“Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,” wrote poet Robert Frost in the opening line of “Mending Walls.”
And on the American left there is something like revulsion at the idea of the “beautiful wall” President Trump intends to build along the 1,900-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico.
The opposition’s arguments are usually rooted in economics or practicality. The wall is unnecessary. It will not stop people from coming illegally. It costs too much.
Yet something deeper is afoot here. The idea of a permanent barrier between our countries goes to the heart of the divide between our two Americas on the most fundamental of questions.
Who are we? What is a nation? What does America stand for?
Those desperate to see the wall built, illegal immigration halted, and those here illegally deported, see the country they grew up in as dying, disappearing, with something strange and foreign taking its place.
It is not only that illegal migrants take jobs from Americans, that they commit crimes, or that so many require subsidized food, welfare, housing, education and health care. It is that they are changing our country. They are changing who we are.
Two decades ago, the Old Right and the neocons engaged in a ferocious debate over what America was and is.
Were we from the beginning a new, unique, separate and identifiable people like the British, French and Germans?
Or was America a new kind of nation, an ideological nation, an invented nation, united by an acceptance of the ideas and ideals of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Dr. King?
The Old Right contended that America existed even before the Revolution, and that this new nation, this new people, wrote its own birth certificate, the Constitution. Before Washington, Madison and Hamilton ever went to Philadelphia, America existed.
What forced the premature birth of the nation–was the Revolution.
We did not become a new nation because we embraced Jefferson‘s notion about all men being “created equal.” We became a new people from our familial break with the Mother Country, described in the declaration as a severing of ties with our “brethren” across the sea who longer deserved our loyalty or love.
The United States came into being in 1789. The Constitution created the government, the state. But the country already existed.
When the Irish came in the mid-19th century to escape the famine and the Germans to escape Bismarck’s Prussia, and the Italians, Jews, Poles, Greeks, Slovaks came to Ellis Island, they were foreigners who became citizens, and then, after a time, Americans.
Not until decades after the Great Migration of 1890-1920, with the common trials of the Depression, World War II and Cold War, were we truly forged again into one united nation and people.
By 1960, almost all of us shared the same heroes and holidays, spoke the same language and cherished the same culture.
What those with memories of that America see happening today is the disintegration of our nation of yesterday. The savagery of our politics, exemplified in the last election, testifies to how Americans are coming to detest one another as much as the Valley Forge generation came to detest the British from whom they broke free.
In 1960, we were a Western Christian country. Ninety percent of our people traced their roots to Europe. Ninety percent bore some connection to the Christian faith. To the tens of millions for whom Trump appeals, what the wall represents is our last chance to preserve that nation and people.
To many on the cosmopolitan left, ethnic or national identity is not only not worth fighting for, it is not even worth preserving. It is a form of atavistic tribalism or racism.
The Trump wall then touches on the great struggle of our age.
Given that 80 percent of all people of color vote Democratic, neither the Trump movement nor the Republican Party can survive the Third Worldization of the United States now written in the cards.
Moreover, with the disintegration of the nation we are seeing, and with talk of the breakup of states like Texas and secession of states like California, how do we survive as one nation and people?
Old Europe never knew mass immigration until the 20th century.
Now, across Europe, center-left and center-right parties are facing massive defections because they are perceived as incapable of coping with the existential threat of the age–the overrunning of the continent from Africa and the Middle East.
President Trump’s wall is a statement to the world: This is our country. We decide who comes here. And we will defend our borders.
The crisis of our time is not that some Americas are saying this, but that so many are too paralyzed to say it, or do not care, or embrace what is happening to their country.
#1: rlk To: nativist nationalist (#0)
That's a novel approach. Let's try it.
rlk posted on 2017-01-26 20:29:00 Reply Private Reply
#2: paraclete To: rlk (#1)
paraclete posted on 2017-01-26 23:26:34 Reply Private Reply
#3: Pericles To: rlk, A Pole, Vicomte13 (#1)
Pericles posted on 2017-01-27 02:02:04 Reply Private Reply
#4: Vicomte13 To: Pericles (#3)
Also Ross Perot.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-27 09:39:46 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: rlk (#1)
I agree. Hey, if it doesn't work we can always tear it down. They did that somewhere, I think.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-27 10:13:34 Reply Private Reply
#6: tpaine To: Y'all (#0)
And Dr. King destroyed that culture by his divisive demands, --- instead of calming fanatics on both sides, he made the situation worse, imho. The 'Old Right' had it right...
tpaine posted on 2017-01-27 21:19:32 Reply Private Reply
#7: rlk To: tpaine (#6)
King was one of the most effective leftist organizers in American history. He said, I don't know how to hold them back. In reality in making this kind of statement he was gathering them behind him as an alternative threat to capitulating to his demands.
rlk posted on 2017-01-27 23:23:30 Reply Private Reply
#8: paraclete To: misterwhite (#5)
Everyone has to have a wall, join the other 65 countries who have one, get in quick before they are all gone
paraclete posted on 2017-01-28 04:08:10 Reply Private Reply
#9: rlk To: Vicomte13 (#4)
Ross Perot was the closest thing we'll ever see to a political God. He had enough brains and money to buy and sell entire continents. He had a sense of proportion to realize he didn't need any more. He was the most serious and honest man we'll ever see in politics. His difficulty was that he demanded respect, not accolades of flattery, but simple respect. He deserved it. His failure was the people in this country's failure. He couldn't deal with spoiled brats.
rlk posted on 2017-01-28 05:27:58 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: rlk (#9)
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-28 10:29:10 Reply Private Reply
#11: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#10)
No. The people who voted for H W Bush did that. H W Bush was clearly a turd. In the election, we had the opportunity to elect Perot, but Republican assholes, the kind whose heads are screwed on with bolts, put party above country and above common sense and voted for the turd instead of voting for Perot.
So Clinton won - and was actually a better president than H W Bush had been or would have been had he been re-elected. .
Republicans who voted for H W Bush were the problem: they should have voted for Perot.
Perot was right. With Trump, Perot's ideas finally won. Unfortunately, thanks to those same Republicans, we had to live through two terms of W first, followed by Obama.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-28 10:33:28 Reply Private Reply
#12: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#11)
Yep. And 19% of the voters took advantage of that opportunity. Just enough to take the election away from Bush -- a favorite to win with an 89% approval rating.
So much a favorite to win that the Democrats couldn't find a serious contender to run against him. The best they had was some unknown named Bill Clinton -- who quickly became famous when Jennifer Flowers came forward.
"Republicans who voted for H W Bush were the problem: they should have voted for Perot."
And all along I thought that the Republicans who voted for Perot were the problem: they should have voted for Bush.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-28 10:55:23 Reply Private Reply
#13: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#12)
Yep, all along you were wrong.
Had there been no Perot, Bush would have won. Good thing there was a Perot. We did not need any more of H W Bush.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-28 11:46:27 Reply Private Reply
#14: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#13)
Yeah. 8 years of Bill Clinton with a possibility of 8 more with Hillary was much better for our country. We were overdue for an impeachment.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-28 12:17:52 Reply Private Reply
#15: rlk To: misterwhite (#10)
The figures didn't say that. Perot didn't take votes from Bush. His strength came primarily from bringing new voters. Bush was a dud who turned his back on the reagan revolution. I know tht will make your day hearing that.
rlk posted on 2017-01-28 13:49:26 Reply Private Reply
#16: misterwhite To: rlk (#15)
True, there was a larger voter turnout in 1992. But Bush received 49 million votes in 1988 and only 40 million in 1992.
Had Bush received the same number, he won have easily won.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-28 14:29:24 Reply Private Reply
#17: Pericles To: rlk, Vicomte13 (#9)
Trump took out the Bush clan. Trump called the Iraq war a lie on live TV at the Republican primary debate in South Carolina. With Senator Graham and I think papa Bush in an audience full of neocons.
Bush resigned from teh race right after SC primar loss. It was a humiliating loss to the neocons in their stronghold.
The neocons are still after Trump.
Also, I want to say I think Trump's victory was a Christian miracle. It is along the same lines as the Israeli miracle of the 6 Day War.
Pericles posted on 2017-01-28 16:08:47 Reply Private Reply
#18: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#14)
8 years of Clinton WAS better than letting H W Bush have power again, yes, absolutely.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-28 18:47:05 Reply Private Reply
#19: rlk To: misterwhite (#16)
In 1988 Bush could run on the Reagan record that people assummed he was a part of and would continue. After getting elected, Bush, who was never more than an affable grinning goof, turned away from Reagan and shit all over himself and there is a tendency by the incompetent establishment to blame Perot.
rlk posted on 2017-01-28 18:47:40 Reply Private Reply
#20: misterwhite To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the U.S. Supreme Court along with 373 other federal judges.
Plus, Clinton revitalized the Community Reinvestment Act, planting the seeds of the mortgage meltdown to follow.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-28 19:10:11 Reply Private Reply
#21: misterwhite To: rlk (#19)
I repeat. He had an 89% approval rating when he ran in 1992.
However, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-28 19:13:02 Reply Private Reply
#22: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#20)
An H W Bush put Souter on the Court. Breyer was easily better than Souther.
H W Bush lied about taxes.
He launched two wars and didn't finish either one of them.
And he left the economy in bad shape.
Clinton left the economy in good shape.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-28 19:19:19 Reply Private Reply
#23: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#21)
Proving that the polls are meaningless.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-28 19:19:55 Reply Private Reply
#24: rlk To: misterwhite (#21)
An 89% approval rating from whom? People with 89% approval ratings do not lose elections to newcomers.
rlk posted on 2017-01-28 19:31:02 Reply Private Reply
#25: misterwhite To: rlk, Vicomte13 (#24)
Bush didn't lose any election to any newcomer. My point was that the newcomer siphoned away just enough votes for Bush to lose to Clinton. Now that may have made Vicomte13 happy, but the rest of us not so much.
misterwhite posted on 2017-01-29 11:52:20 Reply Private Reply
#26: rlk To: misterwhite (#25)
You ought to quit coming here and dedicate your full time to writing fairy stories for kids.
rlk posted on 2017-01-29 12:46:49 Reply Private Reply
#27: Vicomte13 To: misterwhite (#25)
I wasn't happy with Clinton's win. I was sad about Perot's loss. Trump's win is the return of the important, and correct, core ideas of Perot.
Had there been no Perot, I would have stayed home and not voted that day. H W Bush had only two problems: foreign policy and domestic policy. Other than that, everything about him was just tickety-boo.
Yes, I think the country was better off having had 8 years of Bill Clinton than it would have had having 4 more years of H.W.
I didn't think much of Clinton's morals, but I appreciated his willingness to work with the Republican Congress to pass welfare reform, and the excellent economy he left behind.
I also appreciated the fact that he was willing to take advantage of the peace dividend from the fall of the USSR.
But all that's water under the bridge.
Today we have Trump, who is Perot's vindication. So NOW I'm really happy. Wasn't happy with Clinton, or W, or Obama. Wasn't happy with H.W., or Reagan before him, or Carter, or Ford, or Nixon, or LBJ.
JFK was alright. So was Ike.
Truman was too aggressive.
FDR was great.
Before him, they pretty much all sucked all the way back to Lincoln and Andrew Jackson.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-01-29 14:55:44 Reply Private Reply