Trump's con job. Democrats are falling for it.
The worst thing that could happen to Trump is to get what he claims to want. It would be a mess. Give it to him.
Trump doesn't want a wall. He wants to be positioned as the guy fighting for a wall while Democrats appear to be fighting for lawless open borders. Nothing future Democrats say in their speeches will be as powerful and persuasive a message as the current positioning of Trump vs. Democrats.
It is binary. Wall vs. No Wall. Security vs. Risk.
Trump likes that matchup. It is wrong. It is oversimple. It is persuasive in its clarity. Trump has already made that the frame. Democrats are forced to deny a false charge. Trump does not need to "win" the debate, only to pick the frame for the debate.
Trump wins the frame, the arena of the debate.
It is binary. Wall vs. No Wall. Security vs. Risk.
 |
| Click: NY Times |
Trump likes that matchup. It is wrong. It is oversimple. It is persuasive in its clarity. Trump has already made that the frame. Democrats are forced to deny a false charge. Trump does not need to "win" the debate, only to pick the frame for the debate.
Trump wins the frame, the arena of the debate.
Trump only pretends to be a fool. He knows an actual, physical wall won't work. Democrats are publicly saying it and Trump's various advisors surely are privately telling him that as well. This is buncombe for his base. The wall is only useful as a symbol--a wall in the imagination.
But an actual wall? A terrible idea.
An actual, physical extension of a wall would be expensive, intrusive to build and operate, and prone to embarrassing failure. There would be contract delays. Cost over-runs. Local objections. Construction snafus. Supply problems. Environmental disputes. If a bigger, beautiful border wall had been practical to build it would have been built.
Democratic win-win: Give Trump money for his wall in exchange for some big, good thing like citizenship for DACA. Democrats get something good, they can call it a big win, and they are positioned as the group standing for comprehensive solutions. That is good.
Meanwhile, Trump gets a mess. Another Trump Taj Mahal. All talk and bravado, but a slow, train wreck failure.
This issue is like the abortion issue for Republicans. They pretend to hate abortion but in fact they need the issue and the way it keeps Christian social conservatives motivated. Republicans in power don't actually push to end abortion. They fake it--and to good advantage. If, in fact, abortion were banned in the US there would immediately spring up a "speakeasy" system of abortions for young women in crisis. Poor people will suffer, other people, not the daughters of donors.
Does any reader doubt that were Stormy Daniels to have told Trump that she was pregnant with Trump's child that abortion money would be instantly forthcoming? Of course Trump supports abortion.
Americans want the right to choose--for themselves. The issue works because an abortion ban is just out of reach--a symbol, not a reality.
Prohibition is another example. Politicians and the public wanted prohibition, but for others. Southern whites wanted to stop blacks from drinking. Protestants wanted to stop Catholic immigrants from drinking. Rich people wanted to keep poor people from drinking. The result is a patchwork of loopholes: sacramental wine, hard cider, drinking cruises off the coasts, speakeasies. People wanted the idea of temperance, but not the reality of it--not for themselves.
So, too, with the wall. It is a symbol but a bad reality, so let Trump have it.
It is Trump's prohibition-equivalent. Turn the symbol from an idea representing "security" into an idea representing "Trump boondoggle." Let him fail.
Meanwhile, extract something really good. Win-win.
But an actual wall? A terrible idea.
An actual, physical extension of a wall would be expensive, intrusive to build and operate, and prone to embarrassing failure. There would be contract delays. Cost over-runs. Local objections. Construction snafus. Supply problems. Environmental disputes. If a bigger, beautiful border wall had been practical to build it would have been built.
Democratic win-win: Give Trump money for his wall in exchange for some big, good thing like citizenship for DACA. Democrats get something good, they can call it a big win, and they are positioned as the group standing for comprehensive solutions. That is good.
Meanwhile, Trump gets a mess. Another Trump Taj Mahal. All talk and bravado, but a slow, train wreck failure.
 |
| Abortion hypocrisy. |
Does any reader doubt that were Stormy Daniels to have told Trump that she was pregnant with Trump's child that abortion money would be instantly forthcoming? Of course Trump supports abortion.
Americans want the right to choose--for themselves. The issue works because an abortion ban is just out of reach--a symbol, not a reality.
 |
| Politicians wanted the issue, not the reality. |
So, too, with the wall. It is a symbol but a bad reality, so let Trump have it.
It is Trump's prohibition-equivalent. Turn the symbol from an idea representing "security" into an idea representing "Trump boondoggle." Let him fail.
Meanwhile, extract something really good. Win-win.
5 comments:
Walls don't work? Please!
Ask Israel if their wall works. It's cut illegal immigration by 99%.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/
People are coming here by airplane, then over-staying their visas.
Big walls are exacerbating the problem of Latin American entry. People used to come here, work, then go home. Now, once across the border, they feel they need to stay.
This was a crisis 15 years ago. Now it is not. Now it is a political crisis, not an immigration crisis. The problem to solve is on the illegal employment side and asylum issue, not the swim across the Rio Grande problem.
But if you want to agitate for a Wall, please do so. The GOP could have built one, but didn't bother, until they were stymied. Did George W Bush build an impervious wall? Did Trump in his first two years? Does the GOP Congressman who represents that district want a wall? Answers: no.
Given that there are eminent domain fights still going on in the Federal Court system over the Shrubs attempted takeover of private land for a bogus attempt at a wall, Drumpfs chances of a wall actually being built are as ephemeral as his empathy and generosity. I'm agreed, Peter, his stubbornness is just another shiny object to keep his base fired up, and Democrats are falling for it.
The GOP is split into two factions; true conservatives (like Sam Carpenter) who want controlled immigration, and RINOs (like Jessica Gomez who are controlled by the Chamber of Commerce) who want open borders (like the Dems do) because the Chamber wants cheap labor. Unfortunately, the Chamber is well-funded, so they are a powerful force. George Bush is part of the RINO one-world-government crowd who wants open borders and uncontrolled immigration. Bush isn't a true conservative. Even though Trump isn't a true social conservative, he still agrees with conservatives in having controlled immigration, which is why the wall is being pushed. The wall hasn't been built up to now by republicans because the RINOs controlled the house and senate, and they didn't want a wall. They're owned by the Chamber. Now, Paul Ryan (a RINO) is gone, and conservatives are putting the squeeze on Trump to fulfill his campaign promises. The wall is number-one. Trump knows that is he doesn't satisfy his base, then he has no chance for re-election. The senate (like Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell) have finally gotten the message. This is about political survival. Either build the wall, or become politically extinct. If the GOP doesn't deliver now, then conservatives will abandon them in droves. As for Greg Walden, he's a RINO owned by the Chamber, and the only reason he exists is due to his huge war chest. Walden's days are numbered. Conservatives don't like Walden because he's beholden to the Chamber, and he's sold-out conservatives too many times. Walden plays both sides of the fence, and as was said, Walden is weak on border security, and other issues. Walden only got 51% in the last election, not because of Jamie McLeod Skinner, but because conservatives abandoned Walden. The same was true with Jessica Gomez. In the end, the Dems in congress will blink, and Trump will get his wall. That's a good first step. There are other immigration-related issues that need to be dealt with as well.
A shutdown over a wall, self-destructive political calamity over border security, a line in the sand over open borders Democrats are too afraid to openly embrace-- it is painful to watch our fractured party stumble around in the desert. Once $5 billion in lost tax revenues occurs (early next week), the argument that wall funding is wasteful becomes preposterous-- Democrats can't sell fiscal concern in denying Trump $5 billion as the shutdown costs soar far beyond that. Is it not fiscal idiocy to incur a $15 billion loss to avoid paying a $5 billion ransom?
When the fiscal justification evaporates, Democrats will be left with the wall is "immoral" mantra, which only the left fringes believe. It's immoral to have Trump's steel wall but fine to have Pelosi's "technological wall"? I trust Pelosi and Schumer are trying to figure out how to pay the ransom without calling it that. They better find that way out of the shutdown before stressed federal workers and service recipients hang our whole party out to dry.
Post a Comment