Ian H. Gray

Immigration is an issue that always seems to be reaching a boiling point, yet somehow never gets resolved. There is a good reason for this: for most, the status quo feels acceptable and, more importantly, it serves as a perennial fundraising opportunity for both parties. Democrats tell donors they’re fighting for total amnesty, while Republicans fundraise off promises to secure the border and deport criminals. Every year, the same lines are convincingly delivered, and every year, nothing happens. As far as Washington is concerned, everybody wins.

Trump has upset this careful equilibrium, and for better or worse, is forcing Congress to finally declare its policy preferences, rather than tiptoeing around key details.

This sounds good in theory—a much-deserved kick in the pants to the DC “establishment”—but it is unfortunately occurring on the backs of very real and innocent people, who now face extraordinary fear and uncertainty. The issue must be addressed, but this is not the way to responsibly or humanely govern. Trump has ignited a lasting political conflict, right in the same month his administration must navigate a potential government shutdown, a contentious debt ceiling vote, health insurance reauthorization, and hurricane disaster relief. The timing was clearly political, intended to rally the President’s base, but demonstrates his remarkable inexperience and shortsightedness as he throws an already fragmented Congress into further chaos.

Here is the political starting line, as of Wednesday afternoon:

Trump: The President is clearly aware of his flagging support across the broader electorate, and is determined to keep his core supporters engaged. His much-hyped border wall is unlikely to pass Congress, so he has turned his attention to unilateral options. (A note to my Democratic friends—policies that are enacted by executive order can just as easily be dismantled. The proper legislative process is harder but lasting). Targeting DACA is a political triple-threat: he can rally his anti-immigrant supporters, strike down another piece of Obama’s legacy, and force Congressional Republicans to show their cards. So long as his supporters remain the most active segment of Republican voters, Trump knows the GOP can only stray so far from his lead. To him, it seems, DACA is a solid opportunity to remind them of that fact.

Congressional Republicans: The traditional GOP is in a tight spot, as Trump is forcing them to choose between two bad options. If they enact a legislative version of DACA, they will essentially be codifying an Obama policy that many have previously opposed. Conservative voters have long been suspicious that the Party won’t follow through on tough rhetoric, and will respond viciously to a pro-DACA vote. Vulnerable Republicans can expect withered support and potential primary challenges.

Meanwhile, if the GOP fails to enact a replacement to DACA, the long-term consequences could be catastrophic, as the Party risks losing Hispanic voters for a generation or longer. While they tend to lean more towards the Democratic Party, which is far more aggressive in outreach, on the whole Hispanics have remained surprisingly untethered politically. The DACA decision could help push them over the edge, essentially delivering the key swing states of New Mexico and Nevada—and, one day, perhaps even Texas—to the Democrats. Should this happen, it will become nearly impossible to elect another Republican president.

In normal political circumstances, a president would never put his own Party in this kind of position. Once again, Trump has demonstrated that he is not really operating as a Republican, but rather an unattached force in Washington politics, pursuing his own nebulously defined agenda.

Congressional Democrats: Other than attending protests and offering obligatory attacks on Trump, Democrats have had little to do over the past 8 months. Their Party is deep in the wilderness, and spending as much time fighting itself as the Republicans. This month’s series of difficult votes, however, could give them an opening to seize initiative.

If conservative hard-liners, such as the House Freedom Caucus, demand major spending cuts in exchange for their debt ceiling votes, the Republican leadership may require Democrats to help make up the difference. They will expect concessions of their own, and DACA could be among them. Should that happen, Democrats can claim a critical legislative victory on behalf of Hispanic Americans, even as they remain in the minority.

In the aftermath, Wubbels received a full apology from the mayor and was labeled “heroic” by the police chief. There are two important takeaways from this unpleasant episode:

First, we must demand professionalism and accountability from our police departments. They are public servants, and must be made to understand who actually employs them.

It has become fashionable among my fellow conservatives to stand behind law enforcement regardless of the circumstances; the justifications for misconduct have become almost routine, as we are reminded with overwrought deference of the difficult and dangerous job officers perform. Inevitably, we are offered the false choice of siding “with” or “against” officers.

This is garbage. The purpose of a police force is to uphold the law, not actively break it, and as Americans we do ourselves a continued disservice by lowering our standards. Most officers are hardworking, civic-minded people willing to do a tough and thankless job; their lives are made vastly more difficult when a handful of puffed-up bullies ruin their reputation and erode the public’s trust. Let’s not add to that problem by papering over the indefensible.

Real conservatives believe in limited government, particularly when it concerns the use of force and police powers. By continually sweeping aside these incidents, we are allowing law enforcement to become yet another government institution that works on its own behalf, and not for the citizens who fund it.

Second, we should ask ourselves why this particular incident has attracted so much interest. Wubbels, after all, was never seriously hurt and she received a full apology within days. Compare that to recent episodes where innocent civilians have been brutalized or killed, and the officers involved faced no serious consequences. What’s different this time?

The answer is simple and depressing: Alex Wubbels is white. It is easier for white America to presume her innocence without context, identify with her shock and fear, and be offended by her unjust treatment. Had Wubbels been a Black or Latina nurse, the public reaction likely would have been far more muted and ambivalent.

This isn’t to say white America is being intentionally racist, it’s just easier to be upset when bad things happen to people who look like us. This is at the heart of what social progressives call “systemic” or “institutional racism.” It’s not necessarily a conscious attitude, but the outcome is the same.

In recent years, a number of organizations have sprung up to call attention to this daunting social challenge—the most famous being, of course, Black Lives Matter. Set aside for a moment feelings about their politics or tactics, which are unquestionably controversial, and consider their underlying message: In this country, people of color do not receive the same treatment as their white counterparts. Their experience with police, the judicial system, and government in general is decidedly more hostile.

Drawn by cartoonist and Politico founding member Matt Wuerker, this appalling illustration received immediate and wide criticism online, and was quickly pulled. Still, it neatly encapsulates the cultural and political entrenchment of many in the press, and it isn’t pretty. In one sneering panel, Wuerker makes perfectly clear what he—and apparently, as it was published, his colleagues—thinks of “middle” America.

Note the confederate shirt, the “Secede” sign, and the Tea Party flag—this is a depiction of an ungrateful population calling for the benevolence of their paternalistic government. “Turns out you need us after all,” it scoffs to imagined caricatures. It unapologetically mocks the religious faith and intellect of a population that’s just lost everything. This is condescension that couldn’t even wait until the waters receded.

Worst of all, it’s not even accurate.  Politico’s editorial board seems unaware that Houston is arguably the most diverse major city in the country. Storm surges do not discriminate, and neither, they may be surprised to learn, do the selfless men and women headed to Houston with pickup trucks and fishing boats, risking their safety to pull complete strangers from the rising water.

Are there racists and confederate sympathizers in Texas? Absolutely. Is that relevant to the hurricane and its aftermath? No. This is a media that can’t stand the idea of Texans being portrayed as anything other than hapless, undeserving victims. They have a worldview that must be maintained.

Wuerker’s timing and attitude is beneath contempt, and is perfectly indicative of an effete media that can’t understand why people don’t trust them and their preferred candidates can’t seem to win.

To be clear, I don’t believe everyone in the media shares Wuerker’s views or reptilian sense of decency. Most of the journalists I’ve known are hardworking people, deeply committed to the stories they tell. Unfortunately, people like Wuerker ruin the profession for them.

Right now, Houston is proving what it values. So too is Politico.