Trump Blinks

The key point of Donald Trump's book, The Art of the Deal, is essentially this: Make sure that the other guy has more to lose than you do. If you're going to win, you've got to have the upper hand. Events of the past two weeks indicate that he probably should have reread his book before putting his Presidency on the line by shutting down the government over The Wall.

In the stare down over the shutdown, Pelosi took Trump down.

Nancy Pelosi, who has played the political game many, many more years than Trump, was always going to win this one. Why? Simple. She had next to nothing to lose. Here's why:

First, Republicans and Trump's much talked about Base already hate her, so whatever she did about Trump's challenge, it couldn't possibly erode her position there. So simply saying "No" and repeating it hurt her not one bit there.

Second, as the leader of the House, which controls the money, Pelosi's "No," had real teeth. Trump's Wall cannot be built without House funding. And no funding happens (barring a national emergency) without House passage of a funding bill. And that wasn't happening without Democratic support. That was something that already was not going to happen.

Third, Trump's Base did not rise up and wave flags when the government lights went out. His Base was oddly silent. And those Federal workers he thanked for supporting him in his speech announcing the restart of the government? They were actually protesting, walking off the job, and complaining. The articles were all over the press. All the expected support for his move did not materialize. The Trump "anti-Washington asshole" persona finally had worn a bit too thin, just at the wrong time.

Then there were the absurd aspects: Trump had previously declared Obama's government shutdown an "impeachable offense." CNN and others had a field day with that. How about that fast food extravaganza for the Clemson football top dogs. Really? If you were going to pay for it with your own money, Trump, at least don't be insulting. The recent report by a reporter from inside one of the several tunnels under a section of southern border wall that does exist — used to transport drugs into the U.S. So much for the Wall stopping the flow of drugs (or anything else). And how about Trump trying to trade short-term protection (which is no protection at all) for Dreamers in exchange for his permanent Wall? A non-starter. Trump thought he had a real sucker punch there, but that was an easy "No" for the House Democrats.

Certainly, Trump doesn't see it as a failure. He never does. He sees himself as having taken the high road while still holding the line and retaining the ultimate winning card. He has, in fact, reserved the "right" to declare a national emergency to fund his Wall if, after three weeks, there isn't an agreement that works to his and his Republican friend's satisfaction. But most everyone else sees Nancy Pelosi as the victor here. That includes Breitbart News, Ann Coulter and a host of Trump's other dyed-in-the-wool adherents, who have castigated him for failing to hold the line and, instead, capitulating. Wondering if Trump will label Breitbart "fake news" now? That would be entertaining, to say the least.

In a couple of weeks, the deadline for an agreement will hit. Will Trump actually declare that national emergency to fund his Wall? Will the Democrats fight him? The latter seems almost certain. Why build a Wall when the evidence indicates so clearly that the real threats to the U.S. lie elsewhere? For example:

Of 4,000 suspected terrorists identified at ports-of-entry in the past few years, almost all were at airports and seaports. Only a few were on the southern border. In 2018, specifically, there were only six (that's right, six), according to U.S. Customs.

Sexual assault and other forms of abuse committed against migrants by those claiming to transport them is a real problem, and unacceptably high. Thirty percent for women, 10.7 percent for men. But the wall will do little to mitigate these problems. Easing transportation, entry and legitimization of migrants will.

Most important, the case for a "emergency" is very poor. A decade ago, the data in support of an emergency might have been better for Trump, but today's numbers are a fraction of those, and there are no ways to run the numbers today that can support a declaration of a national emergency. There is a much more compelling case to be made for expanding manpower and resources in the security teams at airports and seaports in particular, the southern border patrol (manpower, not slats) and asylum-seeker processing teams and facilities.

Trump's case for The Wall was a well-calculated appeal to the mostly irrational, inflated fears of his Base. It got him elected, for sure. But as a political strategy and, especially, as a building block in either improving the lot of those fleeing real oppression or Making America Great Again, its benefits are imaginary, at best, and wasteful, divisive and, in the long run, contrary to the image we ought to present to the world.

That image has already suffered much at his hands, and those familiar with what people outside the U.S. actually think know that it wasn't all that good to begin with. Building a Wall right now isn't our best play for that and a host of practical reasons that add up simply to It Won't Do What People Want It To. Ultimately, we've failed, once again, to learn from history. Walls didn't work for the Chinese or the Russians. Why do we think one will work for us?