Atkins Stohr and Parker talk about the political ramifications of Trump’s call to “nationalize” elections

Jeff Bennett:

To learn more now about the ramifications of President Trump’s call to nationalize elections and his crackdown on immigration, tonight we turn to Atkins Stohr and Parker’s analysis.

These are Kimberly Atkins Stohr, senior opinion writer and columnist for the Boston Globe, and Kathleen Parker, columnist for the Washington Post. David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart are leaving this evening.

Good evening It’s great to see you both.

(crosstalk)

Kathleen Parker, The Washington Post:

Good evening Nice to be here. Thank you.

Jeff Bennett:

So President Trump is openly talking about nationalizing voting, which is clearly unconstitutional. He does this months before the midterm elections.

Do you consider this a threat or a deliberate attempt to undermine the elections and thus sow doubt about the legitimacy of future election results?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Boston Globe:

I think it’s definitely the latter, Jeff.

We have seen Donald Trump since before his first term, even before he won the election in 2016, casting doubt and disparaging American voting systems with absolutely no evidence, and claiming fraud, either as a hedge before an election that he thought might go poorly for him or as a way to disparage the results after the fact.

That was integral. This is really dangerous. I mean, this call is not just a call to nationalize elections, which, as you point out, the Constitution makes very clear that elections are handled, by and large, by the states, with the federal government playing a minimal role.

But I’m concerned about the call – I’m not denying that ICE will show up at election centers, and that the call for increased redistricting, mid-decade redistricting in states in order to try to game the system. Elections are supposed to be sacred in any functioning democracy. And to have the President of the United States belittle them and try to game the system is really troubling.

Jeff Bennett:

Kathleen, for Kimberly, we’ve seen this from President Trump before. To what extent does this time seem more organized and, for that matter, more dangerous?

Kathleen Parker:

I agree. It’s more organized.

Everything he does, he tries to undermine trust and faith in the electoral process all the time. And for all that – and now he’s still holding on again to the 2020 election – we know it was a perfectly regular election that he lost. And he can’t let it go because I think he took a page from “Mein Kampf,” frankly, the saying that if you tell a big lie often enough and repeat it, people will believe it.

The theory was further refined by Nazi Germany’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels. And the idea is, it seems, that it’s true — I think they’ll know — that people will believe the big lie faster than they will believe the little lie.

So Trump exaggerates everything he does, the big beautiful bills, the big beautiful lie. I think he will continue to work and try to make people lose confidence. They may stay away from the polls. Maybe they come together and the MAGA forces come together and challenge the election results.

I think you’re right that ICE will show up and I think activists and MAGA forces, so to speak, will be present at many polling places. So it’s very dangerous, because where does this ultimately lead? It gives Trump a chance to say — perhaps gives him a chance to challenge the next election, whether it’s the midterms or the presidential election in 2026, assuming he lets it happen —.

Jeff Bennett:

Regarding the potential issue of ICE at polling places, our White House correspondent Liz Landers asked this question at a White House press conference last week, because it was Steve Bannon who brought it up, and the White House has not ruled it out. And here it is.

Liz Landers:

Thank you Caroline.

Steve Bannon recently said – quote – “We’re going to have ICE around the polls next November.” Is this something the president is considering?

Carolyn Leavitt, White House Press Secretary:

That’s not something I haven’t heard the president think about before, no.

Liz Landers:

So, can you guarantee the American public that ICE will not be around polling places or voting sites in November?

Caroline Levitt:

I cannot guarantee that an ICE agent will not be around your polling location in November. I mean, this is, frankly, a very silly hypothetical question.

Jeff Bennett:

You can say that it is not a hypothetical question. It’s not a rhetorical question because, in many ways, it represents a multi-front strategy, legal pressure, Justice Department demands, and raids on the Fulton County elections office. How do you see it?

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

This is absolutely true. Another historical analogy we can use is that during the Jim Crow era, police were often sent around polling places to discourage people of color from casting ballots, even though the Constitution was amended to specifically protect that right.

The law won’t protect you if you don’t have a government that backs it up and actually violates it. All of this is taken from the playbook from the darkest times in our history, and cannot be ignored. I worry about that, because I don’t want people – once people lose confidence in their elections, that’s a big pillar of democracy that falls in and of itself.

Jeff Bennett:

And regarding the President’s immigration agenda, we have some new polling data. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the work ICE does, while about three in 10 approve. Opinions about the agency and its actions are sharply divided along political lines, as you might imagine; 91% of Democrats and 66% of independents register their disapproval.

However, Republicans still support the agency’s work, with 73% approving of the agency’s work.

Kathleen, why is this? Has ICE become an identity issue, rather than a political issue, in the way they are implementing the president’s agenda?

Kathleen Parker:

Well, I don’t know exactly how to answer this question, but I guess I’m surprised, first of all, that so many Republican representatives agree with what we’re seeing.

And I think that image of that little boy was very powerful. And I think Americans in general saw that and thought, well, no, we can’t have that in this country. That’s not what we do here. The picture is strong. And I think, as we look at the upcoming elections, the midterms, we’re going to see a lot of people turning to the ICE issue, whether it’s — I don’t know exactly what you mean by whether it’s an identity issue.

But I think it’s certainly a pivotal voting issue that will have legs through the midterms and perhaps beyond, depending on how they change their behavior, if they do.

Jeff Bennett:

This is a live issue on Capitol Hill, because Democrats and Republicans are now discussing how ICE can advance the president’s approach to immigration as part of its funding.

However, Democrats appear to have backed away from their demand that ICE agents not wear masks. Well, they can wear masks if the circumstances are unusual, Chuck Schumer said. They also don’t include in their demands this idea that we were talking about before, which is that ICE does not show up on Election Day at the polls.

It goes back to this issue that makes Democrats more tactically ruthless about the things they say they care about than Republicans.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

I think this is absolutely true.

And at this moment, when we talk about a partial lockdown, most of the government is now funded. They did a good job of solving this case so they can hold on. I believe that if Democrats did anything other than absolutely adhere to what they saw, kidnap men, women, and children, and deport them without due process, American citizens would be targeted – two American citizens dead in the streets of Minneapolis.

If this isn’t an issue where Democrats can say: No, we’re holding the line and we’re not yielding an inch on this, not because it’s politically correct, but because it’s morally correct, then I don’t know what they do. Maybe they should consider giving their jobs to someone who is willing.

Jeff Bennett:

How do you see it?

Kathleen Parker:

Well, I think Republicans tend to be harsher, just as a rule of conduct.

But I think if the Democrats take control and the government has to partially shut down, it will send – well, that will make Donald Trump very happy because he will have chaos again. He is the leader of chaos. But many other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security will be affected, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the TSA.

I mean, people are going to be stranded at airports, and again, we’re going to have all kinds of travel problems. And there are other things. I think the Coast Guard will anchor.

Jeff Bennett:

Yes.

Well, you mentioned airports. I want to address this last topic, which is that President Trump is offering to unfreeze nearly $16 billion in federal infrastructure money already allocated to the Gateway-Hudson River Tunnel project. But that will only happen if Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reportedly agrees to rename Washington Dulles International Airport and Penn Station in New York after Donald Trump.

Kimberly, you were shaking your head left or right, no.

(He laughed)

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

You know, it’s amazing that with all the issues we’re talking about, the president is still so concerned about his own vanity and pettiness, that he probably can’t stand the fact that DCA is named after Reagan and he wants that too.

I mean, really, that’s what he spends his time on.

Kathleen Parker:

Well, maybe it’s actually worth Dulles. As we talked before…

(He laughed)

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

It’s a terrible airport.

Kathleen Parker:

…It’s not the friendliest airport.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

no.

Kathleen Parker:

But I think, instead, I just think, what did this guy miss as a kid? Can we just give him the Daily Participation Trophy, maybe?

(He laughed)

Jeff Bennett:

Kathleen Parker and Kimberly Atkins Stohr, thank you.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr:

Thank you.