism. Republicans will always treat America as under invasion by mongrel hordes when Dems are in power; Democrats should not let that kind of libel go unrebutted. This is one way to prebut it, and it can be achieved in a way that anticipates Republican lies, drawing explicit contrast to Republican abuses, without a whiff of bigotry.

What Obama did was offer a policy concession in advance—something Republicans happily pocketed without reciprocating. It was a hallmark of his approach to almost all legislative negotiations, sacrificing leverage in favor of fostering the appearance of bipartisanship and reasonableness.

I never want to go back to that. The point of my two-faceted argument is that Democrats should take aim at threats to democracy across the board—and advertise it—not in the hope of getting anything from the Republican Party, but because beating and punishing fascists is its own reward. The idea is that saving the country requires seizing the center, and then holding it long enough to drain the authoritarianism out of the GOP, which in turn means anticipating and neutralizing Republican lies. That’s the point of getting caught doing immigration enforcement in these no-shades-of-grey contexts. The flip side is that, to be consistent, the people who want Democrats to move to the center on immigration for the purpose of avoiding political blowback need to be just as zealous about imposing accountability on Trump and his accomplices. Protecting democracy requires both good defense and good offense.

Share Off Message

Ben W: I find it incredibly frustrating that people who want Democratic leadership gone also resent having to run against them in primaries. You can think Schumer and Jeffries aren’t up for the moment, but unless you actually elect their successors, all you have is online rage. So why do they dislike having to put in the hard work to elect new leaders?

The unfortunate truth is that primarying and defeating incumbent elected leaders (read: not rank-and-file legislators) is very hard. They tend to represent safe territory. They use power to deliver for constituents. Their critics face the wrath of the whole party. It’s not for no reason that AOC seemed so stunned eight years ago when the returns came in and it was clear she’d defeated Joe Crowley. It’s why David Brat retiring Eric Cantor 12 years ago wasn’t just a small surprise upset but a harbinger of the GOP’s authoritarian turn.

What I find frustrating is that, once in office, rank and file members of the Democratic Party are so reluctant to challenge leadership.

Frustrating, but explicable. ...