Saturday, September 17, 2016

The debates I wish we were having

So it's been almost a year since my last post, but I have to get some things off my chest. I've been putting off writing about Trump because his candidacy just makes me angry. It took a while for me to figure out what it is that makes him so infuriating. Turns out he is pretty much the polar opposite of me, so now I think I get it. This may sound odd, but it's his belief in himself that I find ingratiating. He basically believes that the solution to every problem is more of himself. I couldn’t disagree more.
Ultimately, though, I have to unload my Trump-fueled anger at our political system by doing more than blogging, facebooking, and tweeting against him. It’s going to take real change before people stop listening to that guy. How about starting with some policy proposals?
1. Tackle immigration reform with incremental changes. Why can’t Congress pass “comprehensive immigration reform,” as the current President likes to call it? Because there are people in the U.S. who are deeply distrustful of immigrants, legal or not, dark-skinned especially. The President tried executive orders because Congress was ineffective and unable to get together on this issue, but had his executive orders struck down at least partially. Therefore, I propose a compromise solution — Pres. George W. Bush proposed a “temporary worker” visa -- intended for workers from the border areas to be able to go back and forth more easily — when he was President, along with a streamlined visa system for immigrants with specialized skills. (Of course, that was before 9/11 and the “fortress America” mentality took hold, but I digress.) Why not have by-then former-Presidents GWB and Obama push Congress on a bipartisan basis to get some smaller reforms through? If GWB and Obama can agree on a way forward, then Congress should be able to, too.
2. SInce I mentioned 9/11, how about resettling refugees? There is a problem brewing in Europe over immigration, largely illegal, from Middle Eastern and African countries. There is a real humanitarian risk caused by people smugglers and desperate immigrants capsizing boats in the Mediterranean. While we’re absorbed with domestic issues, our allies in Europe have been dealing with a wave of immigration that threatens to give right-wing groups more fodder for hate. Why not help them out by resettling some of the refugees here? We’re a big country, with lots of room for immigrants of all kinds, Muslim or not, dark-skinned or not, and especially for people in need. Many European immigrants came through Ellis Island not as prosperous middle-class families but as desperate, poverty-stricken individuals. The American tradition of welcoming the world’s less fortunate and giving them opportunities to thrive is severely strained right now, but it is an important American value and should be upheld, even in difficult political times. I don’t want us to do to Muslims or Arabs or people from the Middle East and Africa what we did to Jews in the 1930s — view them as the Other, and try to keep them confined under terrible, murderous regimes. People from the Middle East and Africa need a way to escape their situations in their own countries, too, so supporting democratic reform in those countries and opposing Islamist extremism will be important as well. We are losing millions of people to a hateful ideology. There are more of them than there are of us, but we can’t view the world in those terms. We have to reach out and win hearts and minds through diplomacy, negotiation, and promoting American values. The only way to end a war is through negotiation. Total war is not what the world needs right now, nor would it be tolerated by this country. The rejection of a American values by candidate Trump is dangerous, not just in the U.S. but around the world.
3. On national security, defend our borders and transportation systems smartly but recognize that we can’t keep the world out by building walls. Like it or not, there are people out there in the world who want to do the U.S. harm. Mexico is not our biggest enemy. In fact, they could be seen as a friend in the war on terror. The southern border is generally not where the terrorists are coming from. They’re coming from inside this country, due to the “radicalizing” effects of Internet propaganda available around the world. Why not keep guns out of the hands of radicalized individuals? It’s more than public safety, it’s a national security issue. I propose legislation that would enable law enforcement to smartly take guns off the streets and out of the hands of the most dangerous elements of our society. Forget background checks and gun sales. Let’s stop the black and gray markets for guns and other dangerous weapons by enforcing new federal laws aimed at gun trafficking, terrorism, and related issues. Guns don’t kill people, people do, so let’s stop fantasizing about a 100% gun control system or, on the other side, glamorizing guns as a desirable object. We need to reduce the overall number of guns in the country for other reasons (preventing suicide, accidental deaths, and reducing the fortress mentality), but for terrorism, why not create a law enforcement agency, similar to the DEA, ATF, or FBI (three very different agencies, I know) with the sole purpose of winning hearts and minds in this country? Create a healthy image of law enforcement, not an attitude of distrust. People complain that we live in a militarized state, at least in communities that are predominantly made up of dark-skinned people, because the police have tactics and weapons that vastly exceed the requirements of the job. Why not address that perception first, as opposed to demonizing whole groups of people? Believe it or not, community policing is now the first defense against terrorism. If police know about a problem before it becomes a one-off lone-wolf attack, they can intervene and save lives. We need to do more to help law enforcement control guns and gun trafficking.
4. In the international arena, instead of hunkering down, reach out. Negotiating with Russia over Syria and Iran over nuclear weapons may turn out to be smart moves in the long run. The only way to end a war is through negotiation. Even if it’s unconditional surrender, someone has to agree to that surrender. Japan and Germany were “reduced to rubble,” literally not figuratively, in World War II. If we really want to "make America great,” we have to take the long view and not view negotiation as surrender on our side. Japan and Germany are now two of our strongest allies in the world, proof of how relationships have changed over time. We have the strongest military in the world, but we aren’t using our military force the way we should. I don’t think we should bomb Syria into oblivion or nuke Iran, as some have suggested. We are negotiating from a position of strength in some ways, and of weakness in others. We need to capitalize on our strengths — our open democratic system, our economic power, our high ideals and lack of desire to be an occupying army — and avoid making the mistake of thinking we can go back to the Cold War with a well-defined enemy. On the other hand, our military wasn’t built to take on nation-building, it was built to win wars. Our military capability is a big tool in our arsenal, but it isn’t the only tool. So, basically what we did in Iraq and are trying to do in Syria is to use the military as a wedge to crack open two of the most repressive regimes in the world, then withdrawing. We are also trying to take out known terrorists with drone strikes and CIA operations. I think there are problems with these approaches, but the best option may be to continue some of these policies and avoid the biggest power vacuums and problem areas. I’m clearly not a military strategist, but this armchair quarterback wishes there was some smart discussion going on about how best to use our military, instead of what we have now.

No comments: