Arguing about Trump’s border wall – the perfect metaphor for why politics suck.

We get so caught up in arguments of political policy. But are people really arguing about the same things? Agree or disagree with Trump’s policies on immigration, his border wall is the perfect example of how the quibbling and arguing will never end in a democracy, and why that’s probably a good thing.

So breathe a little, and let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

According to an article published on October 10th, 2018, by CNN.com, “House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy plans to introduce legislation this week that will fully fund President Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the US-Mexico border with a whopping $23.4 billion price tag…”

Had you forgotten about the wall? Amidst partisan fights over supreme court nominations and op-ed pieces by the New York Times? Yeah, me too.

But Trump’s border wall is not only still here, it’s one of the first and most controversial parts of his presidential campaign platform and goals as President. And with new legislation being proposed, it might be happening faster than you think.

It’s ALSO the perfect metaphor for the inherent difficulty in making policy decisions, on whichever side of the political spectrum you reside. 

Beware: this article is NOT about Trump’s wall. There are lots of those.  

But, if you’re interested in why politics can make you so damned mad and what, perhaps, to do about it… then READ ON. 

To illustrate this fundamental dilemma of human government, I’m going to ask you to imagine:

Imagine two little towns, a thousand years ago, situated about 100 miles apart. These towns know very little about each other, other than that the town to the west, 6 months ago, attacked the town to the east, in order to steal resources (let’s say cattle). 

Ok, two more key facts: 

A) The town to the west is now perceived as a threat by the town to the east. 

B) The town to the east is ruled by democracy – aka the decisions to make use of town resources (the time and sweat that all town citizens must contribute toward building town STUFF) are made using popular vote. Should we fix some neglected road? Let’s vote on it. If the vote passes, each member of the town must help in the construction efforts until the road is repaired to an agreed-upon amount. 

So, now we have a town that is afraid of its neighbor to the west. At a town hall meeting someone suggests they build a wall to protect the town. There’s lots of murmuring in agreement. How tall should the wall be? Hmm – twice as tall as a man? (Insert Braveheart joke here). 

And where should the wall be built? Will every last citizen of the town (even those living a more hermit-like existence on the outskirts) be included within the radius of this circular wall? 

Let’s say all of this is discussed and some sort of compromise is reached in the proposed plan: a wall that is 1.5x the height of a man and which includes 90% of the town’s populace. 

A vote is taken. The wall plan is passed. Over the next 2 months, all the town residents (including the 10% who aren’t protected by the wall), are compelled, by the law enforcement of the town, to contribute some percentage of their daily hours toward building the wall. 

And 2 months later, the wall is finished. 

“Those pesky neighbors to the west won’t be taking our cattle again!” says one townswoman as the last wall-brick is placed and the gathered crowd cheers. 

The town feels safe again. 

But months pass, and one day a visitor – a passing merchant – is overheard in the local tavern, talking about some of the items he saw the town to the west making. 

“They’re making ladders – tall ones – at least twice as tall as a man,” says the merchant. People look around, unsettled, as the news sinks in. 

Within two days, everyone in the town is gossiping about the ladder production of the town to the west. What could ladders mean about the effectiveness of their beloved town wall? 

Another town meeting is held. 

“With ladders like that, they’ll be able to get over our wall, easily!” yells one woman.

“Maybe they’re just making ladders to sell to other towns?” argues one man. “You know, for improved fire brigades.”  

“We should build the wall higher,” says a third. 

This last comment silences the crowd, as each thinks of how much time and effort they’d already put in over the last few months, and how much more it’d take to build the wall higher. They think of their own crops, their own businesses, their own children’s education – and how those things had suffered, to some extent, given the amount of time they’d each spent in building the wall. 

They also think about how many cattle they lost (and how much blood was shed) the last time those Westerners attacked.

“But they haven’t attacked us since,” says a man. “Isn’t that proof that our wall works?”

“Do they even know about our wall?” says his brother. 

And so the town finds itself in a dilemma: to forcibly allocate more of the town’s resources toward the expansion of the wall, or not, when even the town elders don’t know if it will do the trick. 

Sound familiar? 

Fast forward to present day.

Every time we’re taxed, as a citizenry, we’re agreeing to hand over a portion of our time (the time we spend working) to programs that are supposed to do what?

Ultimately, improve the quality of life of the citizens of this country. 

But “improve” is a nebulous term. 

“Improve” might mean any number of things, and so there are programs which are designed to provide any number of “life improving” benefits to our citizens: better access to health care (so that we live longer, healthier lives), strengthened fire and police forces (so that disasters – accidental or because of malfeasance – can be averted or mitigated), improved school systems (so that the next generations can learn and compete in a global economy, and live fruitful, productive lives). 

But how much of any of these services is enough? Someone who cares about feeling safe (a little old lady, for example), might want to spend more money on fire and police and the military than the big burly man who feels that he can hold his own, protect his own land, but recognizes that his children need better education than he can provide. 

And so we’re stuck in this system. Is it the worst? Far from it. It allows people a way to compromise on how and where and when their individual resources are taken from them and reallocated for the “betterment” of the country in which we live. 

But damnit if it’s not full of errors, and incomplete information, and people with their own agendas, and corruption, and… most importantly this:

A) Our collective inability to know if the plans we put in place will “work” – aka, will they even be effective in accomplishing the goals as we define them to be? Ultimately, only TIME will tell, and even then what may be good for us in five years, might turn out to be a major malefactor in twenty. And…

B) Our collective inability to agree on what words like “better” and “improve” even mean. “Make America Great Again?” That means something different to everyone. And therein lies the problem. Even if 100% of the people rallied behind that slogan, each and every one of the American citizens would have a slightly different idea of what “great” means. 

I know, I know – each candidate has their “platform.” But come on, people – when a candidate says “fix the economy” – what does that really mean? Are you certain that your version of “fix” is the same as anyone else’s, even people within your own party? 

We all KNOW THIS DEEP DOWN. And it’s what makes us mad, makes us zealous, makes us so desirous to be convincing. As Robert Pirsig  (author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) wrote:

“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”

By this point you may be depressed, or exasperated, or you may have stopped reading. But if you’re still here, let me say this:

This, our system of government, it has its problems. It always will. But perhaps we can do a couple of little things to “improve” our collective experience as we live in this country (especially with elections coming up). 

1) Let’s expect our politicians to define terms a little more. Healthcare, for example. 

Don’t get so excited when someone says “I’m going to fix the problem of the high cost of healthcare” and immediately feel like you’re morally superior to anyone who may not jump at the idea. 

Do some research, and expect politicians to provide data too. What are the real factors that drive up the cost of healthcare? How is our country different / similar to other countries that have different forms of healthcare that may seem more enticing than our own? What do you mean by “fix”? What cost of healthcare is acceptable to you? Is that what your politician is saying? 

This is just one example, but who could argue with demanding a little more accountability, on the part of our politicians (and of ourselves), to provide clear, measurable goals. Then we can evaluate our effectiveness on how close we came to accomplishing these goals.

And perhaps, more importantly: 

2) Let’s remember that we don’t have complete information, and neither do our politicians. Even if they succeed at accomplishing the goals toward which they set out, NOT ONE OF US TRULY KNOWS if that objective goal will actually “improve” the life experiences that we, as citizens of this country, are having.

And what if we become blissful, but at the expense of everyone else in the world (like the 10% of the people outside the walls our our little imaginary town in the east)? 

All this to say, this – our representative democracy – is a great experiment. It’s a game – yes, a game with very real consequences – but a game, nonetheless. And no one has all the answers. 

What I’m tired of is people who think they do. Who get so mad at others with whom they disagree. Who rage and belittle and attack (and kill) other people who think differently. Not one of us truly knows the long-term effects of any given policy. You may have some pretty well-thought-out ideas… and great, I sincerely applaud you. 

Argue for those ideas, but remember that how you treat the person next to you, your friends, your lover, your parents, your children, the man you meet in line at the grocery store… how you treat those people might have just as influential an effect on that person’s life as a few extra dollars in their pocket at the end of the day, or a road with less potholes, or a taller wall. 

Take a moment. Tell us what you think in the comments below. And if you like this article, please consider sharing on your social media. I mean, in the end, We’re really asking for more civil discussion, and less hatred – whichever side you’re on. Can you really argue with that? 

~ Cecil

UPDATE: I’m now a full-time recording artist out of Nashville, TN (Cecil Charles). I’m supporting myself (and releasing one, studio quality song per month for 2019 and, well, as far into the future as I can see), by generous listeners and readers like you.

It’s melodic pop, full and rich and filled with harmonies and layers of sound. Sometimes folky, sometimes funky, and I think you might enjoy. Listen below!

Then check out my Patreon page – a simple $5 pledge gets you free downloads of each monthly song, as well as exclusive content (song ideas I’m working on, updates on shows, news from traveling, and more). It allows me to take you along on this journey I’m on, as a full-time recording artist and essayist. Every little bit helps, so thank you in advance for your consideration! 

[instagram-feed id=”8672443920″]