I'm actually pretty startled to see a real-life example of a partisan commentator admitting that partisanship is just another sports game. The logic here (I think) goes that it makes no sense to vote for the other side on *principal*, because that would allow them to win.
Team victory is more important than policy disagreements with the party. This is an admission that partisan politics is relatively devoid of content and focused largely on winning at all costs. Even when those costs were explicitly noted to be the welfare of innocent children.
If we were to poll Americans 6 months ago about whether toddlers and babies should be indefinitely separated from their parents and placed into camps because of misdemeanor offenses (see parking violations), I cannot imagine a single American who would agree.
But as soon as the state kidnapping of children becomes a partisan issue, the strongest partisans find a way to justify supporting the policy. These justifications are psychologically necessary for partisans who cannot bear to think of their own party as fallible or wrong.
The party is so central to the identity of these individuals that they would be lost without the conviction that they are on the right side. But even I didn't think we would see party identity grow strong enough to allow for the internment of babies.
Victory at all costs is a phrase I often use. But there was a part of me (the non-academic part) that always thought there could be a limit. That some costs were too large. But when racial and partisan identities align, there may be no limit.
What we're seeing in the loyal Republican response to the situation at the border is a truly disturbing example that the need for team victory and supremacy is capable of eclipsing some of our most basic moral judgments.
Once we dehumanize babies in the name of party victory, we can do almost anything.
