To Wall or Not to Wall?
The most pressing and controversial issue in our country today is whether to build a 1,954 mile wall along our Southern border. The most pressing issue on the minds of the 800,000 federal workers who are not working or worse, forced to work without a paycheck, is whether this issue will ever be resolved until there is a new President or a new Congress- at least two years away.
As we know all too well, the President will not agree to a budget unless it includes billions for funding his wall. And, the Democrats who control the House of Representatives will not agree to a budget that does include money for a wall. Both sides have literally drawn their lines in the sand and are not budging. This impasse seems more impenetrable than any wall the U.S. can possibly construct.
I am no security expert and am in no position to opine whether a wall is necessary. But the key questions to be answered in connection with this issue seem pretty clear to me: (1) Will the wall meaningfully help solve our nation’s security problems, and (2) Does the exorbitant price tag of a full border wall constitute the best use of our money to promote the country’s security?
The answer to these questions, and nothing else, should drive the outcome: If the answer to these questions is “yes’ the wall should be built. If the answer is “no,” then we should find alternatives that reflect the best “bang for the buck’ in resolving security concerns.
The answers should be derived by the study, analysis and collaboration of qualified and truly independent security experts, who care about doing the right thing for our country over politics. As matters currently stand, it’s all about ego and cajones and the insatiable desire to “win” at all costs. Trump made his political career by promising a wall and he is determined to get one ( perhaps with his name emblazoned on it like everything else he owns) whether this serves a meaningful purpose or is the best way to go or not. The Democrats are so sick of Trump and so determined to ensure that he doesn’t win and get his wall that they refuse to agree to any proposal involving the building of a wall, even if it, or part of it, is a good idea. Neither side can politically be seen to be backing down to the other, while millions of innocent people, and our country as a whole is suffering and at an enhanced risk for food contamination, environmental hazards, airline disasters and the very terrorism that the wall is supposed to protect us from.
So what to do? Is there any conceivable solution to this problem? Here’s my solution:
(1) The President and the Democrats agree to an amount to be spent on border security ( If building a wall is not expressly part of the package I expect that they could come to an agreement on a number as the Democrats appear to agree that there is a need for increased funding for border security). This agreement would give rise to an agreed budget that would open the government and pay federal employees.
(2) The President and Congress would establish a committee of leading independent folks and security experts to determine if a wall or barrier is meaningfully and practically effective, and where, and agree that their collective decision would decide this issue.
Naturally, who would serve on this the committee would be a subject of great debate, as that could influence the outcome. Perhaps Trump would be allowed to appoint someone and the Democrats in Congress would be allowed to appoint someone, but the other members- and the folks who would, in effect, control the decision – would be people with impeccable security credentials, and a proven track record of being independent and putting love of country ahead of political allegiances. I realize that aint easy to find folks like that these days, but there are certainly people like Colin Powell in the security world and even some politicians like Kasich, Bloomberg,etc who might be trusted to do what’s best for the country over what’s best for the party where they vote.
This solution requires some measure of compromise (a dirty word these days) and each side risking that the outcome may not be what they desire. That is undoubtedly problematic given the egos involved, but there is some political cover for both sides with this solution.
The Democrats can claim that they have opened the government without committing in any way to fund the wall. If the experts agree that a wall along the entire border is unnecessary they can claim victory.
It may be a little more difficult for Trump to find cover in this solution, but if he has confidence in the need for the wall, then he should be confident that the majority of independent security experts will agree with him. Indeed, I suspect there is a decent chance that the Committee will conclude that there are some places where a wall or other barrier might be advantageous and other areas where it is not or a complete waste of money. As long as the outcome is that we build some portion of a new wall, Trump can and will claim “victory,” which I suspect is all he really cares about anyway. While one might say that’s not at all what he promised or insisted upon, few people in history can assert victory out of defeat like the PR magic man himself (at least to his base).
Moreover, both sides will look better prospectively for having opened the government and restored to workers their jobs and paychecks, and having prevented further economic chaos. We, the American people, would benefit by having our national parks and important agencies that protect us as citizens opened, and by making sure that the money spent on security is spent as wisely and effectively as possible. As a side benefit, it might even restore a modicum of faith in our system of government showing that it can, in fact, sometimes work and that compromise is not completely dead.
As I finish this, there is coincidentally , and remarkably, word of a tentative agreement reached to re-open the government until February 15. Barring an epiphany in the interim, however, I suspect we will right back where we are in three weeks.
