ICE: Our First Government-Sponsored Criminal Gang

What is a Law-Enforcement Agency?

ICE is a criminal gang, not a law-enforcement agency. We Americans are very familiar with law-enforcement agencies. We have local and state police forces, and we have the FBI. So, we know what a real, American law-enforcement agency looks like, and we know how American law-enforcement agents behave. 

A law enforment agency follows well established procedures. When a law-enforcement agent approaches citizens on the street, in an office or at their homes, the agent can be recognized easily. Typically, the agent is wearing a uniform. He/she wears or carries a badge or other identification and shows it to the citizens. The agent is never masked. The agent immediately explains why he/she is approaching the citizens, and if they are being arrested, they are informed of the reason why, and they are informed of their rights. Law-enforcement agents do not kidnap people.

What is a Criminal Gang?

In contrast, members of criminal gangs display none of those characteristics. They don’t present identification. They are often masked. They rarely wear uniforms. They do not explain why they are approaching the citizens, and they do not inform citizens of their rights. Criminal gangsters do not make arrests using established procedures. Instead, they kidnap people.

ICE Acts Like a Criminal Gang

The agents of ICE do not behave like law-enforcement agents. They behave like criminal gangsters. We know that because we have all seen numerous reports of ICE raids in the streets, in homes, in factories and on farms. ICE does not follow the established procedures for arresting people. Instead, the people are simply kidnapped.

We often say that if a creature looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, we should treat it as a duck, and we should apply this saying to our understanding of ICE. It looks like a criminal gang, talks like a criminal gang and acts like a criminal gang. So, it most likely is a criminal gang, and the fact that it is sponsored by our government means only that for the first time in our history, our government is sponsoring a criminal gang.

Plenty of Insanity to Go Around

The war between Israel and Iran has grown out of the insanity that affects both sides. By “insanity,” I mean “persisting in acting in ways that are based on false ideas or that are detrimental to the actor.”

Iran's Insanity

Iran's insanity is its investment of huge resources in a project that cannot be completed and that is detrimental to its people. The government of Iran has made it clear for decades that at the core of its foreign policy is the complete destruction of the State of Israel, and in the service of that policy, it has invested billions of dollars in the development of nuclear weapons and in the support and training of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen.

The money that has been invested in that way might have been invested in the development of the country and the improvement of the lives of its people. Iran is a big country with lots of fertile land and other natural resources including oil. Iran’s government might have chosen to use its oil revenue to increase the country’s industrial capacity and diversify its economy, but it has not done so. Instead, it has chosen to spend the money to destabilize Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen and to put pressure on Israel. That policy has brought on the international sanctions that have impoverished the Iran and its people. The policy has also made enemies of the Sunni Muslims of the Middle East led by Saudi Arabia.

Iran’s government has not destroyed the State of Israel and is very unlikely to achieve that goal, but it has impoverished the country and given strength to antigovernment movements within Iran.

Israel's Insanity

Irael’s insanity is its government’s insistence on clinging to an unachievable goal and an incorrect view of the nature of the Palestinians’ struggle. The unachievable goal is the goal of recreating the ancient Kingdom of Israel by integrating Gaza and the West Bank into the State of Israel without making the territories’ people into full citizens of the State of Israel and without damaging Israel’s democracy.

That goal cannot be achieved. If the occupied territories were integrated into Israel in a way that preserved Israel’s democracy, the Palestinian residents of the territories would have to be made into full citizens of the State of Israel, and that would mean that state would cease to be a Jewish state and would become a binational state. If the occupied territories were integrated into Israel in a way that did not make the Palestinians full citizens of a binational state, it would become an apartheid state, and Israel’s democracy would be destroyed

The incorrect view is the view that Palestinian attacks on the State of Israel are nothing but expressions of old-fashioned antisemitism. It is the view that Palestinians want to kill Jews just because they are Jews. This view refuses to accept that the Palestinians have their own national aspirations. The Palestinians don’t just want to kill Jews. They want to have their own country or at least to be full citizens of a binational state.

Ignoring the national aspirations of the Palestinians is convenient for Israel’s government in the short run, but it has led to a disastrous and unending struggle, which has damaged Israel’s democracy and its standing in the world. It has also prevented Israel from making peace with its neighbors and given Iran the excuse it needs to continue to support Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Israel's attempt to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program is certainly justifiable in the light of Iran's clear commitment to the destruction of Israel. Nevertheless, Israel's government's commitment to the unachievable goal and the incorrect view have created a context in which other countries can support Iran and condemn Israel. Moreover, Israel's inability to deal sanely with the Palestinians guarantees that the attack on Iran can provide the country with only a temporary increase in security

So, there you have it. There is plenty of insanity to go around. The two countries are killing each other's citizens, although doing so is not in the long-term interest of either country.

How Can Democrats Win?

In last week’s post, said that to win the elections of 2026, take back control of Congress and regain our working class support, Democrats should focus on kitchen table issues rather than on issues of racial equity or gender equity. In this post, I want to expand on that idea and explain what I mean.

What is the Problem?

We live in a very inequitable society in which an outlandish share of the national income goes to a tiny group of wealthy people. Making the distribution of income more equitable is the most important political task of our time, and in order to do that, we need to understand the real nature of the problem. To put it bluntly, the problem is that a few rich people have most of the wealth, while millions of hard-working people own practically nothing. Note that I did not say “a few white people” or “a few white men.” I said “a few rich people.” It is true that most of the rich people are white men, but it is also true that most white men are not rich. It is true that working-class women of all races are among the most oppressed members of our society, but it is also true that there is a substantial number of women who are billionaires. Likewise, it is true that black people earn less than white people on average, but it is also true that that we have a substantial number of black billionaires. So, the problem is not the redistribution of income from male workers to female workers or from white workers to black workers. The problem is the redistribution of income from the owners of capital to the working class. 

Defining the problem in terms of race or gender serves the interest of the rich because that definition sets the workers to fighting with each other instead of getting together to work for their shared interests. That is why, for example, our current president has made a big deal out of dismantling DEI programs. He wants working-class Americans to think that by doing that, he is helping them, and he hopes that they will not notice that he is also dismantling programs like Medicaid on which those supporters depend. 

We Democrats must focus on improving the lives of working-class people of all races. We must fight against the idea that improving the lives of black people means transferring income from white workers to black workers or that improving the lives of women means transferring income from men to women. Instead, we must focus on doing things that improve the lives of all working people. Here are a couple of examples. There are many others.

Policy Proposals

Affordable Childcare

One way to improve the lives of all working people would be to provide tax-supported, affordable childcare. Today, many families are or could be two-income families, and many women are single parents. Childcare takes a huge bite out of the incomes of those who can afford childcare, and those who cannot afford it are condemned to poverty because they cannot get decent jobs. Affordable childcare would immediately put a substantial amount of money into the pockets of millions of working-class people.

In addition, affordable childcare would help to reduce the income gap between white people and black people because black people are more likely than white people to be in the working class. Black people have on average a small fraction of the household wealth that white people have, and black people earn less than white people at every level of education. So, black people would benefit disproportionately from a program of affordable childcare. It would give them a leg up in their struggle to improve their economic situation.

Baby Bonds

Baby bonds are another possibility. The idea is that each baby born in the United States would receive at birth a treasury bond that would be held in trust for the child until he or she reaches adulthood. The amount of the bond would depend on the wealth of the child’s family. Children born into wealthy families would receive smaller bonds than children born into poor families. Darity and Hamilton, who originally proposed the idea in 2010, suggested that children in the lowest wealth quartile might receive bonds worth at least $50,000, while children in the highest wealth quartile would receive a much smaller amount.

Each bond would be held in trust for the child until it reached adulthood, and the interest earned would be reinvested. When the child became an adult, the money would then become available to pay for education, to purchase a house or for any other approved purpose. While the bond was held in trust, it would appreciate considerably in value. A $50,000 bond earning 4% interest would be worth a little over $109,000 when the child reached the age of 21.

The point of giving children baby bonds would be make equality of opportunity more real in the United States by making it possible for a working-class child to obtain professional training without incurring crippling debts. A person without crippling debts can use her income to accumulate wealth that can be passed on to her children thus allowing her to join the patrimonial middle class.

Respect

However, no policy positions will help us to regain our majority unless we start to show respect for working-class people and rural people. The Democratic Party has become the party of the patrimonial middle class, and that comes with cultural baggage. First, we Democrats are by and large well educated, and we look down on people who are less educated. Second, we are mainly urban people (because the jobs for educated professionals are in cities), and we look down on rural people and on rural ways of living.  

Our attitudes are visible to everyone. They shine through in places like Hillary Clinton's description of Trump's supporters as "a basket of deplorables" or Barack Obama's remark about people clinging to guns or religion or racism. People hate and resent being looked down on, and they vote their feelings. We will never regain our majority until we come to understand that our obvious sense of superiority bears a large share of the responsibility for the rise of Trump. If we want to win, we will have to deal with our own prejudices, and we will have to nominate a candidate who can talk with working-class and rural people as equals. 

Let's get busy! We have a lot to do

Trump's Coalition is Collapsing

The Budget Bill is Causing the Collapse of the Republican Coalition

The coalition that defines the modern, Republican Party and that brought Pres. Trump to power is collapsing because of internal contradictions that cannot be resolved. This collapse presents an opportunity for the Democrats, and we must recognize it and seize it. Trump came to power by harnessing populist rhetoric to a business-friendly political program. He claimed to be the voice of working Americans who had been oppressed by “elites,” but his real, political program has always been to lower taxes and reduce regulation in the service of those very elites. He used racism and xenophobia to appeal to a segment of the American people, but he never intended to deport the entire agricultural work force on which many of his Party's financial supporters depend. Thus, he created the coalition of billionaires and workers that elected him.

The contradictions inherent in this coalition could be ignored or concealed during the campaign for the presidency. As a candidate, Trump could say anything, and his supporters heard what they wanted to hear. However, his “big beautiful” budget bill has brought the contradictions into the open. He cannot pass the tax cuts that his billionaire supporters want without either cutting services that his working-class voters depend on or greatly increasing the deficit. The deficit hawks in Congress are forcing the Republican Party to make a choice, and individual Republican senators are choosing sides.

On the one hand, we have Sen. Josh Hawley, a populist conservative supporter of Pres. Trump saying, that cutting Medicaid is “morally incorrect and politically suicidal.” On the other hand, we have the business conservative Sen. Ron Johnson who thinks that the proposed cuts are insufficient. He wants to cut even more. These two views cannot be reconciled, and many voters are worried that important benefits would be cut if the bill passed.

Other Policies Are Causing Pain To Voters

In the meantime, Trump’s signature tariff policy is is causing pain in rural communities. Farmers are furious because they have lost their export markets because of other countries’ retaliation against the tariffs. Rural areas are deeply divided over Trump's policies. Urban communities are also suffering. Several major American companies including General Motors, Ford, General Electric, John Deere and Coca Cola have announced that they will move production away from the United States. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk along with the survival of communities that voted for Trump in 2024.

Trump's deportations of immigrant workers are also causing heartache among his supporters. As one business owner in Florida said after his workers were arrested in a raid, "Lost a lot of good men today. I like Trump, but this isn't what I voted for." His feelings were echoed by the people of Kennett, Missouri when they learned that a well-liked member of their community had been arrested.  One member of the community said,

We don’t feel what’s happened to her is right.... She’s a very upstanding citizen in our community. Her kids are into the sports, she’s in the church, and she’s a very upstanding citizen as far as I’m concerned. I think she deserves to be free with her kids.”

Republicans Are Worried About the Coming Elections

Republicans in Congress are worried about the 2026 elections. How can they assure their reelection? Should they side with Hawley to preserve the Medicaid on which their voters depend, or should they side with Johnson? If they do either of those things, will Trump take revenge in the election? 

Their decisions will affect the Republicas' control of Congress, which rests on very thin margins in both houses. A couple of wins in swing districts would hand control back to the Democrats and doom the president’s legislative program. Those who support the “big, beautiful bill” have only a few months to pass it before the 2026 election season begins, but they do not have the votes to pass it in its present form.

Each senator or congressperson must decide how to respond to this situation. The political climate of each state or congressional district is unique, and each candidate must pay attention to the climate in his/her district. So, we should expect that the party will split deeply, and the alliance that has defined Trump’s party will collapse. Some will stick with Trump. Some will follow the path of Johnson. And some will follow the path of Hawley.

Principled Legal Conservatives Are Anti-Trump

An article appearing in the New York Times describes a friend of the court brief filed by a national group of conservative legal scholars opposing Trump's tariffs on constitutional grounds.  These scholars believe that Trump's actions do violence to the Constitution, and their brief says,

The powers to tax, to regulate commerce and to shape the nation’s economic course must remain with Congress,” the brief said. “They cannot drift silently into the hands of the president through inertia, inattention or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case.

 A prominent legal scholar is quoted in the article:

You have to understand that the conservative movement is now, as an intellectual movement, consistently anti-Trump on most issues....

How Can Democrats Profit From the Republican Split?

Democrats can profit from the split by focusing on winning back our working-class voters. To do so, we must focus voters' attention on kitchen table issues. I don't pretend to know what the winning combination of issues may be, but here are a couple of suggestions. First, affordable childcare. Working families are mainly two-income families, and reducing the cost of childcare would put money directly in their hands. Second, stability of health insurance coverage. Most working people get their health insurance from their jobs, which means that the coverage is lost when the jobs are lost. The federal government should pick up a worker's share of the cost of his/her health insurance when he/she loses a job. That would greatly increase the financial security of every working American.

We should pay special attention to rural areas. Polls indicate that rural people still generally support Trump and the Republican Party, but rural communities will suffer deeply from Trump's policies. We should remember that votes are not cast by statistical aggregates. They are cast by individuals, and an aggregate may conceal deep differences among its members. We should go after every vote that we can get.

We should campaign on pocket book issues rather than issues of racial equity or gender equity. Those issues are important, and Democratic office holders should continue to promote equity. However, a political campaign is too short to change the way people feel about the issues surrounding equity. No one is going to decide to vote for a Democrat for the first time in his/her life solely as a result of listening to campaign speeches. On the other hand, while we cannot change voters' minds, we can shift the focus of their attention. We can get them to see other issues as more important. We can get them to see that the oppression of all working people by a system that is rigged against them is wrong, and we can show them that they do not have to accept being oppressed.  As I argued in an earlier post on this blog, progressive policies that benefit all working Americans will also increase equity and opportunity in our society,

Let's get busy!