Last week, there was a story in USA Today about a Trump voter from Wisconsin who watched as ICE agents detained his Peruvian wife. 

The story was about the widening dragnet being cast by the regime. What began as a crackdown on “criminal illegal immigrants” has expanded to people whose application for legal status is under review. “Even those married or engaged to US citizens are being detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, USA Today has learned.”

The reaction to the story was mostly of the FAFO variety. 

The Wisconsin man, who is white, voted for the candidate who said he would expel all those who “poison the blood of the country.” The man told USA Today that he didn’t believe Trump meant his wife. She was different, he said. He thought Trump “would target people who snuck over the border and weren’t vetted.” And now that his wife has been detained by ICE, he still can’t believe it. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Ergo, FAFO.

It may seem like this man would be receptive to a moderate position on immigration, one that allows for people who are in legal limbo, and perhaps one that proposes a pathway to citizenship for people like his wife who work hard, save up to buy a home and want to start a family. 

It may seem like he would be receptive to a perspective favored by some in the Democratic Party who believe Kamala Harris erred on the side of being too progressive on immigration and other social issues, like trans rights. They believe the Democrats should move to the right, just a little, and even talk like Republicans, just a little, in order to appeal to voters, like this man, who have been burned by Trump. 

Read the story carefully, however, and you will notice something that should demonstrate that we no longer live in a world of left-right, liberal-conservative politics, to wit: He does not regret his vote.

Read further and you will notice that this man is not upset by the fact that his wife was detained by ICE so much as the fact that she was not made the exception to the rule, a rule that he seems otherwise to want applied to other people whom he believes deserve it. He’s upset that the rule is being applied equally, more or less, which is to say, he’s upset, because Trump was supposed to punish enemies, not friends.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE FOR JUST $6 A MONTH!

---

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

---

This should not be surprising. 

As podcaster and CNN commentator Van Lathan, Jr, has memorably said, Trump is “the whitest white man we’ve ever seen.” That makes him the exception to every rule, especially the rule of law. “Trump can’t say enough to be racist, can’t break enough laws to be a criminal, can’t fail enough to be a failure and can’t be stupid enough to be stupid.” 

Rules, then, are for other people, and this man from Wisconsin wants some of that impunity for himself. He’s not getting it, though. That’s “unfair.” And there’s almost certainly nothing any Democrat can say to appeal to him rationally, as rational appeals can’t crack the surface of a man who believes, as Trump does, that everyone owes him something. 

I think it’s important to bear this concept in mind – rules for thee, exceptions for me – as you read about Republican constituents who are raising hell in town halls hosted by Republican congresspeople. The assumption is their anger is an opening for moderate Democrats. 

But while it’s one thing to say that some of these voters chose Trump reluctantly, or that some of them don’t like him that much, it’s another to say that they’d vote for a Democrat if they were given a chance. 

In my view, they are not really mad at the regime for messing around with Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or whatever. They are mad about being treated the same as their enemies. In their world, Republicans are deserving. Black people, for instance, are not. That there’s no legal way of splitting the difference is beside the point.

Instead of trying to attract such voters, I think the Democrats should try to repel them even more. I know that sounds counterintuitive, perhaps even foolish, but it makes sense when you consider that attracting them requires them to admit to themselves that they were wrong. You would think a white man who watched his Peruvian wife being perp-walked by ICE would regret his vote. That’s not the case. 

Instead, I think the Democrats should exploit conditions that are never going to change, meaning these people will never vote for a Democrat. From their view, there are only two choices – vote for a Republican or don’t vote at all. Meanwhile, the Trump regime is consolidating power. It is creating conditions according to which everyone, Democrat and Republican, must come to him if they want something, usually money. Powerful elites have the means of “petitioning the king,” but what about little people, like the Trump voter from Wisconsin? All he has is a broken promise of being made the exception to all the rules.

With that, the Democrats have a chance to demoralize Trump voters. Naturally, no Democrat who would admit to such a strategy. It works, though. We have seen it, in 2016, under the direction of Steve Bannon, and in 2024, under Elon Musk. He spent tens of millions spreading false information about Kamala Harris in Philadelphia for the explicit purpose of encouraging Democratic voters to give up on democracy.

Think of it as a humanitarian effort. 

If the man from Wisconsin hadn’t voted, his wife would be free.