A post by Maynard

The situation in Arizona is pushing everyone’s buttons. As we get drawn into various skirmishes, let’s not lose sight of what the war is about.

Fact 1: One of the primary responsibilities of a national government is to control its borders. A nation without borders isn’t a nation. The American government is doing plenty of stuff that a lot of us think is none of its business, but it fails to do its most basic job.

Fact 2: A big majority of Americans realize that Washington isn’t controlling the border, and we see this as a serious problem. This opinion crosses party lines and ethnic differences. We the people are largely in agreement that the status quo is unacceptable, and we also believe another amnesty is not a solution.

That’s why most Americans believe Arizona has taken a step in the right direction. Some polls: here and here.

Yes, the details are debatable. Do we actively deport? Do we penalize employers? Do we need a national ID card? Should local police check papers, or do schools and hospitals verify citizenship? I don’t have all the answers, but I think there’s enough general agreement to clarify a framework.

We broadly understand the direction we should be going, and then we get frustrated as we watch the situation deteriorate year after year. Our political leadership either does nothing or pushes in the wrong direction.

So…Why is our government out of control and out of touch?

In part, we see the problem when we look at ourselves. Maybe I’m a typical enabler of bad government. I assume government cannot help but be big and dumb. Trying to make government responsive is like trying to teach your cat to use a can opener. So I ignore government and focus on things I can actually do something about. Maybe I write a letter to my representatives occasionally, which they ignore, and then I feel like I’ve wasted my time. I pay my share (maybe more than my share) of tribute to Caesar. Otherwise I just carry on with my life.

In summary, my government has me well-trained. Send money, do what we say, know your place, don’t get uppity. I put up with this state of affairs because it’s either the easiest way to get along or maybe the only way to get along. If I ignore them, then I can reasonably hope they’ll ignore me. We can all coexist.

That’s just fine as long as government is a benign parasite that doesn’t kill its host. The problem is, it seems we’ve reached the point where catastrophe is on the agenda. We can’t ignore an out-of-control government that pushes so aggressively in the wrong direction that the nation, and perhaps even the world, will collapse. The lives of coming generations, and our own lives too, depend upon our rising to the occasion. This is the “mama grizzly” phenomenon Sarah Palin spoke of.

By threatening to become as politically potent as the special interests and kooky activists, we put politicians in an awkward position. Their knee-jerk reaction is first to ignore us, and then to marginalize us. This has always worked in the past, so they expect it will work again. And maybe they’re right. Or maybe this time we’re motivated enough to fight back effectively. Time will tell.

Peggy Noonan offered a nice analysis in her editorial, “The Big Alienation”.

We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street’s money with it, and the government can’t really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what’s in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed “dot-gov.”

It is not that no one’s in control. Washington is full of people who insist they’re in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It’s that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: “We control everything” and “You’re on your own.”…

…Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won’t, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

Arizona has made a statement, and is now taking the heat. The precedents are not encouraging. California’s Proposition 187, passed by 59% of the voters, essentially said that state services were provided for the benefit of legal residents. It seemed straightforward and reasonable enough, but a judge blocked implementation, and Gray Davis dropped the appeal.

We have gotten to this point because, in previous contests of government versus the people, government has prevailed. It may be the election in November will push things in a better direction. But Obama, unlike Bill Clinton, is not a pragmatist. He is not going to let up. So the dynamic of Washington versus America is likely to get a lot worse before it gets better.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
12 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. morecowbell says:

    I feel differently. I believe Washington is on the ropes. I have never known a time when so many people were so aware of what is going on in politics as today. The healthcare debacle was the final straw (thank you Bart Stupac!). If Washington continues down the road they have chosen, it will only force America unite together in opposition to ALL their plans. This is the beauty of our system. It was designed specifically to grind out tyranny. If these guys had studied American history rather than political science they would know they are on a fool’s mission. Sure, they will create a mess, but we will humbly clean it up, year over year, vote by vote.

  2. Artist4Palin says:

    It was dumb of me to think that Bush had good intentions to secure the border.
    Now all hell is let loose. I will join in the hell and civil disobedience against this administration.
    ###

  3. Pat_S says:

    Politicians believe border security is the government’s leverage to get amnesty for illegals. There is no other reason border security has to be part of so-called immigration reform. They need something to pressure us. They make a clownish show of building a fence. They build it in segments with enormous gaps. They build it so that it is easily scalable. They threw away millions of dollars and wasted time on a high-tech solution that was a joke. We get promises and half-hearted measures. These are stalling tactics until we relent on amnesty.

    They think once there is border security, there will be no reason for the American people to agree to amnesty. We know once there is amnesty, there will be no reason for even a show at securing the border.

    • makeshifty says:

      I’m confused. Why would keeping the border open pressure America into approving amnesty? It seems to be stoking the fires of “secure the border!” all the more. Maybe you’re referring to Bill O’Reilly’s position of “We’re not going to deport 12 million people.” I must admit that position has merit. I don’t see us doing that either. From what I was hearing anyway, about the old comprehensive immigration bill, the provision that stuck in the craw of most people, including me, who would’ve otherwise supported it is the part that said if some illegals wanted to stay but not pursue citizenship, all they had to do was register. This to most people was amnesty.

      The way politicians portrayed the registration provision is it was for security. They said, “We want to know who’s here, and what they’re doing.” They wanted to make it as attractive as possible for illegals to register, even allowing them not to pursue citizenship. The assumption was that there would be some who would not register, and they were the ones that law enforcement should focus on, since they’re likely the ones creating the violent crime/gang/drug activity that people have been complaining about.

      There were problems with the notions of trying to prove “residency”, as I’m sure you know, which is another thing that made people distrust the government’s proposal, because it was too “mickey mouse” to be taken seriously. People saw this, along with the registration provision, as “back door amnesty”, and I think they were right.

      This is just my guess, but it seemed like the main reason the bill failed to get support is that we wanted illegals to make a decision: pay a fine and “get in the back of the line” while applying for citizenship, or get out. I know there were some who just didn’t like the “path to citizenship” idea at all, but I think a majority of the opponents would’ve liked the “two track”, rather than the “three track” solution that the bill had, and they would’ve liked “proof of residency” that was more reliable. Perhaps the whole idea was just a pipe dream. I’ve liked the other ideas about going after employers who hire illegals, so long as there’s some reliable method that employers could use for verification. That seems to be more enforceable. And certainly I support securing the border. Even if we solved the employer problem, the cartels are still bringing drugs into this country, in some cases doing their drug operations here in our national parks, and engaging in human trafficking. It’s the federal government’s job to deal with all of this.

  4. Laura says:

    DHS (and the obama adminstration) is NOT paying any attention to the Southwest border, they have no intent on keeping foreign illegals or muslim terrorists out of the country, seems to me they want to keep us locked in to __________ the American citizens. DHS is in the process of seizing a family farm in Vermont because it is situated “in a weak link in the nations borders” BS, if they were truly concerned about a weak link in the nations borders they would be all over the Southwest, there is something else going on here, hence _________.. and why I will end it on that note

  5. Pangborn says:

    The elected representatives of this government are charged, first and foremost with protecting their constituencies of citizens. It is their Constitutionally-sworn duty not only to safeguard our common national borders but to protect each and every individual’s personal boundaries. This current administration clearly advocates a comprehensive open borders policy that envisions the erasure of all boundaries and the dismantling of National Sovereignty as well as the Sovereignty of Self. Sadly, they have become confused about the reach and scope of their foresworn duties. While they sanction and openly encourage the influx of all manner of unwelcome intrusions (drugs, illegals, kidnappers, etc.) through the unrestrained conduits of the border states they mistakenly believe their primary role is to stem the flow of harmful substances into (trans fats, salt, cigarette smoke, etc.) or out of our mouths (free speech critical of this administration).

  6. kristiemitschke says:

    I just heard on the radio that Frito Lay was going to ban Arizona? I say we BAN Frito Lay! Or any company that would ban Arizona!

    • Maynard says:

      Frito generated controversy with its 1960’s advertising campaign for the “Frito Bandito”. You can find the old advertisements posted on YouTube. Those ads got pulled and replaced by the “Muncha Bunch”, which shifted the outlaw dynamic from Latino to Anglo, and replaced the Mexican dialect with a Western drawl.

      I’d expect Frito wouldn’t want to get drawn into the current conflict, so I’d be surprised to see them actively take a side. Governments jump in because they figure they’ve got us by the short hairs. Businesses must stay on good terms with the public. It’s much easier for me to boycott an offensive business than it is to boycott the IRS.

    • thierry says:

      damn it!- i’ve been on a cheeto’s kick lately- and they make a flaming hot one that’s well hot. arizona’s worth switching to utz’s or the store brand though.

      • Maynard says:

        I don’t think Frito has done anything. I think Frito has been asked to do something. A counter-boycott is probably premature at this point.

        I already boycott chips, because if I have any within reach, I’ll eat them until they’re gone. So I try not to keep them handy so I won’t stuff myself. It’s hard enough keeping vodka in the bottle.

  7. makeshifty says:

    Well I’m glad somebody said it:

    Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don’t trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

    I’ve been feeling that, not just about this issue, but about elites who think they know better than us about health care, etc. The question is, if they’re stupid and unimaginative, why do we elect them? Is it because they somehow fooled us into thinking that they were smart and imaginative? Or I guess we weren’t thinking about that. We were too distracted to notice.

  8. Laura says:

    I didn’t vote for any of these morons

You must be logged in to post a comment.