So I'm channel-surfing newscasts about how the government may shut down in less than three hours unless Trump gets money for his wall. Folks on Trump's side keep arguing, "He was elected because he promised the American people this wall so he has to deliver." No one is pointing out that (a) he did not get elected by a majority of the American people or even the ones who voted in that election, nor are they noting (b) that what he promised was a free wall, one that Mexico would pay for. If you ask me if I want a free Ferrari 488 Pista, I'm going to say yes. If you tell me I've got to come up with a quarter of a million bucks for it, maybe I'm not as interested.
And as I recall, there were a lot of people — some of them, experts; some not — who were all for cracking down on illegal immigration but thought the "wall" thing was a waste of resources. There were better, wiser ways to do it. I don't know if they're right but where are they in this debate? The mud-wrestling before us seems to be about whether one sides with Trump about cracking down on Mexicans coming across our southern border or not. I see no discussion about whether this is the best way to achieve that…or even if the problem really is as outta-control as the "Build the wall!" people keep insisting. There's another point-of-view on that.
What bothers me about this kind of battle is that it stops being about what it's about. It becomes almost wholly about who gets the "win." Trump needs one badly. His opponents who think they have him on the ropes want to deny it to him. It sure doesn't feel to me like either side is being driven primarily by the question of what's better for the U.S. on this issue.
And the other thing that seems to be going unsaid on my TV this evening is this question: A G.O.P. Congressperson was just saying that we have to build The Wall because Trump promised it. I was hoping someone would say, "Trump also promised that there would be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, no one would lose their health insurance, those who didn't have it would get it at affordable rates including those with pre-existing conditions and under him, health insurance would be less expensive and more efficient. Shouldn't he be delivering on that, too?"