Extremist apologist Hugh Hewitt thinks the pundit class is all wet when it comes to the threatened government shutdown and who will come out smelling like a rose – and perhaps he’s right.
A contrarian view is anchored by Gov. Doug Ducey’s (R-Ariz.) galloping victory in his reelection bid last month. Ducey talked about border security almost every day during his romp in “purple” Arizona. Not about illegal immigration, but always about border security and about keeping Americans safe from drugs, cartels and human trafficking.
Because more than 70,000 Americans died from overdoses in 2017, millions of people have at least brushed up against fentanyl or other opioids, and have often been terribly scarred by it. Some may know most of these killer drugs come via the mail, but they also know it flows like a vast river northward from the Mexican state of Sinaloa, and with it mayhem and death. Border security isn’t about the “dreamers” or hard-working undocumented people living for decades in the United States. It’s about security. And Trump has declared he is for this security, is willing to engage in budget brinkmanship to obtain it, and is staking the first confrontation in a two-year battle with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on it.
WaPo
Certainly, this is a key worry for American communities. Still, I have my doubts as to Hewitt’s wisdom in the matter.
- Apologist. I said apologist for a reason. Hewitt wants to push the acquisition of two red state Senate seats as a resounding victory, while the truth of the matter is that the Democrats had far more on the line than did the Republicans in the Senate. Nor is the flipping of 40 or more House seats to the Democratic side of the aisle any small matter. I delved into this acute intellectual error more here. Further, the denial of the border wall has not been a matter of the Democrats refusing to cooperate, but of the entire GOP-dominated Congress, meaning even Trump’s allies see through this campaign promise as useless – but Hewitt elides the point. Why does all this matter? Because it tells the careful reader that this is a head feint, and the balance of his reasoning needs careful assessment.
- Transport. From what little research I could do (kidney stones surgery yesterday, I’m a little shaky), it does appear that illegal fentanyl mostly comes in from abroad, although some is manufactured domestically. However, even if the entire supply is coming in over the southern border, which seems unlikely in view of the report that Canada is experiencing similar problems and believes the drugs are coming in through West Coast Asian crime syndicates, it’s important to understand that drugs are easy to transport, and we have so many ports of entry, not to mention lightly guarded coast lines, that building a border wall will have little effect on the supply. Remember the drug submarines used by the Mexican drug cartels? They’ll just build and use those. And if Russia or China were to choose the back the drug suppliers? That’s not unprecedented, see the Opium Wars of the 1800s.
- Supply. Hewitt’s argument is that the supply of illegal drugs is the problem. Few economists will find this a reasonable argument, because the true driver is the demand. Demand, demand, demand, repeat it over and over and you soon realize that fentanyl is not the problem, it’s a symptom of a deeper malaise in our society. Whether it’s the inevitable stress of a society transitioning from the arbitrary strictures of divinities to reasoned debate concerning ethics, morality, and law, or the stress caused by manufacturing moving overseas, or the stress of a populace that often does not push itself intellectually and now finds itself in an international competition where intellect is the key to success, it needs to be explored. It may not be a resolvable matter, as sad as that makes me, but it’s important to realize that cutting supply does not eliminate the problem. It’ll be like squeezing an unpoppable balloon, the symptom will just reappear in some other form. The core problem, singular or plural, needs to be identified and, if possible, addressed.
- Trump’s Reputation. Trump’s poll numbers have reflected the lack of respect that most Americans have for the President (latest Gallup has approval at 40%, disapproval at 56%, and I view Gallup as fairly conservative). The fact of the matter is that Trump spews lies, boasts, and misleading statements at a truly astounding rate, as documented by many fact-checkers. Certainly, some portion of that 40% is made up of the Trump cultists, and they will swallow anything Trump wishes to claim concerning a government shutdown. Trump is playing to his base with this gamesmanship, and they’ll be four-square behind him. But will anyone else? More and more, Americans have learned to distrust their President to provide anything resembling leadership. From the lack of substantial response to the Khashoggi outrage to tariff wars, they’re realizing that Trump is not driven by an urge to make the country better – but to enrich himself.
So how should Democrats play this? I think they could use the above as the kernel of a game plan. Emphasize the problem is not supply, but demand, and suggest that we need to explore why so many people are numbing themselves to their lives. Make this a mental health problem, not a drug problem.
And then use the phrase The Trump Boondoggle to fix in folks’ minds that this is a waste of taxpayer’s money.
