A Bridge Over Troubled Walls, Sir

 Are not “We the People” obligated to hold our elected representatives accountable for their words, their deeds, and their conduct, especially while they’re in office? How did we get to the point where shutting down the government was ever a viable option? Who is the winner in this myopic process? Although I’m not sure about the answer to this question, if you look at the fall-out from our last shutdown, I think we know who loses. “We the People”

This tactic is destructive in its implementation, in its intent and most overall, in its effectiveness. Normally, when this ploy is enacted, there often is no exit plan or results analysis. It is often used as a tool to grandstand, usually helping an overbearing politician be more obnoxious and somewhat oblivious to the ill effects that this scurrilous tactic has on the people it is foisted upon. As I contemplate these tactics, at this very moment we have competing interests in Texas stating the reasons why or why not a wall should be built along the countries border. This is America at its finest! This is what are forefather’s envisioned. They encouraged us to take our issues to the streets, staking our claims cogently, rationally, competently and non-violently. The problem happens when the results of these public demonstrations and public policy positions are not accepted or not recognized as a consensus. Thus, government shutdowns.

Our government, in theory, does not select winners or losers. Our form of government promotes consensus and compromise, not intolerance and foreboding. The objective of government is to solve problems, not to create them. The issue behind a potential second closing of our government is a reasonable issue. Border security is a topic that all Americans should be and probably are concerned about. Do we have adequate border security now? The data suggests that we indeed we do have a sufficient level of border security. Of course, there can be improvements to enhance border control but for the most part illegal crossings, along with deportations, have decreased and increased respectively.

So, the question remains; what is the objective of this policy? What is the policy? In order to properly correct a situation don’t you need to know what the real problem is? My contention is that the problem has yet to be sufficiently identified. Until we identify what the real issue is, we will never come up with an adequate set of recommendations that will remedy the situation. 

Will a wall alone enhance border security? I think the assumption would be probably not. So again, we must ask ourselves if a wall is a necessary part of border security. I’m sure to that point, the assumption would probably be yes. If so, then we must ask ourselves, what kind of wall? How long will it take to build this wall? What will be the dimensions of this wall? What is the objective of the wall? What does this policy have to do with the 1.2 million government workers or more that this will affect? What will be the unintended consequences of this wall being built or another government shutdown?

The irony of this situation can be found in the famous words of Ronald Reagan in his haunting demand to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!” May those sentiments ring loud and strong and not be hidden in light of the extremism of building a wall around a country that embodies the eternal aspirations inscribed upon our beloved Statue of Liberty to bring us your tired, huddles masses, yearning to be free… all in all it’s just another BRICK IN THE WALL!

—

Jacque