The Danger of 'Finger to the Wind' Politics
When Sen. Chris Van Hollen appeared on Meet the Press this weekend after visiting Kilmar Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, he didn’t mince words about what’s at stake: our basic constitutional values.
Asked about California Governor Gavin Newsom dismissing Abrego Garcia’s case as a “distraction,” Van Hollen delivered a response that cuts to the heart of what’s wrong with too many Democratic politicians today:
“I don’t think it’s ever wrong to stand up for the Constitution. And this is not about one man. If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights for everybody.”
That statement is more than just powerful rhetoric — it’s the foundation of what constitutional democracy is supposed to be about. Van Hollen went further, saying something that should be obvious but increasingly isn’t in our poll-tested political environment: “I think Americans are tired of elected officials or politicians who are all finger to the wind, what’s blowing this way, what’s blowing that way.”
He’s right. We are tired of it.
The Abrego Garcia case demonstrates exactly why this finger-to-the-wind approach is not just politically cynical but morally bankrupt. Here’s a man who was legally living in Maryland, had been granted protection from deportation to El Salvador due to fear of persecution, and was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration in what they themselves admitted was an “administrative error.” He’s now imprisoned in El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison without trial, despite never having been charged with any crime in either country.
Newsom’s response to this horrific situation? It’s just “the distraction of the day” and “the art of distraction.” Really? A man wrongfully imprisoned in one of the world’s most notorious prisons without trial or charges is merely a political distraction?
This dismissiveness isn’t an isolated incident. In recent weeks, Newsom has shifted rightward on transgender rights, calling trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” during a friendly podcast conversation with right-wing figure Charlie Kirk. This stance has been called a “sickening” LGBTQ+ solidarity U-turn by advocates who previously considered him an ally.
It’s part of a pattern: politicians who try to calculate exactly which positions will make them most electable rather than standing on principle. The problem with this approach isn’t just that it’s craven — it’s that voters can see through it.
There’s a reason Van Hollen’s response resonated with so many people. It wasn’t crafted by a focus group or tested with likely voters. It was a straightforward defense of constitutional principles. What a concept!
The contrast couldn’t be clearer: Van Hollen believes we should do what’s right because it’s right, while Newsom seems to believe we should do whatever focus groups tell him might be politically advantageous.
Abrego Garcia deserves his day in court. Every person deserves due process. These aren’t complicated principles, and they shouldn’t be controversial. They’re enshrined in our Constitution for a reason.
As the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in their decision on the Abrego Garcia case, the government’s unwillingness to bring him back “should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”
That’s the thing about constitutional rights: they’re not meant to be politically convenient. They’re meant to be inviolable. They’re meant to apply to everyone, even when it’s unpopular, even when defending them might not poll well in swing states.
Voters can tell when politicians are being authentic versus when they’re triangulating. Newsom’s dismissal of Abrego Garcia’s plight as a “distraction” comes across as cold, calculated, and fundamentally phony. It’s the kind of response you give when you’ve spent too much time with political consultants and not enough time thinking about what public service actually means.
Van Hollen’s approach is refreshing precisely because it’s becoming so rare. He’s willing to say this is wrong, and we should fix it, not because it polls well, but because it’s the right thing to do.
That’s the kind of leadership Americans deserve from all of our politicians. And while it might not always be the easiest political path, it’s the one that maintains the dignity of our democracy and the dignity of people like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who right now has little else.
Watch Van Hollen respond to Newsom’s remarks on Meet the Press:
KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you about the reaction from within the Democratic party. While some Democrats support you, others say this is not the issue that Democrats should be focused on. Governor Gavin Newsom of California calling Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case, quote, “The distraction of the day.” He argues Democrats are playing right into the hands of President Trump – an issue he wants to be focused on. How do you respond to Governor Newsom?
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: I don’t think it’s ever wrong to stand up for the constitution. And this is not about one man. If you deny the constitutional rights of one man, you threaten the constitutional rights for everybody. I think Americans are tired of elected officials or politicians who are all finger to the wind, what’s blowing this way, what’s blowing that way. And anybody who can’t stand up for the constitution and the right of due process doesn’t deserve to lead.
Related Knowledge Center: Democracy and politics
News organizations are scrambling to find a coverage approach that adequately informs the American public about the country’s slide from democracy to authoritarian rule.