A modest border proposal

Like our president, I want to build a wall along the border with Mexico. But I don't want to build a wall that separates our peoples, but builds links of friendship across the border. 

- - - - - -

There is a famous play about two men who build a fence between their properties.  They both wanted their children to want to get to know each other, and they figured that the fence would get their kids interested in knowing each other.  It's a famous musical, and one well worth seeing if you get the chance. But I'll be darned if I can remember the name of that play now.

Since this wall is to be built for purposes of friendship, I propose using both Mexican and American children (of various ages, all under adult supervision) to build this wall as play, using Legos as their prime building material.  The wall would be 50 Meters long, by 1.5 Meters high, and 20 Centimeters thick. At the center would be an American hand shaking a Mexican hand in friendship. This wall would be the first wall built to bring people together, and not keep them apart from each other.

- - - - - -

Our current president wants to force Mexico to pay for a wall that its people do not want. He has just suggested that he is thinking of sending our troops South of the border to deal with "Bad Hombres" in Mexico. Is this the way to make friends?  I doubt it. Our Southwest was settled by people of both Anglo and Mexican heritage. And it's about time we stopped being the bully, and treated our next door neighbor with respect.

Something that most people don't realize is that there is already a wall along parts of the USA/Mexico border. It hasn't solved out problems with Mexico, it has only made them worse.  If we were to build Trump's wall along the border, we'd spend at least $25 billion for materials alone - and that doesn't account for the cost of labor.  Is it worth the price?

One might say, what about all those people crossing the border?  We have a right to keep them out. And this is a valid point. But many Mexican illegal aliens are moving back to Mexico for reasons of opportunity. NAFTA has helped Mexico develop, and we no longer have as big a problem with illegal immigrants crossing that border as we once did.  Instead, we're being infiltrated by illegals flying in from overseas, then overstaying their visits. And our President's proposed wall does absolutely nothing to stop them.  Instead, he's making a symbolic gesture which will accomplish little in the long run.

- - - - - -

Another person might focus on drug smuggling and other crimes which involve border crossing.  And to them I say that we should rationalize our laws. Making recreational drugs illegal has only served to act as a price support.  Berkeley Breathed (of "Bloom County" fame) made a point of this when a "hair growth tonic" was made illegal, and h ad Opus say "thanks for the price support". He then made jokes about all the ways drugs could be smuggled in, and showed how stupid many of these laws are.  To me, the only way to beat a narco mafia is to legalize and regulate such substances, killing off the profit margins.

How many people know that the laws against Marijuana were written to deny Mexican Americans their presumed drug of choice?  In the early days of the 20th century, Opiates were banned to deny Asians a recreational drug. And in the 1930's, Marijuana was banned to deny Blacks and Mexicans their fun.  Booze was made the only recreational drug available to the masses after prohibition ended - and we suffer from that decision today.

The Narco Mafia understands that drug bans only serve to increase their profit margins. But they have had a perverse side benefit.  They now take people from South of Mexico, move them through Mexico, and use these people to deliver their drugs into the USA.  They have taken over the "Coyote" trade, and have little interest in delivering people safely across the border to their final destinations. They have found another business where government provides them with price supports.

- - - - - -

If the problem is with the illegal alien, then we must do two things.  First, we must deal with the 12 million illegals already here. And for them, I want one last amnesty using the model established under Reagan's presidency.  But I do not want these people to ever become American citizens. Instead, I want them to be "green card" holders, so that they do not disrupt American politics in my lifetime.  Second, we must prevent new illegals from finding work, making it a criminal offense to hire (or otherwise employ) people who are not citizens or green card holders. And we must mandate the use of technology that would allow an employer to verify that a person has the legal right to work here. (We could also offer a bounty for those who lead the government to a successful prosecution of employers who violate this law.)

Americans need to feel secure.  And Trump's wall only provides an illusion of security. However, true friendship can provide the security we need, as friends can and will look out for each other....

Chaos in the house

From what I understand, our forefathers thought that the Speaker of the House of Representatives would be America's most important political position, and not the office of the President.  However, it is the presidency which has become the most important office - and for good reason. As Harry Truman said: "The Buck Stops Here!"

Lately, no sane man would consider the position of Speaker of the House.  Rep. Boehner resigned, as he felt that he couldn't control the extremists in his party and get them to vote on "must pass" bills needed to keep the government running. He was tired of the responsibilities of the office, and decided to retire instead of destroying himself by staying in the battle. But this left Rep. McCarthy next in line for the office.

There are many reasons why McCarthy should not be Speaker of the House. But I won't go into the ones that many Democrats might bring up.  Instead, I'll trust his judgement that he is not the right man for the job, and speculate that he did not want to take the blame for a likely government shutdown (which would likely happen by the time this entry is made public). He's smart enough to know that the same angry people who are propelling Trump's candidacy are also the same people who no longer trust political insiders to do anything to address their concerns.  They feel they have nothing to gain by keeping the present elite in charge, so they are willing to collapse the system to make their voices heard.

But what does this mean for our "democracy"?  

If the House was designed as a place where the people could vent their feelings, and the Senate was a place to prevent short term feelings from mucking up the system, then what happens when the legislative branch is dominated by a party which is unable to govern? To me, this forces a president (most likely from the opposing party) to govern by edict and by novel interpretations of existing law.  This is very dangerous, as power keeps shifting from the legislative branch to the executive branch - and this power is subject to fewer checks and balances as time goes on.

Eventually, one party will control the two elected branches of government.  And if the party is as dysfunctional as today's GOP, then I have serious concerns. The angry mob that is disrupting the functions of the House could gain control of the executive branch - and that could be the end of the republic.

Why such a concern?

Let's take an inflammatory issue such as abortion.  Many scholars thought that Roe vs. Wade was a horrible decision - not because of which side won, but because it forced society to adapt too quickly to change.  Later rulings have softened the blow, and have rolled things back a bit.  But they (SCOTUS) have always relied on judicial precedent to guide them in new rulings.  What would happen if a new, replacement elite were to ignore precedents? The loss of abortion rights in themselves might not be that onerous. But could you imagine possible government intrusion in a woman's reproduction to make sure that all fetuses are tracked and accounted for?  

Long term government policies that cross administrations could also be overturned at a whim.  Could you imagine the lunacy of a rapid rapprochement with North Korea?  Heck, Cuba and Iran have never been as much trouble to the US as the DPRK has been, and yet they get all the press these days because of a slow and careful movement towards normalization with these countries.  Would we kill NAFTA without serious thought? Possibly. But this is why our government was designed to implement change slowly - so that we don't make the mistakes often made when the voice of the mob drowns out the voice of reason.

But what role should an elite play?

This question has been central to American polity since the days of Jefferson and Hamilton. As for me, like Hamilton, I believe that there is a natural elite that tends to form in any society. But like Jefferson, I also believe that to be free, "the tree of liberty must occasionally be watered with the blood of tyrants."  America has been a stable republic because its design provides for a greater tolerance of instability in the system.  I only hope that the design keeps working - and I'm not too sure of this any longer....