The Immigration Crisis in Europe

Massive immigration is no longer a concern of just America.  The migration of refugees – both political and economic – from North Africa and the Middle East has shocked Europe. 

Of course, the influx of mostly Muslim immigrants is not new and has already generated substantial resistance from many citizens of the host countries. 

But the numbers coming seem to have sharply accelerated lately.  Libya is a failed state, and not the only one in Northern Africa, the Syrian civil war, ISIS, Iraq and Afghanistan are continuing to displace and drive people away.

 

And where do they want to go?  To the West, of course.  But not just any place in Europe.  Germany, the richest nation on the continent, is the prized objective.  [That fact undercuts the perception that many, if not most, refugees are fleeing war and violence.  If their motivation were primarily physical security, wouldn’t they be expected to stop when they reach safe shores, whether Italy, Greece or overland to Hungary?  But, no.  Inland to Germany and Austria is where they want to go… because economic prospects are believed to be better.]

News reports from southern and eastern Europe focus on the human plight (highlighting photos of the four year old Syrian boy washed ashore on the Turkish coast, for instance).  The tragedies are indeed heart-rending and certainly create intense desires to help.

But what happens next?  The cruel irony is that welcoming “uninvited guests” fleeing undesirable conditions encourages others to follow.  And won’t the result be the transformation of the host country in undesirable ways (as viewed by its native citizens)? 

Think of the recent problems affecting Europe as restive Muslin populations, failing to assimilate, spawn Islamic terrorism. 

Are Europe’s borders no longer to be considered barriers?  Is a foreigner’s desire to relocate there an acceptable reason to permit his entry.  Is open borders to be Europe’s new immigration policy?  Not likely!  Yet, the understandable response to the current humanitarian crisis is one in practice.  We Americans have also pursued similar policies that offer short-term compassion but promote long-term misery by encouraging would-be migrants to risk all to come.  What to do?

It’s simple to say “refuse entry”.  But the reality is that the humanitarian attitude is admirably too strong in the West to enforce that sentiment.

Of course, if authoritarian Russia or China were the targets of mass migration, the policy would undoubtedly be implemented no matter the human suffering.  But, of course, that’s an academic concern.  Who would want to go there?

The practical solution is to realize that America and Europe, in their own self-interest, must take action (both military and economic) to help control or eliminate the cause of such migration.  In other words, reduce or remove the reasons why people wish to emigrate. 

What does that mean?

 

To stem the tide of migration, use military power adequate to destroy ISIS and depose Syria’s Assad.  Employ resources to help troubled nations to establish and maintain healthy economies.  Recognize the need for the indefinite presence of Western military forces where our enemies are rooted.  (Afghanistan and Iraq, for instance, but don’t exclude northern Africa.)

These are major burdens to be assumed by Europe and the U.S.  There will be major criticisms and cries that the West is reviving colonial policies.

But unless the West chooses to commit cultural suicide, policies must be implemented to encourage people to stay home.  Otherwise the migrant stream will only increase with untold consequences for the West and its values. 

De-Fund Planned Parenthood – Shut Down the Government?

The ire on the right with Republican leadership in Washington is palpable.  Promises have been made, expectations raised and disappointment results, fueling the Tea Party in 2010 and Trump in 2015.

 

Obamacare has not been repealed nor has the federal budget been reigned in, despite GOP control of Congress.  The sense prevails that when Obama verbally digs in his heels, the GOP caves in.  The irony is noted that the President’s threats are ignored by foreign leaders as merely words (e.g., meaningless “red lines”) but heeded by his domestic foes.  Where is the will to fight, Senator Cruz and other staunch conservatives ask?

Now, the disputes on Capitol Hill among Republicans may merely be over tactics and not principle.  But, politically, perceptions are important.

Take the looming battle over continuing federal funding for pro-abortion Planned Parenthood.  The House, pursuant to its Constitutional authority to originate a budget (Article 1, Section 7), has submitted to the Senate a complete expenditure plan which does not include money for Planned Parenthood.  To pass under current rules, proponents must have sixty votes to cut off a filibuster.  And even if the budget clears that hurdle, it faces a presidential veto which could be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.  Most unlikely.

 

The practical conservative might say that’s a tactical battle not worth fighting.  It’s a loser.  Yet the same conservative might also say (I’m among them) sometimes it’s important to try even while recognizing the likely outcome to be unfavorable. 

That is an important political reality.  Effective leadership is practical but also must be able to inspire others to follow.  Many Republicans – mostly conservatives – doubt the resolve of GOP leaders.  Their past recognition of tactical realities (for instance, Obama will veto so why waste the effort) have been perceived as ideological weakness.  Leadership won’t battle for what they claim to believe in… so maybe we shouldn’t believe in them. 

Supporters who lose faith in their leaders don’t show up to vote.  (It’s a little known fact that many conservatives sat out the last election rather than vote for Romney.)

Senate Republicans need to force the fight.  Consider amending the rules affecting the debate cloture on the budget.  Let fifty-one votes suffice.  Remember how the Democrats crammed Obamacare down our throats?  Counter the Democrats’ cry that de-funding Planned Parenthood will deprive the organization of the half billion dollars it provides to non-abortion health related services by providing an identical expenditure to organizations that provide women’s health services without also providing abortions. 

If the President vetoes the budget and Congress does not override, make clear the consequences:  the government will run out of money.  That is on the Democrats, not the GOP.  The reality is that the government shut-down will be on Obama because he thinks that money for abortions is more important than America’s welfare.

Of course the liberal media will attempt to place the blame on Republicans as they have done so successfully in the past when there has been a budgetary impasse over principle.  However, we don’t have to let them get away with that canard this time.  We have ample resources ourselves to shape the public’s perception:  Fox TV, radio talk show hosts and paid media (issue advertising).  Use it.

What Happened to Dignity?

One wonders whether the absence of dignity is a key reason why politicians of whatever ideological stripe are held in generally low regard by the public.

Consider a June gathering in Iowa of  various would-be GOP nominees.  The young Republican governor of Wisconsin rode into town on a Harley- Davidson dressed appropriately for a motorcyclist.  Others who attended were attired as if ready to plow a nearby corn field.  Did any of them look presidential?  Hardly.  They simply didn’t look dignified.

Is that important?  America’s early presidents apparently thought so.  George Washington was famously known for being very formal in his attire – whether as a soldier or national leader.  Do you remember seeing photos of Abraham Lincoln – as president – dressed as the rail splitter and woodman he used to be?  How about twentieth century executives such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR or Dwight Eisenhower?  Again, they appeared in public, if not always formally attired, looking well dressed and … dignified.  Same with JFK.

Things changed with Lyndon B. Johnson.  He was “everyman” having come from a hardscrabble upbringing in rural Texas.  He was proud of his roots, flaunting his rough edges as he did during a White House press conference by pulling up his shirt to show off a recently-acquired surgical scar. 

But don’t we Americans revel in the belief that anyone can become President?  Yes, except we really don’t want just anyone to be president.

We like any other people desire to look up to our leaders.  Certainly not in the way that the subjects of a monarchy view their king or in the obsequiousness that a tyrant demands of his cowed populace.  But we do want to think that our president elected by the people deserves our respect – that he is fit to lead us.  We understandably have a hard time envisioning our neighbors and work companions (everyday people like ourselves) earning the right to guide our nation and, thus, us.

Those above us should play the role.  The President should act like a leader.  Be dignified.  That conveys self-confidence which comforts the led.

Presidents since LBJ have often failed on that score.  Think of Bill Clinton playing the saxophone on late night TV (there’s no need to reference the Monica Lewinsky matter.  Certainly that was not meant to be known to the public.).

Or think of President George W. Bush’s boast that Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive”.  Although the pledge was plainly heartfelt, it did not exactly sound dignified or presidential.  It was the phrasing one would have expected from one’s bar companion.

[To his credit, Barack Obama has almost always maintained his public dignity although the occasional photos of him wearing shorts and displaying his knobby knees on the golf course are problematic on that score.]

Informality, as such, is not inappropriate, but when it is displayed, the President and pretenders should not sacrifice dignity.  Its possession, I suggest, can be more important to success than any particular position on issues of the day.

How Does Donald Trump Do It?

Pundits of all political stripes have a hard time (The Sensible Conservative, included) grasping how Donald Trump holds on to supporters after his many apparent gaffes and seemingly damaging declarations.  For those old enough to remember, he’s like the vintage Timex commercial that extolls the watch that “takes a licking and keeps on ticking”. 

Trump calls fellow GOP candidates “stupid” (one of his milder epithets), attacks Mexicans in general and dismisses venerated Viet Nam veteran John McCain as “not a war hero”. 

And his poll numbers go up.

Four years ago, respected Texas Governor Rick Perry couldn’t remember the third federal agency he wished to dismantle.  His campaign for the GOP nomination quickly slipped under the waves.  Herman Cain was the subject of rumors that he took advantage of female employees of his pizza company and his popularity evaporated.  Michelle Bachman and other Republican presidential candidates shared the same ending in 2012. 

So why is Donald Trump different? 

Maybe it’s this simple:  Unlike those candidates mentioned above, Trump’s  supporters think they know him already.  They’ve watched his TV shows and read his books.  He is a celebrity.  They like him. 

It’s natural for people to react defensively when someone they like is cast in an unfavorable light by others or by himself.  The fact of liking someone provides that person with a shield.  They either don’t believe, or ignore, the attacks and apparent missteps. 

Consider that a favored celebrity is, by that status, afforded a well of reserve good will that is available to offset perceived problems.

But caution is appropriate.  That well is not bottomless.  Ask another celebrity – once much more highly regarded than Trump is today:  Bill Cosby.

Also, for some others, to know Donald Trump is to not like him (according to polls, twice the number backing him).  They, like his fans, will not readily change their minds.  That would suggest a stout ceiling on his prospects of adding to his support.