What to do About the Border, An Option.

 

               Ask almost anyone and they will tell you that our Southern Border is out of control. In fact, a bipartisan group in the U.S. Senate hammered out bill to address border issues. After weeks of negotiations and labor, they presented the bill only to have it torpedoed by Candidate Trump. His negative response to the bill led his party to reject it out of hand, further exacerbating the problems on the border. Every president in my political memory, which goes back to Nixon, has asked for a comprehensive overhaul to our border and immigration policy. Congress has steadfastly refused to seriously address the issue. They have given a variety of minor adjustments and tweaks to the system; but, have not provided a serious body of legislation to address the issues surrounding our border. I believe that with a little creative legislation we can leverage the border issue towards the best interests of our nation.

               Our national population trends towards slipping below replacement level. If things continue along current trendlines, in a few years we will join many of the developed countries and find our population shrinking. There is no conspirital cause. As nations become more industrial and wealthier, families no longer feel the need to have large numbers of children. Even farming families no longer need to have many hands to do the work. As our farmers have become more efficient, the number of acres needed to support a family has grown. Many, if not most, farmers do not own enough land to leave multiple children enough to run a profitable farm. Much of what drives the shrinking of small agricultural towns in America stems from our agricultural efficiency. As we develop greater agricultural efficiency, it takes more land to support a family. As we witness a shrinking of small farming communities, we also witness a shrinking of the labor pool.

               Today, many sectors of our economy struggle to find enough workers. Our declining birth rate will only exacerbate this problem. While some, especially gray-beards like myself, like to blame lazy youth, the truth is that a shrinking labor force enables workers to be more choosey in what they consider acceptable work. We see a workforce that is more able to demand and get better wages and more generous benefit packages, and I believe that is a good thing. We all should want to see a workforce that is well recompensed for their labor. Wage earners should be able to secure their livelihood by working one job for forty hours a week. This would leave them enough time to build a decent life for their families. But who will fill these jobs?

               The United States has built our world-class economy using several waves of immigrants. At various times in our history, waves of men and women have arrived on our shores, eager to carve out a future in our country. The Irish, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, Africans (non-slaves), Northern Europeans, Spanish and other Hispanics, and Anglos, just to name a few, have sought to better their circumstances by immigrating to our nation. Their sweat and labor have built our industries, railroads, cities, and cultivated our prairies. We are a nation of immigrants. These successive waves have invigorated our national tapestry and enriched our culture as well as our bank accounts. Sadly, previous waves have generally viewed contemporary waves with suspicion and disdain. Each generation has had its own version of “Irish Need Not Apply;” however, that has not stopped those who long for a chance at the “American Dream.” And this is where our border situation comes into play.

               Instead of seeking to close the door, why not open it further? Various studies and statistics show that most immigrants use far less in governmental aid than they pay in taxes, especially those who are undocumented. The mass of people seeking to cross our border also seek work. If they were fundamentally lazy, they would not undertake the dangerous, arduous, and expensive journey to get to the border. Those who do manage to slip into our nation immediately seek employment, willingly accepting the lowest paying most menial jobs available. As non-English speaking individuals, these are the only jobs truly available. When I taught school, none of my students aspired to menial labor: such as roofing, picking vegetables, or pouring asphalt. Yet, we desperately need to fill these jobs. When my roof needed replacement, I did not care what language the workers spoke. I wanted a high-quality new roof. So why, in a time when so many jobs go unfilled, do we turn our back on a willing labor force?

               Some will say that nerdowells and other miscreants fill the ranks of these hopeful immigrants. While some criminals and criminal organizations seek access to the United States to engage in nefarious activities, the vast majority of immigrants, documented or undocumented, seek to work. They take the worst jobs, keep their head down, and work hard to carve out their piece of the American pie. They labor, pay their taxes, and careflly seek to avoid any contact with the government.

               Others will make the claim that these people make the journey to our country to tap into supposedly generous welfare programs. Despite these claims, research shows that immigrants, documented or otherwise, use far fewer welfare resources than nonimmigrants…those of us who’ve been here for a generation or so. If they are motivated enough to make the arduous, and dangerous, journey, they usually seek out some employment to gain the better life they dream of. (See links below) 

               So, I would say, we ought to increase the number of immigrants we let into our country. They bring fresh energy and vitality to our culture. They willingly work those jobs most of us would not want to fill. They are value added. Letting them in with a short path to full citizenship seems to make good sense to me. I remember standing in the rotunda of the Al-Faw palace in Baghdad, watching several hundred young men and women take the oath of citizenship. My heart swelled with pride at the great display of patriotism and sacrifice displayed by my fellow comrades in arms. In a like manner, when I was a company commander, one of the proudest moments I had was being invited to the citizenship swearing in ceremony for one of my young soldiers. He and his wife made the long journey from a foreign shore to citizenship. Though I do not know the end of their story, they are value added.

1.      https://www.cato.org/immigration-research-policy-brief/immigration-welfare-state-immigrant-native-use-rates-benefit

2.     https://bipartisanpolicy.org/download/?file=/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Immigrants-and-Public-Benefits-What-Does-the-Research-Say.pdf

A Leader’s Personality

A unit takes on the personality of its commander. This old Army adage describes the relationship between the commander, or leader, and the character of the unit. It is accurate. During my tenure in the Army, I served in many different units under many different commanders. After a change of command, the change in the unit was often striking. A unit takes cues as to what is important and what is acceptable from its commander. These and other aspects of a commander’s persona subtly, and not so subtly, conform a unit to the commander. This is part of the reason why the Army carefully considers who it grants the honor of command. Not every officer enjoys or deserves the privilege of command, and this is how it should be. A commander enjoys great power and with that power comes great responsibility, the responsibility of shaping an organization.

During a political rally on the nineth of March this year, Mr. Trump mocked President Biden’s stutter. This is nothing new for Mr. Trump. Throughout his public life, he’s made it a practice to deride those who disagree with him, particularly though degrading some aspect of their physical make up. His coarseness knows no bounds. He has verbally attacked those with physical disabilities, women for menstruation, other men for stature. He does this to intimidate his opponents and entertain his supporters; all at the expense of those who oppose him, and more importantly, public discourse in the United States.

Such behavior reveals the heart of an insecure and fearful man. Mockery is the retreat of those ill prepared, or equipped, to engage in an intellectually rigorous debate. Faced with an inability to support their position or rebut an opposing proposition, they employ the tactic of ridicule to divert the debate and hide their own inability. This is a favorite tactic of a playground bully.

Such a leader would inexorably bend our national demeanor and conversation in a negative direction. Have we become so coarse and uncaring as a people as to regard ridicule as acceptable public behavior? Do we care so little for others, others that may grapple with a disability or not share what we consider as model physical appearance? While American politics has always been a rough and tumble sport, demeaning others does not well represent a multicultural or pluralistic society. Such ridicule, while entertaining for some, deeply hurts and offends others. And it is not an issue simply waved off by the claim that, “Well, they are just snowflakes.” As a society, we’ve worked hard to improve our national discourse, seeking to provide previously marginalized people with greater access and greater voice. Returning to a public conversational ethic of belittling the weak would stifle much needed intercourse, revealing us as small minded and weak. No matter the party, a leader will shape the country in their image.

Who we choose says something profound about the kind of people we are and what values we hold dear. Is truth important to us? Do we value graciousness and politeness? Perhaps, we like the braggart because we think too highly of ourselves. When we give a leader a pass on bullying, we say that we do not care about the weaker individuals in our society. These negative character traits find expression in equally adverse national and international policies. Other nations understand this as well. They carefully watch who we choose as a leader, knowing that our president directly influences our foreign policy. A brutish bully will always seek to manipulate relationships through threats and intimidation. A habitual liar will always dissemble to obscure intent and avoid responsibility. They evaluate the character of our president, understanding that their character will shape their actions as our foreign policy makers.

Our president represents the entire nation, not just his or her party. When we evaluate a potential president, we must spend time considering their character and what their choice would say about us as a people. In the case of president, the one elected official who represents all of us, we must evaluate how their character would influence our national policy and conversation. Do we want to elevate or demean our national interaction, or are we so wedded to particular party or positions as to overlook the issue of personal character and its effect on our national character. 

A Few Thoughts on Leadership

 

               As our current Presidential campaign gets underway, I’d like to take a few moments to think about leadership. After all, we like to refer to the American President as the most powerful man, perhaps someday woman, in the free world. We want to choose a person with outstanding leadership traits. As a soldier who started out as a private and ended up twenty-seven years later as a lieutenant colonel, I learned what makes a good leader. I served under some of the best leaders in the military, and some of the worst. I also served as a leader in some of the most difficult situations, in peacetime and in combat. After retiring from the Army, I spent eleven years teaching in High School and Junior High, both leadership crucibles. Along the way, I’ve learned a few things about what it takes to be a leader. 

               A good leader must be compassionate. As a leader, I often made decisions that had profound consequences, good and bad. As a commander of troops, periodically I had to put someone out of the service, a task I never really enjoyed. Once, I had to prosecute and jail a soldier for multiple instances of sex with a minor, and though I was pleased to see him shuffle off in an orange jumpsuit after conviction, I never forgot the pain this caused his family or the indelible pain he visited upon his victims and their families. Even though all the soldiers I lead into combat came back in one piece, the stress involved profoundly changed all those involved. Leaders need to remember that their decisions effect real people in very real ways. A leader without compassion runs over the people in their organization…or country…without compunction. Sometimes leaders must make decisions that cause pain; but, they should never do so casually.

               A good leader understands that they represent and must care for all the people in their organization. Again as a leader of troops, I was responsible for all the members of my organization, not just the ones that pleased me or I felt were like me. It was my job to set the conditions for all of my soldiers to succeed. As a teacher, I needed to give my best, even to those students who actively worked against me and did not want to learn what I had to teach. A president is not just working for those who elected them. They represent and work for the entire country. We do not need leaders who consider those who disagree with them their enemy, for the president represents the entire population Republican, Democrat, Independent, and other alike. They must work for and protect those whose lifestyles they find offensive and do so with the same vigor as they work for those whose lifestyles they find comfortable.

A good leader respects others. In our multicultural society, we must work with others, respecting them despite our differences. When a leader looks down on and ridicules those who are different, they shut the door to cooperation and limit solutions. A good leader eschews making fun of those who may differ. A person who seeks to elevate themselves by putting down others, especially for their disabilities, forfeits the ability to lead the rest of us. Such behavior reveals a timid fearful soul. Ridicule bends any discussion away from the facts at hand and must be avoided.

               A good leader must rightly handle truth. Those who are unable to tell the truth when under pressure show themselves as unfit for any position of public trust. Of course, all of us fail from time to time; however, some public figures consistently prevaricate, and this trait renders them unsuitable for leadership positions. We must be able to trust those who occupy positions of leadership and power and an inability to tell the truth has a corrosive effect on trust. Simply put, a habitual liar is not worthy of our trust, no matter the policies they embrace.

               A good leader respects, works with, and strengthens ties with allies. Despite our preeminence in the community of nations, we need our allies. A good leader works to build up those things that bind us together and understands that in all these relationships there is an element of give and take. We do not always get everything we want. Sometimes we must give to maintain good international order.

               A good leader constantly learns. All leaders come to the job with a skill-set or they would not be leaders; however, true leaders understand that they come to the job with knowledge deficits. As an officer in the Army, I was constantly assigned to positions for which I was manifestly unprepared. I had to identify those with appropriate knowledge and experience and then learn from them. That takes a certain level of humility. A leader unwilling to admit their own ignorance cannot adequately serve the country. The United States is a large country and the problems and challenges we face are complex and multifaceted. No person possesses adequate knowledge to address all the issues, which is why we have a cabinet and the other apparatuses of government. A good leader takes input, and not just from those who agree with him. A good leader understands that even those in the opposition have good ideas and seeks their input. All leaders at all levels need the trait of being a life-long learner.

               A good leader has a strong moral compass. In the often-murky world of governmental affairs, a leader needs a firm grasp of fundamental right and wrong. Might does not make right. A good leader takes the time to discern the right course of action and then summons the moral courage to see it through. Frequently those of their party or other interest groups may urge them to take morally insupportable actions that will forward the party cause; yet, they must possess enough courage to say no. Some of the components of a moral compass a leader needs are: an ability to tell the truth, fidelity to a promise made, compassion for the weak, courage in the face of adversity, and respect for others. These universal moral imperatives, and there may be others, enable a person to lead others.

               A good leader listens to divergent points of view. While in various leadership positions in the Army, I found that often those who viewed things differently than I did contributed key components or ideas to the success of any given operation. I found that I did not understand everything and those with differing points of view often provided key insights. A good leader listens to others, taking in their ideas. Finding the solutions to gordian problems requires a leader to take input from many different quarters.

               A good leader is flexible. A good leader understands that the world is dynamic and solving problems requires a certain amount of give and take. Being too wedded to a policy may lead to serious failure. What may have worked well in the past, may not work well in the present. A willingness to try new strategies, to set off in new directions as it were, helps a leader explore new avenues, perhaps leading to greater success.

               As we consider who we want to lead our nation through the next four years, we must take the time to assess candidates on their leadership qualifications. The president is only one part of the government. They are the one official who represents us all and a good, strong leader transcends mere policy considerations. A president must work with congress and within the confines of constitutional law as understood by the Supreme Court. After all, a leader who stokes the fires of division cannot possibly unite the nation no matter their policies.

                

              

The Spoils System

               Various groups, frustrated by their inability to move legislation through congress, seek a return to the spoils system of the nineteenth century. I can understand their desire. Congress is, and always has been, unwieldy and slow. In our two-party system moving legislation through the senate and the house takes tremendous work and the necessary compromise vexes many. In truth, we want things our way, and right now. Some see a resurrected spoils system as a means to work around a slow moving congress.

             The term, dating from Andrew Jackson’s presidency, refers to giving high political appointments to members of one’s own party as a means of reward. While it has obvious benefits, rewarding those who think the way you do and are likely to make decisions you would, it also comes with serious drawbacks. The problem stems from appointing less qualified individuals to positions of great importance. This often-ham-fisted approach to governance results in poor decisions and questionable compliance with laws and the constitution. Additionally, every new president ushers in wholesale change to government and the resulting chaos degrades efficiency. Eventually we severely curtailed the spoils system, replacing it with a more professional civil service system.

               As a career soldier, I encountered this system regularly. It had it pros, professional men and women who knew their job and helped users interface with the system. They also had great institutional knowledge, which helped me navigate the labyrinth of governmental systems. Unfortunately, they also knew that while I was transitory, being stationed in one place for three years or so, they were more or less permanent and could wait me out on a particularly thorny issue. Despite the problems, a professional group of individuals with significant institutional knowledge helps make things work properly.

               Some will say that we will replace entrenched civil servants with equally capable outsiders. But under the spoils system we make party fealty the primary job qualification, we set aside competence and the need for understanding the issues at hand. In our time, governance is complex, interconnected and multifaceted. We need individuals who understand the intricacies and challenges of their given area of responsibility. I understand firsthand the frustration of dealing with recalcitrant public employees; however, our historical experience during the nineteenth century should serve as a brake against the desire to resurrect the spoils-system and its attendant chaos.

               President Benjamin Harrison changed 31,000 postmasters in one year, resulting in great inefficiency in the postal system. A return to the spoils system might make the job of the president easier. After all, he would appoint those who support his policies; however, in a few short years, another president would seek to reward their supporters. Such wholesale turnover would severely hamper government effectiveness. The spoils system also undermines the role of Congress in facilitating good governance.

               Congressional impotence frustrates all of us. We want a legislative system that actually performs its functions. Unfortunately, many of us forget that in a representative republic all legislation requires compromise. Our political culture seems to reject compromise as acceptable. Some sectors of our political landscape would rather accept congressional inaction than compromise. They take the short view, calling for an increase in the power of the executive branch, forgetting that their party will not hold onto the presidency forever. We need to work our constitutional system, embracing the compromise necessary to make it work properly. As with most things in life, shortcuts come with significant disadvantages. The spoils system is a shortcut, and one that leads to governmental chaos and inefficiency. We should reject it and those who would reenact it.