 |
| Border Wall, Department of Homeland Security |
Last Tuesday night, President Donald Trump gave a much-disparaged
televised speech about immigration, the government shutdown, and his
proposed border wall. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer gave
the also-maligned
televised Democratic rebuttal. “Rebuttal” and “response” are debate terms. I
was a high school and college debater and later a college debate coach and
judge. Academic debate judges not only pick a winner, but also score the
debaters. Judging as I would judge a high school or college debate contest,
Trump squeaked out as the clear winner (because he set the agenda, and Pelosi
and Schumer never reset it), but I would give all three of them rock-bottom
scores.
Traditional
debate theory says that, to win a debate, the side that wants change (Trump
and his wall, in this case) must (1) prove that there is a need, (2) show what
causes the need, (3) explain why the proposed solution will work, and (4) show
that any disadvantages are minor. Trump failed to prove that the lack of a wall
caused the need, while Pelosi and Schumer neglected to propose an adequate
solution of their own.
Why Trump
failed in this debate
Trump did a half-way decent job of showing that there
is something wrong. He cited several cases of crimes that unauthorized immigrants
committed: “Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by
those who illegally enter a country, and thousands more lies will be lost if we
don’t act right now.” He also said that “Our southern border is a pipeline of
vast quantities of illegal drugs, including meth, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl.
. . . More Americans will die from drugs this year they were killed in the
entire Vietnam War.” His figures may not have been exactly right, but they were
close enough to show that illegal border crossings cause a serious problem.
What he failed to show, however, is that these
people and drugs got into the United States by crossing unsecured portions of
the border. Challenging Trump, fact checkers noted that most illegal drugs are smuggled
through customs portals. The president’s claims were not necessarily
inaccurate, but they were not a valid reason to accept his solution, which was
to build a wall. If drugs are being smuggled past customs agents, the government
should upgrade the United States Customs, rather than build a wall.
Likewise, although some unauthorized immigrants do
commit violent crimes (maybe not as many crimes as citizens, but crimes all the
same) Mr. Trump did not establish that they were walking across unsecured border
regions. Did they enter the country legally, and then overstay their visas? If
so, a wall will not stop them.
Why Pelosi
and Schumer failed in this debate
Right after Trump's speech, Speaker of the House
Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer gave
their rebuttal. They got many of their facts more or less right. They
complained that much of what Trump has said during the shutdown “has been full
of misinformation and even malice.” Well, yes. What else would you expect?
Pelosi noted that the House of Representatives had
passed “bipartisan bills.” In modern political talk, finding that an idea has
even a little bit of support from Democrats and Republicans alike makes people
think that it’s automatically wonderful. But what was in these bills? And why
were they good? Pelosi and Schumer never said.
Pelosi and Schumer, while agreeing that there was
a need to have more border security (conceding Trump’s main point!), said that
the wall was a waste of money and that the shutdown harmed government workers
who were not being paid.
Pelosi briefly mentioned a few solutions: “we can
build the infrastructure and roads at our points of entry; we can install new
technology to scan cars and trucks for drugs coming in our nation; we can hire
the personnel we need to facilitate trade and immigration at the border; and we
can find more innovation to detect unauthorized crossings.”
These were not arguments; they were talking points.
What new technology? Would the new technology do any good? Anybody can imagine
that the wall will slow border crossings. Will the technology be as impressive?
Many people see the wall as a strong, powerful solution. Did Pelosi prove that
her alternate solutions would do any good? No, she did not. She didn’t even
try.
Schumer’s proposed solutions were even more
cryptic: “We can secure our border without an expensive, ineffective wall. And
we can welcome legal immigrants and refugees without compromising safety and
security. The symbol of America should be the Statue of Liberty, not a 30-foot wall.”
We can secure the border without a wall? How? What
security methods did Schumer want? He didn’t say. He probably didn’t know. How
can we welcome refugees safely? I am sure it could be done, but how? Schumer
didn’t say.
Finally, as I have said many times in this blog, the
side that controls the
agenda usually wins the debate. Trump controlled the agenda. Pelosi and
Schumer conceded the need for more border security. They objected to Trump’s
solution, which was a wall, but as they presented them, their solutions seemed
singularly unconvincing. Trump did indeed use fear appeals, but, by conceding the need
for change, Pelosi and Schumer acknowledged that his fear appeals had at least
some validity. Oops! They let Trump drive the agenda. Trump won this exchange.
No question. Will he get his wall? Who knows?
Trump’s
presentation was below
his usual standard, while Pelosi
and Schumer sounded, well, a bit pathetic. The biggest problem, however, is
that all three of the speakers regurgitated talking points that their advisors
and partisan media fed to them; none of them dug into the issues deeply enough
to make a convincing argument.
No comments:
Post a Comment