Political Bridge Burning
For the past few posts, our focus has been on the southern border with Mexico. You may think that the kerfuffle is all about border security, but that interpretation doesn't hold up very well. Both President Trump and the opposition publicly agree that enhanced border security is important and would be a worthy outcome. So, what is the issue? Is it the cost? Probably not. Both sides agree that appropriating funds for enhanced border security is necessary. Yes, they are apart on how much funding, but the difference is only thirty seconds or so of the total cost of operating the Federal government. That doesn't seem like enough difference to justify major disruption in the lives of nearly a million Federal workers and related non-government employment, along with the disruption in government services and responsibilities. The negative effect of the stalemate is just too far out of proportion to the funding gap. In months past, President Trump proclaimed that the cost was neither an issue nor going to be an issue. Mexico would be paying for the needed enhanced security. Now, that pipedream has faded, and both sides agree that it will be paid for by our Federal government. Even so, the cost is not the cause of the kerfuffle. Both sides appear to be digging in over a wall versus no wall. It also seems unlikely that this is at the heart of the impasse. The two-thousand-mile border, (the distance from Chicago to Los Angeles,) likely needs a wall or at least a better fence along some stretches but building a wall that stretches uninterrupted from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico is likely not even possible. At least part of it would need to be secured with electronic detection and drones. Even were it possible, building the wall would probably take many years. It would not enhance security much for quite some time. President Trump is saying that he will close the border with Mexico if he doesn't get funding for his wall. It's not at all clear what that would accomplish. It would prevent legal entry across that border but wouldn't do much to stop illegal entry. Whatever the current security risk is that requires enhanced security would not be appreciably reduced by closing the border. It would definitely harm the law-abiding adults and children who hope to enter the United States but would do little to stop the illegal influx of criminals and hooligans. Perhaps most people think the politicians should sit down together and work out a deal. There is probably a reasonable compromise in there somewhere between all wall and no wall. There is likely a solution that is both practical and possible. The political bridge burning is a serious escalation of the King-of-the-Hill game the politicians are playing with the lives and futures of far too many innocent people on both sides of the border. There is some advice about bridge burning that both President Trump and the opposition would do well to seriously take to heart. Jonathan Kozol advised, "Pick battles big enough to matter, small enough to win." In the realm of life's little lessons, this seems axiomatic. The problem is that many of the battles that are big enough to matter aren't small enough to win; and those that are small enough to win tend not to matter. The challenge is in knowing when to fight and when to walk away. Kozol's advice is to fight if the outcome matters and you can win, otherwise walk away. Although this is certainly a practical approach to self-preservation, it's also a clear cop out. There are battles that matter way too much to avoid, even though winning is far from certain. The more important lesson may be in David Russell's observation, "The hardest thing to learn in life is which bridge to cross and which to burn." Life is full of conflicts and tensions, battles large and small, bridges to cross and bridges to burn. Life is a journey; and usually, when it isn't working out, you can change direction, back up and start again,