Posts Tagged ‘Trump’s wall’

WE ARE ALL MEXICO

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump boasted that Mexico would pay for a wall on our southwestern border. His frenzied supporters cheered. What they failed to realize is that the wall would be paid for by them.

In a way, Trump may have been right. Today, we are all Mexicoakin to the millions around the world who declared, “We are all Charlie Hebdo after the January 2015 Islamist killing of 12 people at that French magazine’s Paris offices.

Most Americans support the Mexican people’s desire for a nation free of ignorance, hatred and corruption, all of which threaten our own democracy. Many American citizens—yes, citizens—have roots in Mexico. Many more vacation in or retire there. At home, we eat Mexican food, drink Mexican beer and tequila, and even learn Spanish.   

Of course, the Republic of Mexico refused to pay for however-many miles of wall—or barrier. So our beleaguered president declared a state of emergency. 

As things stand, funding will be pulled from the Department of Defense. Not every American believes that our defense budget needs to be as high as it is, but we all believe that defense is important. Also that our military personnel must be well cared for—from training to deployment to homecoming. If Mr. Trump, an advocate of increased military spending, pulls away $3 billion or more, who gets hurt? Not the members of his golf club, Mar-a-Lago.

Suits already have been filed. Today, House Democrats introduced a resolution—to be voted on Tuesday—to overturn Trump’s trumped-up state of emergency. Ultimately, the courts will rule. One sure bet: If they find for Trump, Americans will pick up the tab.

While legal issues remain up in the air, the facts should ground American opinion regarding what constitutes a national emergency. Trump points to illegal drugs. But the FBI, DEA and other law-enforcement agencies state that the vast majority of drugs from Mexico—85 percent and up—arrive at ports of entry. On January 31, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced the largest-ever seizure of Fentanyl—245 pounds—at the border crossing in Nogales, Mexico. 

Barriers can be partof the solution to illegal immigration and drugs. But Trump continues to put the cart before the horse, offering a symbolic sop to his anti-brown base without assessing the reports and statistics government experts present to him. Why? Trump prefers making decisions based on his gut, which translates to obtaining daily approval from Fox News. 

Where does the public stand? A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll reported that 36 percent of Americans favor building a wall, 61 percentoppose.

What lies ahead? NPR reported last Tuesday that 90 percent of the Trump base supports the wall. That leaves 10 percent against. Given the closeness of the 2016 presidential election—Trump lost the popular vote by three million—and the upcoming report on Russian interference in that election from Special Commissioner Robert Mueller—a chipped base can hurt Trump badly. 

Come 2020—if Trump remains president and runs for re-election—American voters will likely declare, “We are all Mexico.” They will refuse to pay for Trump’s wall and what it stands for, as well as his Oval Office salary.  

To respond, click on “comments” to the right just below the title of this post. Then go to the response space at the bottom of the post.

GAS PUMPS AND IMMIGRATION

Gridlock in Washington reflects Republicans and Democrats—and many Americans—refusing to listen to each other. It takes active listening to bridge gaps. Many years ago, an old friend revealed a great example.

Sam Smidt was a brilliant graphic designer in Palo Alto with whom I worked early in my freelance career. He told me a story that always stuck with me and should be the subject of a mandatory class for anyone holding political office.

Sam once was designing the gas pumps for Chevron. A major oil company’s gas pumps represent a corporation’s brand. The client, not satisfied, asked Sam to make the logo bigger. Sam complied. The client wanted the logo even bigger. Sam did that. The client remained unhappy. Then the answer occurred to Sam. “You want the logo to be more prominent,” he said. “Yes!” the client answered, realizing that size and prominence don’t necessarily equate. Sam shifted some design elements without supersizing the logo, and the client was delighted.

Often, people get bogged down in specifics without communicating what they really want. This leads to wasted time and energy, and often to antagonism. It doesn’t have to be that way.

In a New York Times interview on Wednesday, columnist Frank Bruni interviewed two Democrats—former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and strategist Joe Trippi. Both agreed that Democrats’ chances in the 2018 Congressional elections hinge on standing for something rather than Trump bashing. Patrick hit it on the nose: “What matters most is that we agree on and fight for the ends, not so much the means. For example, we want every man, woman and child to have access to quality, affordable health care. There’s more than one way to skin that cat, and we should be open to debating all those ways.”

I imagine that Gov. Patrick is willing to listen to Republicans. Would they return the favor?

As with all major issues, politicians—and many voters—too often demand specific solutions rather than define outcomes. This parallels the Chevron executive, who ultimately realized that increasing the size of his logo wasn’t the key to meeting his objective.

Immigration poses this same challenge. Donald Trump wants a wall. It’s “wall or nothing.” But does a wall represent a “bigger logo?” Ultimately, several key questions concern the nation. Should we take in immigrants? Most people would say yes. Should we control immigration? Again, most people would say yes; the numbers and sources appropriate to a separate discussion. What are our immigration needs? What do we expect immigrants to contribute to the nation? And if we make new laws, are we willing to uphold them while finding humane solutions to tricky problems?

Start there, and Americans could find a measure of common ground.

There’s lots to discuss, and no black-and-white approach—pun intended—will serve us well. But rather than demanding the means—a wall or blanket amnesty—let’s discuss the ends. How can immigration strengthen the United States in the next quarter-century and beyond?

If Americans start expressing their vision and listening to each other, we may find our views far closer than we imagined. Then we can forego pumping up the volume and discuss, rather than argue, the practical means to achieve our objectives.

To respond, click on “comments” to the right just below the title of this post. Then go to the response space at the bottom of the post.