|
 |
It’s a hot summer, but the last thing the United States needs is more ICE. On that much, we generally agree. Yet in the replies to my columns on the expansion of the immigration enforcement agency under the Big Beautiful Bill, as well as Donald Trump’s investigations of James Comey and John Brennan, have our readers locked in a lively discussion about the nature of the threat to American democracy.
One reader, whose username is the Elephant in the Room, appropriately brings up… the elephant in the room: Wasn’t ICE problematic under President Obama, too?
Obama was also heavily criticized for the conditions of ICE detention centers, as well as who was detained and how, although this was not discussed as widely. My question is whether it is more dangerous for someone to implement these policies who had a public reputation as moral and magnanimous than someone who is unabashedly willing to demonstrate brute force?
An excellent point and a worthwhile question. This is why it’s so important to break out of our partisan bubbles to see the full picture. ICE is the child of the George W. Bush administration and expanded its reach under Barack Obama. Democratic criticism of executive overreach is almost entirely muted under a Democratic president. That meant the conversation was largely left to Republicans, many of whom went after Obama for not going far enough on illegal immigration, or to a far-left fringe, or to rights watchdogs with niche audiences.
Deteriorating conditions in ICE detention centers on President Obama’s watch were both well-documented and insufficiently scrutinized. This meant that President Trump came in with a foundation for his dirty work. It’s a tragic story that has parallels in other areas. Trumpism is the most serious threat to the American republic, but it is also the culmination of decades of missteps and misbehavior from the establishment.
So, to the heart of your question: Is it worse when Trump does it? Yes.
More from The Next Move
 |
|
Today, we have politicized arrests and detentions (carried out, apparently, with the help of an unaccountable private website called Canary Mission). There are the attacks on birthright citizenship, suggesting that the immigration enforcement apparatus could be turned against naturalized Americans. The political context under Trump is materially different from the situation under Obama. I have heard people point to Obama and Biden’s somewhat higher deportation statistics, but these raw numbers conceal the current president’s intent.
The president sometimes moves more slowly than he speaks because he’s surrounded himself with useless sycophants like Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Kristi Noem. He’s mired himself in scandals (like the latest Epstein Files insanity) that are entirely of his own making.The fact that Trump has not been able to fully execute his plans makes him no less dangerous. Malice tempered by incompetence is still malice.
This is more or less what another reader, Jim, was thinking:
In light of the recent circling of the wagons because of the Epstein file and the potential embarrassment and the POTUS’ criminal acts documented in it, I have to assume that the rule of law in the US has ended. At least as far as Pam Bondi and Kash Patel are concerned. Trump will wield ICE like a maul against anyone he imagines has slighted him.
I agree for the most part, but to say the rule of law has ended in the United States is a stretch. Less of a stretch than I’m comfortable with, but a stretch nonetheless. Yet this sentiment was echoed in our comment threads and chats over the past week, with people sharply disagreeing with my contention that Donald Trump is not a dictator.
From Friedrike:
“Trump isn’t a dictator of course”. What a bizarre statement. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and shits like a duck… it’s a duck.
Max says:
“Trump isn’t a dictator of course”. Come on, Charlie, of course he is.
I don’t think he’s a dictator. And don’t call me Charlie. (Max, I forgive your misunderstanding, but couldn’t resist the Airplane reference)
I don’t point this out to scold those who are worried about the rise of authoritarianism in America or to downplay everything wrong with the current administration. There’s a strategic point in highlighting Trump’s non-dictator status.
Yes, I have to account for risks when I speak out about America that I did not have to deal with before. Others I know are being even more cautious, depending on their situation. The chilling effect on free speech is a real legal concept and I believe this is what Trump is trying to achieve. But we are not in the old country. Not yet, at least.
Under a dictatorship, the fight is extremely dangerous. I have seen my allies in Russia jailed and even murdered. There’s a reason I write from New York and not from Moscow. If you seriously think America is a dictatorship, then you might consider relocating for your safety. You would not bother voting or supporting one person or another in elections because the system will be rigged. At the very least, you would be a little more measured in your replies at The Next Move.
Trump may want to be a dictator (he’s said as much). There are alarming trends that point to an authoritarian destination. The objective now is to stop the president from getting there.
The difference between a troubled democracy with an illiberal leader and a fully-fledged dictatorship is important to note. If we point out a wildfire risk because we see a forest full of dry kindling, we can build an effective coalition to stop an inferno. If we say there’s already a fire and people see no flames, they’ll ignore the danger until it’s too late.
And on that cheery note, I’ll see you next week! As always, I enjoy reading your comments. Being challenged sharpens all of our thinking. So debate with me and debate with one another. We’ll be back on Monday.
More from The Next Move
New Podcast with The Atlantic: Autocracy in America | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
Garry Kasparov joins The Atlantic’s timely podcast for its second season. | ||||||
|
In Ukraine, Renew Democracy Initiative is Matching Words with Action | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
We don’t just talk about supporting freedom. | ||||||
|
| ||||||||||
