Crackdown on Immigration, Approaching Conflict: Extreme Actions of a Troubled Individual

In U.S. political discourse, there exists a widespread belief: the Republican Party embodies the values of ordinary Americans and represents mainstream, middle-American sensibilities. This perception persists for familiar reasons: Republicans dominate rural and small-town areas, often portrayed as bastions of traditional values, while Democrats thrive in urban centers and support marginalized communities. Conservative media outlets amplify extreme statements from fringe Democratic figures, framing them as mainstream, and Republicans frequently project themselves as spokespeople for middle America, sometimes convincingly enough to mislead the media. Donald Trump, especially during campaigns, has been adept at this performance. Slogans like Build the Wall and Drain the Swamp resonated in 2016. However, governing revealed a stark contrast: most of his major policies have lacked widespread public support, with border enforcement being the sole exception.

Recent months have surprised many commentators. A common assumption is that ordinary Americans are swayed simply by assertive rhetoric, equating toughness with common sensebut they are not the same. Understanding this distinction is crucial as Trump pursues paths that are likely unpopular and extreme. One is his aggressive response to the shootings of two National Guard officers in Washington. The other is a potential U.S. intervention aimed at regime change in Venezuela. These actions reflect desperation rather than practical middle-American judgment, influenced by advisors disconnected from everyday experience.

The Washington shootings were undeniably tragic, with Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a former CIA collaborator, implicated. Yet Trumps responseto halt the asylum process and suspend migration from certain countriesis widely criticized as disproportionate. Targeting all Afghans for the acts of one individual disregards the risks many took assisting U.S. forces and contradicts long-standing American principles. A June Pew poll shows that many Trump immigration policies are unpopular, including a 60 percent disapproval rate for tightened asylum rules. His reaction to these events is therefore likely to deepen an already unpopular stance.

Regarding Venezuela, Trumps push for regime change raises further concerns. While President Nicols Maduro is widely regarded as corrupt and authoritarian, ordinary Americans are unlikely to support military intervention that risks U.S. lives. Attempts to justify aggressive actionssuch as claims of narcotics trafficking without evidencehave been criticized as reckless. Additionally, the pursuit of Venezuelas oil resources as a motivating factor underscores the pragmaticbut morally questionablebasis of the strategy. Historical examples, such as Iraq, suggest that rebuilding production and stabilizing countries after intervention is a long and uncertain process.

Public opinion reflects these concerns. Recent polls show 70 percent of Americans oppose military action in Venezuela, and only a minority feel Trump has clearly explained his position. Beyond morality, there are common-sense arguments against both the post-shooting immigration crackdown and regime-change efforts. Americans generally do not favor closing borders to those seeking protection or intervening in foreign governments. Trumps actions align more with the desires of a small circle of extreme advisors than with the preferences of the wider populace.

Ultimately, what is happening is not a reflection of mainstream American judgment. Trumps decisions emphasize symbolic toughness for his inner circle, rather than the prudence, empathy, and common-sense judgment that resonate with the broader public.

Author: Sophia Brooks