Podcast: Play in new window | Download (10.0MB)
It’s pretty clear that the partial Federal government shut-down is not actually about funding. It seems most unlikely that either side would take such drastic action over thirty seconds of government funding. The sticking point is most likely only about the type of enhanced barrier to be put in place. This despite the reality that there is no assurance that either President Trumps wall or the opposition’s electronics and drones will totally fortify the border. Either will likely reduce the number of criminals and hoodlums illegally crossing the border but neither will completely stop their passage.
Let’s consider this. It seems quite unlikely that either President Trump or the opposition are experts on border security. They both want good border security but thinking that they know how to best achieve it is unrealistic. Alternatively, there are certainly people who are experts. Those experts are the best source of advice and guidance. It does not seem unreasonable to assume that they would recommend some mix of security measures along the two-thousand-mile border. It is fair to conclude that neither a wall nor advanced technology alone is the best solution, and neither will completely stop the influx of criminals and hooligans.
Here is what may be the surprising conclusion. The federal government is not partially shut-down over either the cost of enhanced security or over the type of security needed. It is partially shut-down over both sides digging in and holding their ground by insisting that it is either their way or no way. There isn’t a way for both sides to save face. The negotiation has reduced to a zero-sum game. It’s like a childish game of King-of-the-hill. It’s all about the conflict.
Robert Lynd said, “No doubt there are other important things in life besides conflict, but there are not many other things so inevitably interesting. The very saints interest us most when we think of them as engaged in a conflict with the Devil.” Conflict can certainly be interesting either as a participant or as an observer; but “the game” and its relationship to “virtue” may be even more interesting.
The game must first offer real and present, win/lose possibilities. If it doesn’t, the virtue passes out of you. More to the point, an immediate possibility of losing is the key to virtue. Here, “virtue” is doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong.
The virtuous person pursues winning while doing only what is right. “Conflict” is then not the tension between winning and losing. Rather, it’s the responsibility of “right” versus the risk of “wrong.” The truly fatal risk is not losing. It’s succumbing to the temptation to sacrifice one’s virtue on the altar of success.
It’s tempting to put forth a few moral pronouncements about right and wrong but it’s your call. The take home point is simply that if you are a virtuous person, you know what’s right and understand what’s wrong. “The game” for you is doing what’s right and avoiding what’s wrong, while playing to win, every time. To do otherwise is to let the virtue pass out of you.
I fear that the virtue has passed out of our political leaders, if there was much virtue there to start with. They have passed on doing what is right and chosen what is clearly wrong. Partially shutting-down the Federal government was clearly wrong. Keeping it shut-down over who gets to be King is even more clearly wrong. This is especially true since the impasse results in no enhanced border security and harm to more and more people as time passes. The impasse is also making our country look increasingly foolish on the world stage.
Perhaps both sides could agree to appropriate thirty seconds of funding for Homeland Security or another appropriate Federal agency to enhance border security however they think will be most effective. Those who protect our southern border have been doing rather well for a very long time with inadequate funding. It is likely that they would do even better if their funding is more in line with the real cost of security. I don’t think our politicians ought to be telling our medical experts how to treat invasive cancer and am equally sure that they should not be telling our security experts how to secure our borders.