Tag: Build the Wall

On Crime and Our Border

Republican senatorial candidates are making gains in the polls for the coming midterm elections (four weeks from Tuesday, folks!) by slamming their Democratic rivals on crime and even the since-abandoned “defund the police” slogan, a counter to the gains Democrats had begun to make after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

But an underlying advantage the GOP has long had, poll-wise, versus Democratic candidates is the issue of controlling our southern border with Mexico. This issue has been a staple of Fox News pundits for years, beginning well before even ex-President Trump’s vow to “build the wall.” 

In a PBS Arizona debate last Thursday between Democratic incumbent Mark Kelly and Republican challenger Blake Masters (plus Libertarian Marc Victor) Masters accused Kelly and other Democrats of “surrendering our southern border.” [Masters is a venture capitalist who has co-authored a book with fellow Trump ally Peter Thiel.]

Kelly says he has privately disagreed with the White House’s border policy in conversations with President Biden. He and fellow Democratic Arizona Sen. Krysten Sinema have co-authored a bipartisan bill to increase pay and staffing for Border Patrol officers, and Kelly also supports physical barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to PBS Arizona’s Cronkite News.

“I’ve been focused on this since day one, and I brought more resources here to the state of Arizona to deal with the issue,” Kelly said.

Comments: Has the Democratic Party (and have most media outlets) improperly ignored what’s been happening at the border since the Biden administration? We want to hear from you on this issue – especially if you lean left. Go to the Comment box below (if you lean right, please use the comment box in the right column). Or email editors@thehustings.news.

Republican senatorial candidates are making gains in the polls for the coming midterm elections (four weeks from Tuesday, […]

Words & Power

First Person Essay by Stephen Macaulay

Several years ago there was a massive ice storm in Cincinnati. I was with a colleague and we were going into a restaurant. As we walked across the parking lot my feet slipped out from under me and the next thing I knew I was flat on my back in massive pain, and so 911 was called.

And at some point—of course it seemed far too long to me, as I was prostrate on the ice-covered asphalt—a full-size fire truck showed up. Yes, one of those vehicles with ladders on the side.

The fire crew came out, surrounded me, and fairly quickly concluded that there wasn’t much they could do for me.

What eventually happened was that a good Samaritan said that he could take me to the hospital. So the fire crew lifted me up and put me in the back seat of a Honda Accord. And I was taken to the hospital.

The situation at the time was that there had been such a great number of emergency calls throughout Cincinnati that what was available had to be sent.

So here’s the thing: Would anyone take a look at that situation and say, “Defund the fire department!” or “Fund EMS!”? In my case, more EMS people and gear would have been appropriate. If the restaurant had been on fire, it would have been the former.

As the old British legal saw has it, “horses for courses.”

///

In early December Barrack Obama was interviewed on Snapchat and said, “If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund the police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done.”

Which caused a number of audible and visible members of the Democratic Party to be completely agitated by what is clearly a pragmatic remark, politically, socially and, dare I say, realistically.

If someone is robbing your restaurant, you surely hope that cops are coming sooner rather than later. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you’re not worried about nuanced phrasing if it means that there isn’t going to be a police officer there to keep you from being permanently perforated.

///

Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It is one of those things that you can readily imagine being the purview of professors at Ivy League schools, where they debate how many liberals can dance on the head of a pin.

You would imagine that Democrats would be good at it.

But when it comes to messaging, Trump has, yes, trumped them.

Think of the two slogans that resonated in the election that Trump won, not the one he lost in a landslide.

  • “Build the Wall!”
  • “Lock Her Up!”

Although the Wall still remains to be built and Hillary Clinton is free without bond, those chants still echo.

Why? Because they are positive, proactive statements.

They are commands to do something. “Performative acts,” in the words of linguists.

“Defund the police”?

As “snappy” as that might be, it simply doesn’t do the job because it is saying something that people shouldn’t do. If you want to get people on your side, you get them to buy into what they should be doing.

Proof? Well, the 10 Commandments are chock full of “Thou shalt nots.” How’s that working out?

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–