Midterm elections serve a purpose in American democracy beyond determining who controls Congress. They are often the public’s first opportunity to render a verdict on a presidency.
This week’s verdict was difficult for the White House to ignore.
by Kevin Seraaj, J.D., M.Div., OrlandoAdvocate.com
Voters delivered major losses to Republicans, handing Democrats control of both the House and Senate and signaling nation-wide dissatisfaction with the administration’s direction.
States that have not elected a Democrat in decades forcefully repudiated the Trump message and GOP sycophancy. It didn’t matter the topic of discussion: economic anxiety, governance, political fatigue, or concerns about the administration’s priorities– the message delivered by voters was unmistakable: most Americans wanted a “right-now” course correction.
The question facing Donald Trump was how he would respond.
Would he try to broaden his coalition? Would he elevate voices capable of rebuilding bridges with an electorate that had expressed complete frustration? Would he acknowledge, even indirectly, that voters were asking for a different tone or approach?
Nope. Instead, he chose Stephen Miller.
The appointment is significant. A White House chief of staff is often the second most influential person in an administration, because he or she acts as the gatekeeper, chief strategist, office manager, and counselor to the president. So, the choice of Stephen Miller for that position sends an unmistakable message about what Trump believes are the takeaways from the midterm elections.
Miller’s self-righteous crusade against illegal immigration seems curiously color-conscious. We are being conquered,” he told Fox News Channel in December 2023. “We have millions of people coming in from different cultures and different ways of living and different belief systems.”
According to USCIS extrapolations from visa overstays and border encounters, the estimated population of undocumented Europeans in 2025 ranged between 600,000 and 800,000. The government knows who they are and where they are, but there have been no ICE raids in the neighborhoods, churches or immigration hearings attended by them.
Trump praised Miller as one of his most trusted advisers. Miller praised Trump as the nation’s greatest president. Few figures have been more closely associated with the administration’s agenda than Miller, and not just on immigration policy. He has been among the most visible architects of some of the White House’s most controversial initiatives and one of the administration’s most polarizing public figures.
That is precisely why the appointment is so disappointing.
But something else is disappointing– and maybe even disturbing– is Trump’s outright focus– in public venues– on men’s “as*es,” and legs, and “packages.” If what he is doing is “coming out of the closet,” most progressives would probably look the other way, but in times such as these, Trump’s sudden preoccupation with male anatomy hardly lends itself to solving the pressing issues of the day.
When voters express dissatisfaction, successful political leaders typically look outward. They reassess. They expand their circle. They search for new perspectives and fresh approaches capable of reconnecting with the public mood.
This appointment does the opposite. Miller’s appointment says the GOP does not adapt. It just digs itself deeper into an ever-broadening hole.
Instead of engaging in party introspection, it suggests defiance. And when you are the party that has for the last two years been in charge of the most hurtful economic policies of decades, defiance is an unwise political strategy.
The president is entitled to appoint advisers he trusts, but political leadership requires more than rewarding loyalty. It requires listening.
Elections are conversations between citizens and their government. When voters speak, presidents may not be obligated to abandon their principles, but they are expected to at least hear what the people are saying.
For supporters of the president, appointing Miller may represent strength and conviction. For some of us, though, it looks like something else entirely: a refusal to acknowledge public discontent and a determination to stay the course despite the clear warning from voters.
A president who refuses to move with the people eventually discovers that the people are all too willing to move without him.
- Kevin Seraaj
- Kevin Seraaj
- Kevin Seraaj
- Kevin Seraaj
