I have been trying to understand why seven Senate Democrats decided it was a good idea to vote to confirm South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem as US secretary of homeland security. 

They could not have doubted her confirmation, as the Republican majority of the upper chamber guaranteed it. So why did US Senators John Fetterman, Tim Kaine, Andy Kim, Gary Peters, Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan and Elissa Slotkin choose to vote in her favor? 

This is, after all, Kristi “The Puppy Killer” Noem. You would think that these seven Democrats could have found a reason – any reason, not just canicide – to oppose her, especially given that she’s going to be leading the president’s push to deport millions of “illegal” immigrants. The effort is already ensnaring citizens, even indigenous Americans.

Indeed, the reason need not have had anything to do with Kristi Noem herself. The reason could have been merely the fact that the Democratic position on the last presidential election was that Donald Trump was a menace to decency, democracy and the rule of law. 

If he is what they said he is, it’s reasonable to say no to everything he wants, even his cabinet picks. (And anyway, saying no won’t stop him from getting his cabinet.) However, if he isn’t what they said he is, well, I guess it’s reasonable to compromise. Either way, however, is a bad look for a party that hopes to one day “earn people’s trust back.”

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE FOR JUST $6 A MONTH!

---

Click here to leave a tip. $10? Thanks!

---

I wasn’t surprised by all the Democratic votes. Fetterman’s seemed par for him. Perhaps the same can be said of the votes by the Michigan and New Hampshire senators. Tim Kaine’s, however, was a bit startling. After all, he was Hillary Clinton’s running mate. Most shocking, though, was Andy Kim’s, but not only because he represents New Jersey. 

In a statement on his vote, Kim said that, “instilling fear in immigration communities is not the path to fixing” America’s “broken immigration system.” He said: “We need to secure our border and create an orderly process but should do so while governing with the values that have made the United States a beacon of hope across the world.”

But that was after federal agents terrorized immigrants. 

Last week, ICE raided a Jersey warehouse, “igniting a firestorm of controversy that has many community members speaking out in fear and anger,” according to a local report. Kim said his office “reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to demand answers. Actions like this one sow fear in all of our communities — and our broken immigration system requires solutions, not fear tactics” (my italics). 

So federal agents were already doing what Kim said they should not do. By voting for Noem as Homeland Secretary, did Kim think she would restrain ICE from “instilling fear in immigration communities”? 

I don’t think Kim is a fool, but I do think he’s mistaken. 

Kim and the other Democratic senators seem to be playing by the old rules of partisanship, according to which they must be choosy about the number of nay-votes they cast in order to maintain their credibility among independent voters, the press corps and the Republicans. 

They are forgetting their own people, however, who believed them when they said a second term for Donald Trump would be a menace to decency, democracy and the rule of law. In compromising with a menace, they risk their reputations among Democratic supporters.

There’s more. 

The old rules also say the party in power must balance competing interests inside the party in order to govern successfully. You see this play out in discussions of how far Trump is willing to go to fulfill his promise to expel “illegals” who are “poisoning the blood” of America. 

That promise, as the AP put it, could put Kristi Noem, “with her experience governing a rural state … in a difficult position. In South Dakota, many migrants, some in the country without permanent legal status, power the labor-heavy jobs that produce food and housing.” 

I think this “difficult position” is what these seven Democrats are banking on. They gain credibility by playing along with Trump but safe in the knowledge that Noem can’t go too far without hurting his people.

There is, however, an easy way around this “difficult position.”

Don’t apply the law equally. 

Time will tell if I’m wrong, but I don’t see a reason why Noem would not send ICE to raid businesses, churches, schools and communities in New Jersey, or any other blue city or blue state, instilling fear, creating chaos, decimating the labor supply and perhaps running businesses out of business, while leaving “illegals” in states like hers largely untouched.

Yes, it would be unfair. 

Yes, that would probably be illegal. 

But what do you expect from a president who is above the law, indeed, a criminal president who is above the law? Not only will he punish enemies and reward friends, and not only will he get credit for keeping his promise with blue-state raids, he will try turning Homeland Security into a protection racket. If you are a business that relies on cheap immigrant labor to turn a profit, there are many ways to send Trump enough in bribes that he temporarily forgets about “illegals.”

The old rules of partisanship presume that presidents obey the law. They presume that presidents apply it equally, no exceptions, such that the rule of law is, in effect, a constraint on his worst instincts. These seven Democratic senators seem to be playing by the old rules, and they may feel they are getting something for their compromise vote.

They are getting nothing.

Except getting exposed as weak.