An agenda designed to use cruelty against humanity as a means to win an election? “No!” I silently scream, “how would anyone want to politically benefit from this cloud of torment moving across the United States?”
This question has plagued me since I listened to Rachel Maddow’s coverage, http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/trump-cruel-to-migrant-kids-to-drive-immigration-political-wedge-1259660867952
Is this an example of how the crumbling of the pillars of society–moral shame and moral fear–gives way to a Stephen Miller’s delight at the public outrage and anger of migrant families being torn apart?
In The Atlantic, McKay Coppins writes that Stephen Miller
“… made it clear to me that he sees immigration as a winning political issue for his boss.
‘The American people were warned—let me [be] sarcastic when I remark on that—[they] were quote-unquote warned by Hillary Clinton that if they elected Donald Trump, he would enforce an extremely tough immigration policy, crack down on illegal immigration, deport people who were here illegally, improve our vetting and screening, and all these other things,’ Miller told me. ‘And many people replied to that by voting for Donald Trump.’
“Skeptics will note that most Americans did not, in fact, vote for Donald Trump, and that polls continue to show widespread disapproval of some of his signature immigration positions. But it doesn’t matter. In Miller’s view of the electoral landscape, the president is winning anytime the country is focused on immigration—polls and bad headlines be damned. (This explains why Miller is, according to Politico, leading an effort within the administration to plan additional crackdowns on immigrants in the months leading up to the midterm elections.)
“Speaking to The New York Times, Miller framed his theory this way: ‘You have one party that’s in favor of open borders, and you have one party that wants to secure the border. And all day long the American people are going to side with the party that wants to secure the border. And not by a little bit. Not 55–45. 60–40. 70–30. 80–20. I’m talking 90–10 on that.’
“Of course, if the goal were simply to draw voters’ attention to the border, there are plenty of ways to do it that are less controversial (not to mention, less cruel) than ripping young children from the arms of asylum seekers and sticking them in dystopian-looking detention centers. But for Miller, the public outrage and anger elicited by policies like forced family separation are a feature, not a bug.
“A seasoned conservative troll, Miller told me during our interview that he has often found value in generating what he calls ‘constructive controversy—with the purpose of enlightenment.‘ This belief traces back to the snowflake-melting and lib-triggering of his youth. As a conservative teen growing up in Santa Monica, he wrote op-eds comparing his liberal classmates to terrorists and musing that Osama bin Laden would fit in at his high school. In college, he coordinated an ‘Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.’ These efforts were not calibrated for persuasion; they were designed to agitate. And now that he’s in the White House, he is deploying similar tactics.”
Instead of using children as a step ladder, let’s be inspired by the resilience of children, like Amanda Mena, and not succumb to the evil within these bullies.