Treating Opposition to Trump as a Partisan Issue Guarantees Defeat

In the last several days there have been two DC articles that made a lot of lefties pissed off.

An Axios post on Wednesday (revisited yesterday) described five Democrats planning trips to El Salvador (after seven right wingers visited earlier in the week, only a few of whom announced their trip publicly). In the fifth set of Axios bullets, several dickish anonymous comments from the same centrist House member appeared.

Reality check: The sentiment within the party about rallying behind deportees is not universal.

  • The second House Democrat who spoke anonymously, a centrist, called the deportation issue a “soup du jour,” arguing Trump is “setting a trap for the Democrats, and like usual we’re falling for it.”
  • “Rather than talking about the tariff policy and the economy … the thing where his numbers are tanking, we’re going to go take the bait for one hairdresser,” they said, likely referring to Andry Hernandez Romero.
  • Only if Trump tries to deport U.S. citizens, the lawmaker argued, will Democrats need to draw a “line in the sand” and “shut down the House.”

And then today, rather than a piece describing Chris Van Hollen’s successful effort to meet Kimlar Abrego Garcia, NBC instead published a piece that claimed that his effort to help a constituent was creating a rift in the Democratic Party.

After spending a few paragraphs obscuring the uncontested truth that Trump’s Administration admitted Abrego Garcia had been sent in error, NBC pitched this as a dispute among Democrats, this time invoking Gavin Newsom’s snotty comment.

Other Democrats have avoided weighing in on the issue — or offered muted responses when asked about it.

As California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, rolled out a lawsuit Wednesday challenging Trump’s sweeping tariffs, he had little to say about the Abrego Garcia case when asked to weigh in.

“This is the distraction of the day. The art of distraction,” said Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender. “And here, we zig and zag. This is the debate they want. This is their 80-20 issue, as they’ve described it.”

While noting that the government needs to abide by court orders and the rule of law, Newsom added, “It’s exactly the debate they want, because they don’t want this debate on the tariffs; they don’t want to be accountable to markets today.”

The piece cherry picked some polling claiming to back up Newsom while ignoring other polling that doesn’t, then quoted two anonymous “operatives” and an apparently deleted Xitter post calling Abrego Garcia a bad poster child for … the rule of law?

Both of these articles are a genre: the wildly popular “Democrats in disarray” genre. They’re designed to make Democrats look feckless. Axios as an outlet generally is designed to treat everything as a both-sides political fight and for whatever reason NBC chose to report the Van Hollen’s successful mission to meet Abrego Garcia as not news in and of itself, but instead only news in the reflection it showed in the Democratic party.

And in spite of the fact that everyone knows this is a manufactured genre, these articles never fail to stoke precisely the disarray they craft out of mostly anonymous quotes, with the result that Democrats spend their time yelling at other Democrats rather than yelling at Trump or — just as importantly — focusing our energy on the good things that people like Chris Van Hollen are doing. The result is not just NBC but Democrats treat the alleged rift as the news, rather than Van Hollen’s effort itself.

That’s bad enough. Every “we don’t have to choose between immigration or the economy” post, while true, is a post distracting from Trump’s abuses and Van Hollen’s laudable effort.

The worst part of these bait articles, in my opinion, is they reinforce a mentality that says resistance to Trump is partisan, one that those who take the bait often replicate by criticizing the Democrats as a party.

Nobody in the party is interfering with Van Hollen’s efforts to help a constituent. Nobody in the party is disrupting Elizabeth Warren from making the case on tariffs.

More importantly, nothing Democrats can do will silence Judge Wilkerson from ruling, with clarion voice,

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

Nothing Newsom does with his lawsuit challenging Trump’s tariffs will change the fact that some small businesses represented by conservative Liberty Justice Center and Ilya Somin got there first, and another small business represented by the Koch and Leonard Leo-funded New Civil Liberties Alliance beat him too.

The opposition to Donald Trump on these two issues is not a partisan. Getting baited by Dems in Disarray punditry distracts from the import of keeping them that way. Getting baited by a fight over the direction of the Democratic party — letting a wannabe Presidential candidate distract from Chris Van Hollen’s efforts — is a quick way to ensure that no Democrat can run in a fair race in 2028, because things will be too far gone by then.

And if the work of ordinary people ensures that Gavin Newsom can run in 2028, then we can hold him accountable for neglecting his own constituents being rounded up with no due process.

David Brooks — David Brooks!!! — had this to say in an op-ed that could have been written by a Democrat but may read differently by someone who is not one.

What is happening now is not normal politics. We’re seeing an assault on the fundamental institutions of our civic life, things we should all swear loyalty to — Democrat, independent or Republican.

It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising. It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement. Trump is about power. The only way he’s going to be stopped is if he’s confronted by some movement that possesses rival power.

The way to achieve a national civic uprising — the way to achieve an uprising that does more than heighten polarization — is to refuse to get baited by reporting that portrays the momentous events we’re living as nothing more than the disputed actions of a political party. That way lies failure.

Shitty DC reporting will continue to treat the challenge before us as just another partisan horse race. So will shitty “operatives” quoting anonymously.

But letting that kind of punditry frame how we understand these developments deprives important action of the nonpartisan appeal of ethical and moral clarity.

Share this entry
39 replies
  1. Palli Davis Holubar says:

    Amen.
    Democracy is not a party. The Law is not a party. Justice is not a party.
    Too simple?

  2. Bob Roundhead says:

    The press is partisan. There is no liberal media. It is easy to see it if you care to look. The question is, how do you make people look? I have been having luck by pointing out that the press is not covering the growing mass demonstration movement. I have been encouraging folks to show up and then pointing out the lack of coverage.

    • Gacyclist says:

      So very little coverage in press about the rallies scheduled tomorrow. Unfortunately we don’t have a network like rsbn or newsmaxx who televised all of trump’s rallies. Media is failing us.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        I just got back from today’s rally at the New Haven Green. Despite incomparably better weather, attendance was a fraction of two weeks ago. Nor did there seem to be much in the way of organization–a few inaudible speakers followed by a meandering walk around the Green, spiced up with a few chants.

        I went because the date had been announced at the previous rally. Everyone with me was there because I reached out to them–and all said they had seen no advertising for this one, unlike last time. Maybe David Brooks can get the word out for the next one?

    • emptywheel says:

      Sure. But if it gets the desired rise from Dems, it’s not just the press that’s the problem.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Gavin Newsom is Tony Blair with a better dentist, stylist, and American accent. His career should end promptly.

      • P J Evans says:

        His second term as governor ends next year, and I don’t think he can go higher. We don’t like him that much, so senator is out.

        • punaise says:

          I’m done with Newsom; used to think he was OK, smart but too wonky. Now he’s just a transparently hollow over-reacher.

      • earthworm says:

        Is Newsom all we have? another prettyboy face? with the judgement of an ant?
        (sorry, insulting to ants, who have no judgment but who do what is best for their community)
        just remember he left his wife and family to marry Kimberlry Guilfoyle.
        enough of Gavin —

    • Error Prone says:

      The California Democratic Party is centrist. Days of Phil Burton are past. These are days of Harris, with Katie Porter wanting change.

    • Error Prone says:

      Katie Porter has a balanced approach between her email newsletters and her campaign site, spanning a range of issue opinion. And yes, I favor her for Governor after Newsome hits his term limit, even if Harris chooses to run, so it is a note leaning in favor of how Porter is running her campaign so far. And yes, it is not my State, Minnesota is.

    • john gurley says:

      The irony in the anti-Newsom sentiment here is thick enough to cut with a knife. But, that’s just one example of how effective our media propaganda is.

      In a commentary about the current relentlessly rightwing media bias, we have responses that give credence to the relentless oligarch media attacks on a successful Democrat.

      A successful politician who’s track record on the issues should behoove good-faith critics to examine them before buying the media’s partisan dirt.

  3. AndreLgreco says:

    “It’s time for Americans in universities, law, business, nonprofits and the scientific community, and civil servants and beyond to form one coordinated mass movement.”
    – Brooks

    Structured how? Led by who?
    If you think Democrats have the problem of having to address these issues within their own party, how can a brand new ‘coordinated’ mass movement succeed if it can’t agree on the answers to the same questions? I think it will take resistance from a critical mass of individual sectors of society and the economy that eventually tips the scales of power. No coordination is necessary- just agreement and organic action driven by public opinion. The Democratic Party will probably benefit no matter who they run for office unless back-stabbing becomes the main story.

    • Palli Davis Holubar says:

      “The Democratic Party will probably benefit no matter who they run for office unless back-stabbing becomes the main story.”
      My belief also, unless voter intimidation [militias members in the parking lots & streets near polling places; [veiled or clear threats mailed to voters; violent damage at polling places the day before elections; …] rises. We should all stop thinking “it can’t happen here”.

    • Ginevra diBenci says:

      The word “coordinated” jumped out at me, too. Having read David Brooks for years, I’m gonna go ahead and assume that what he means is “coordinated by David Brooks.”

      • TREPping says:

        Genirva, that would imply that Brooks has a plan. He does not. He wants to wring his hands and hope everyone will forget a career of disengenuos punditry.

      • central texas says:

        If you have read Brooks for years, you will not be surprised to find him lauding a new, exciting, ethical, STRONG Republican party ready to combat the leftist excesses of the demon democrats. As he will, should the Democrats do well in ’26 and threaten in ’28. He has done it a half dozen times in the years he has wasted space in the NYTs.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Brooks is very careful, and smarmy, in his framing and choice of words. I would not have limited my call to action, for example, to “Americans.” I might have said “people,” or used the roles they play — lawyers, students, civil servants, politicians. There are many people in /America affected by Trump’s hateful policies who are not US citizens.

    • cats+dogs says:

      Here’s a brief and mildly entertaining thread between me and Perplexity.ai that underscores the necessity of eternal vigilance and, I suppose, close reading.

      My initial question was: “Where can I read the Trump Administration’s Letter(s) to Harvard?” Following up to correct a Perplexity hallucination, the updated response was clear and to the point: https :// www. perplexity. ai/search/where-can-i-read-the-trump-adm-8UvatSkERoKnDrJs8YmfSg

      Thanks to @emptywheel for being clear and to the point about this and so much else.

      [Moderator’s note: NO. DO NOT DO THAT HERE. Do your own search. Do not share AI-generated material here. I have broken the link you shared with blank spaces to prevent accidental clickthrough by community members. You’ve expected readers here to simply take you at your word that when they use that link their machines won’t be tracked, their content harvested, THIS SITE’S CONTENT HARVESTED as it tracks back along a reader’s path. One more time: we do not use AI here, in posts or comments. /~Rayne]

  4. Cheez Whiz says:

    “Democrats in disarray” is the marketing of centrist consultants and politicians attempting to focus discussion on their narrative, that winning white working class voters is crucial to Democratic victory, and the only way to do that is to pander to the prejudices and biases of those voters and focus on their concerns, as defined by those consultants and their polls. Their self-interest matters much more than our current situation.

  5. Lit_eray says:

    A mass mailing email I sent. Subject: Sovereignty. I am sure many of the recipients are trumpies:
    “Gents and Ladies,”
    “April 5 is your opportunity to demonstrate your belief that the sovereignty of the United States emanates from the people. You need not support the beliefs of your neighbors or fellow demonstrators; just the common belief that government by and for the people is the proper story of the United States of America. We, as a country, are at the point in time when this is necessary. Please find a way to not obey in advance.

    “There are many sources for information about what we are facing. This is a good one: {messed up the link to Timothy Snyder which I corrected by copying and separately sending “Twenty Lessons on Fighting Tyranny from the Twentieth Century”}

    “Find an April 5th event in your neighborhood. It is even an opportunity to display trump merchandise you paid for with your hard earned money. All are welcome.”
    “PS Should you find this unsolicited message inappropriate, direct message me, and I will permanently delete your address and you will never hear from me again.”

    I sent another note about tomorrow, April 19th. :Subject: Sovereignty(2).
    “Gents and Ladies,”
    “Find an April 19th event in your neighborhood. One source: https://[space] events.pol-rev.com/search?eventPage=1 It is even an opportunity to display trump merchandise you paid for with your hard earned money. All are welcome.”
    “PS I would appreciate your letting me know if, how, and how much you heard from your news information environment about the over 1200 event locations and attended by 3 to 5 million April 5th events”
    “PPS Should you find this unsolicited message inappropriate, direct message me, and I will permanently delete your address and you will never hear from me again.”

    In hope that even trumpies will have a glimmer of cognizance of what others are doing and the important values at risk outside of useless media coverage.

  6. Upisdown says:

    Dems should flip the RW’s media narrative by hammering on Cody Balmer, Nikita Casap, and Phoenix Ikner. These are actual terrorists. At least two of them associate with factions known to incite hate inspired violence. Balmer is a conspiracy theorist who believes Biden supporters should not exist. Casap fondly quotes Hitler and wants a race war. Ikner is a documented MAGA who is Christian white nationalist. They are proven threats and criminals. And they represent extremist positions that conservatives support.

  7. Error Prone says:

    Let us step back to – Define partisanship. If you mean two parties, one with Trump and tight that way, and a different one, then both things, tariffs/economy and civil liberties are partisan oppositions to Trump/enablers. It’s not either or. It’s both being the same thing. Refusal to see or honor bounds.
    Rule of law in individual instances and norms of capitalism, globalist style, are not incompatible things to consider. Both need attention, and if one feels that two party politics is the problem, then the perspective changes.

  8. punaise says:

    David Brooks — David Brooks!!!

    Took the words right out of my keyboard. David F-ing Brooks? When you’ve “lost” Brooks you’ve lost Generica.

    d r i f t g l a s s always has an interesting, usually acerbic, take on Brooks:

    Brooks comes up often over the decades because he was the most committed, effective and ubiquitous Conservative operative inside the establishment media. A middleman — sort of the Right wing’s pet PBS Mennonite. And it was my opinion then (which has proven out over time) that men like Brooks were much more dangerous than, say, a fully-outed thug like Tom DeLay.

    Brooks’ job was to sell Conservative’s poison to the Center: to reassure the Moderates and “Reagan Democrats” and to coax the Undecideds into the Windowless Fundy Panel Truck by dandying their evil up in perfumed NYT-speak. And it was my judgement, since the battle for the future of the country was going to take place in the middle, that these respectable, mainstream elite media zealots-in-sheep’s-clothing like Brooks were the ones that deserved extra-special attention since their propaganda didn’t trip the Limbaugh or the Fox News alarm.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Yes. David Brooks is the pretty face of radical right politics, the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, luring the unsuspecting into adopting his cruel politics.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      An update on the derision David Brooks fully merits. It’s a longish trip down memory lane, recounting some of Brooks’s smarmiest efforts to persuade people that up is down, black is white, and Trump is Trump, not the Republican Party, but that either would be better for the Republic than the Democrats.

      Brooks: “[M]illions of human beings are living in dream palaces….They are living with versions of reality that simply do not comport with the way things are. They circulate and recirculate conspiracy theories, myths, and allegations with little regard for whether or not these fantasies are true.”

      Note the ironically dehumanizing use of “human beings,” when a simple “people” would do. But Brooks wasn’t talking about Donald Trump or his followers. He was talking about those who oppose them. Putz.

      https://driftglass.blogspot.com/2025/04/che-what-ongoing-adventures-of-david.html

      • punaise says:

        New post by d r i f t g l a s s duly noted! He’s made a cottage industry of calling Brooks to task.

  9. punaise says:

    Ed Kilgore at NY Mag:

    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. .. It’s also quite likely that … deportation overreach will hurt Trump and his party precisely in the immigrant-adjacent elements of the electorate in which he made crucial 2024 gains.

    …. 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.

    • P J Evans says:

      How many of Harris’s problems were due to people like Kilgore telling her what she should do, as opposed to doing what she thought was best?

      • Rayne says:

        I swear I read something recently about Walz’s “weird” frame and how it worked and resonated and some dipshit consultant(s) discouraged using it so it dried up.

        That’s one example. Weird was spot on and then some, it broke through to the lizard brain.

        • P J Evans says:

          They would have been a lot better than what we ended up with.
          (I see Ezra Klein is co-author of a book where he argues that regulation is a problem. Fck that.)

Comments are closed.