"Tear Down Invisible Walls!," LeadStories.com, August 20, 2015

Tear Down Invisible Walls!

Raphael Sassower

The condensation from the Republican establishment and media dismissal of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential candidate front-runner, reminds me of the initial reception of the candidacy of George W. Bush whose pedigree and wealth overshadowed his inability to formulate grammatically-correct sentences. Without the benefit of an elderly cadre of advisors (Papa Bush’s buddies for W), Trump has come out with an immigration policy all other GOP candidates seem to endorse even if they aren’t thrilled with his rhetoric. It’s anchored by a commitment to completing the 2,000-mile long border fence (or wall) between Mexico and the US.

To be clear, it was President George W. Bush who signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 with wide popular support from Congress and the voting public of border-states. When “57% Think US Should Continue Building a Fence along Mexican Border” (Pulse Opinion Research, LLC 4/9/13), Trump’s own bravado simply expressed popular sentiments. It’s a mixture of “strong on crime” mind-set associated with the Republican Party and a recognition that a law-abiding nation must disallow illegal immigration. A “great big wall” with a “big door” seems to fit this bill. Yet, this seemingly consistent argument for continuing the fence/wall construction is also met with the following public sentiment: 47% agree that “Immigration Helps more than Hurts” while 43% say the opposite (NBC/WSJ Poll, 7/26-30/15). Is there an internal inconsistency here? Or is it partially a veiled racist sentiment against a growing Hispanic population (with political implications if it votes for Democrats)?

Looking historically at walls around the world, the Great Wall of China is the first that comes to mind. Built between 700-206 BCE it spanned some 5,500 miles. Regardless of its partial success in defending and isolating China in the past, it’s now a tourist attraction. By contrast, the Korean Demilitarized Zone that has been in use since 1953 to separate North from South Korea, spanning some 160 miles across the peninsula, is still a functioning barrier. Miniscule by comparison to its Chinese counterpart, this barrier is a symbol of extreme xenophobia that causes hardships for an entire population. The Berlin Wall that was operational between 1961 and 1989 was a symbol of the Cold War with some 70 miles within the city and its environs. Given the famous challenge of President Ronald Reagan to the Soviet President Gorbachev, “Tear Down This Wall!” (6/12/87), why are presidential candidates still obsessed with wall building?

Perhaps one answer is the so-called success of the “separation barrier” on the 1949 “Green Line” border between Israel and its occupied territories of Palestine. Construction of this cement wall began under PM Barak in 2000, and its planned length is about 440 miles. Commonly cited is the fact that between 2000 and 2003 there were 76 suicide bombings in Israel’s pre-1967 borders; between 2003 and 2006 there were “only” 12 such suicide bombings. Hence, this wall has helped limit the danger from Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. A neoconservative narrative then extrapolates from the Israeli success-story to the ongoing illegal immigration through the Mexican border.

Facts about illegal immigration, deportation, and “dreamers” do not undermine the Republican narrative. The fact that there are less illegal immigrants coming over to the US today as compared to a decade ago is ignored (NYT 4/23/12). The fact that under President Obama (six years in office) more illegal immigrants were deported (over 2 million) than under President Bush (full two-terms in office) is also underreported (New Republic 4/17/14). And the fact that it’s Congress, now under Republican control of the two chambers, who ought to initiate immigration reform is also lost in the debate. Wasn’t it the Great Recession (2007-2012) that was a greater deterrent to immigration than any wall or fence?

Unlike the (visible) walls of separation, there are numerous invisible barriers of discrimination. It is those we should point out to the Trumps of this election cycle and ask them to tear them down. Among them is the glass ceiling that seems to be made of concrete, where upward mobility is limited if not impossible. Likewise, women’s pay inequality (77% as compared to men, Forbes 4/7/14) remains an embarrassing reality. Educational barriers (44% differential between rich and poor schools, The Hechinger Report 4/6/15) have become worse despite the rhetorical pronouncements of all presidential candidates. And most disturbing is the increasing gap in the opportunities for upward mobility of the poor (Nicholas Lemann, “Unhappy Days for America,” NYRB 5/21/15). As we saw in the latest housing bubble, the American Dream turns into an American nightmare with three missed mortgage payments.

Outside of the alleged socialist candidate for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, politicians are loath to bring up class warfare. But as the latest incidents of police brutality and murder of black youth from Ferguson, MO to Staten Island, NY and Cleveland, Ohio (to mention just a few such cases) show, racial tension is best understood in socio-economic terms, in terms of poverty and abject neglect of poor neighborhoods where blacks and Hispanics reside. Underemployed and falling outside the welfare net, these are also citizens (yes, they are legal residents whose voting rights are challenged (MSNBC 8/14/15), not illegal immigrants), who are part of the 12.9% medically uninsured (Gallup, January 2015); when there are still around 40 million Americans without health insurance, not to mention the fact that more than 45 million below the poverty line of $23,550 (Huffington Post 9/16/14), building a fence on the Mexican border looks absurd.

Instead of building walls of separation, we should tear down the invisible discriminatory barriers that still plague our country. Let’s turn our attention to the success of the Silicon Valley, where waves of immigrants—some with proper special visas, some without—have brought about creativity and ingenuity, hard-work and enormous prosperity. If Republican (and Democratic) candidates look for solutions to economic problems of growth, Silicon Valley is a model of tolerance, open-mindedness, and acceptance of all languages, countries-of-origin, racial, gender, and religious differences. Among the geeks of startup companies, only performance counts; all other characteristics are irrelevant. Is immigration a question of needed skills or race? Aren’t the special provisions for migrant agricultural workers in California not skill based? Or is it simply a profit motive that overlooks the immigration factor of the fantastically successful high-tech industry compared to menial work? This reminds us that we are a country of immigrants, after all, where one must climb the ladder of success and where the only indigenous people have been slaughtered or confined to reservations.

  

“Supreme Court tries to create certainty,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 10-16, 2015, 21.

Under Conditions of Certainty

As the Supreme Court ended its 2014-15 session, several of its rulings are of historical significance. But what is most important to the business community is the fact that uncertainty has been replaced with certainty.

It is certain that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay. One can love or hate it, one can find flaws with its philosophical principles or implementation, but for the second time its constitutionality has been affirmed. Congress, if you want to eliminate it, come up with an alternative. How about universal health care?

Universal health care isn’t framed in terms of fairness because the mythology of individual freedom of choice trumps it. What choice? To be without health insurance? To run up costs when the only choice is the Emergency Room?

As for the recognition that marriage is a constitutional right, and as such extends to non-heterosexual couples, recall our Proposition 2 that was approved in Colorado by a 53% majority (1992). In 1996, the Supreme Court (Romer v Evans) found that the amendment, preventing protected status based on homosexuality or bisexuality, violated the Equal Protection Clause.

 

Legal victories, though, don’t tell the whole story. Just because discrimination against the LGBT community is illegal doesn’t mean is has ceased to exist. Yes, the business community has overall been supportive, and yes, even critics will have to change benefit policies, but will all employees be treated equally?

Just as the abolition of slavery was both about the civil rights of African-Americans and how our cultural norms ought to change, so is the case with same-sex marriage. For those who want to wave the Bible as the final arbiter of morality, beware of what you ask for. If you haven’t read it lately, you may be surprised by instances of sanctioned immorality.

But should a very personal event—the expression of one’s love—be part of our legal system? It’s worth questioning if the only way to ensure the protection of rights associated with love is by legal means. Laws can allow for tax provisions and hospital visitations, inheritance and employment benefits without the state regulating the affairs of the heart. Should the state also tell us how to express our love?  

If something is legal, abortion after Roe v Wade of 1973, is it necessarily beyond dispute? The law, after all, is supposed to express the moral standards of society (and not the other way around). The law comes both logically and chronologically after a community agrees on its social conventions and moral norms.  

And since the Supreme Court is made up of nine life-tenured jurists, five men and four women, six Catholics and three Jews, how representative is it? Perhaps the whole point of our “checks and balances” republican system of governance is that the judicial branch shall not be representative and thereby also be above the fray of public opinion. But is it? Were the justices bending to the cultural sea of change in regards to the LGBT community? Shouldn’t their decisions be culturally “blind”? 

We are after all in the 21^st century. Though women still earn less than men when performing the same jobs, though women are still under-represented among our elected officials and in corporate boardrooms (see the latest Fortune Magazine issue on the top 100 women in America), we still believe in equality. Note that the most important educational institutions in town are headed by women—Air Force Academy, Colorado College, and UCCS. 

Perhaps the question of equality still makes some people uncomfortable when juxtaposed against the question of liberty. But our commitment to freedom (of choice and religion, speech and assembly) is intimately tied to equality, as seen in the latest Supreme Court’s decision. If my choice is hindered because I’m considered different enough not to warrant equal protection of the law, my freedom is compromised. 

Our legal system has evolved. What courts allowed for in the 19^th century would never be allowed today: for example, ideas about education (segregation under the principle of separate but equal, Plessy v Ferguson of 1896) have been reversed (Brown v Board of Education in 1954). Likewise, sodomy laws were eventually deemed unconstitutional (Lawrence v Texas of 2003). Supreme Court decisions take note of cultural changes.

The business world shuns the risks associated with uncertainty. It’s difficult to plan if you don’t know what to expect. As one study showed, CEOs of international conglomerates prefer to do business in China—where an authoritarian one-party system controls all activities—than in democracies, such as the USA—where regulations keep on changing.

If there was doubt about marriage equality, it has been replaced with certainty. Who knows, federal marijuana laws might be next.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com