humpty dumpty or the border?

someone's thoughts on Vlad the Impaler's role

Happy Tuesday to all! It was a pretty morning and an even prettier, albeit cool, afternoon.

I ran into a neighbour as I was out this afternoon. He is an engineer, logical and problem-solving in nature. We usually discuss our community but never politics. I had no idea what his politics were.

He announced he is fed up with what he hypothesises is Putin’s funding of the Republican Party to draw our attention off Ukraine. In particular, he conceded there are problems along the U.S.-Mexican border but that Vlad the Impaler is assuredly promoting those who highlight the concerns en lieu of people focusing on Russian steps in Ukraine. Sobering stuff.

President Zelenskyy made the rounds of the Hill today hoping to unlock proposed funding and weapons for his beleaguered nation. I suspect he got a chilly reception from the House leadership. Speaker Johnson and the Republican Party are equating illegal border crossing with Russia invading Ukraine by linking the two items together.

Illegal border crossing is, in its most basic sense, violating U.S. sovereignty. No state I can think of anywhere, anytime, or ever wants someone to violate their sovereignty, which international law defines as holding ultimate power or control. When someone ignores sovereignty, this is a demonstrable example of weakness. Humans don’t are pretty consistently opposed to projecting weakness (even when they are pretty weak). Americans are completely in sync with any other country in our widespread frustration over anyone from anywhere ignoring the rules.

Yet, there is, of course, a delicious irony here: we have violated Mexico’s sovereignty more than once. The difference is that the illegals crossing are not a state-driven activity but Mexico’s unwillingness or disinterest in preventing these crossings is what bothers us. Our federal government-sanctioned actions against Mexico included General John J. Pershing pursuing criminals into Mexico’s sovereign territory a hundred ten years ago. We whine about China asserting itself as a large power in its disputes but we are not entirely pure in our willingness to ignore laws when we deem our desired objectives more important than those of others. That is how the world works.

Illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States and has been for the whole of our existence. The crux of the difference right now is that so many Republicans stress the illegal part rather than even the immigration aspect. We need immigrants to fill low-paying jobs, especially after the Pandemic, that other natural-born Americans refuse to take for a variety of reasons ranging from inability to get affordable child care during work hours to not wanting to take menial positions—and many other reasons in between. Illegals tend to queue to work multiple, often dangerous, low-paying jobs while living far away. I have lived in about 20% of the states in the country and immigrants do the crappy jobs in each of those states.

A portion of the immigrants come legally but millions do cross illegally. It’s that grievance-focused reality of someone ‘jumping ahead’ in life that seems to drive so much of the anger. This is neither new nor likely to end with the current crop of Republican governors sending migrants to ‘Democratic cities’ or trying to brutalise those caught here illegally. I have to wonder how thoroughly we are using the provisions of the Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act of the 1980s to assure employers suffer consequences by taking on illegals to work in low-paying positions; I simply don’t know but speculate it’s a patchy enforcement pattern.

Linking this domestic issue to supporting Ukrainians trying to survive against Putin’s attempt to reabsorb a former Soviet Republic is somewhat novel in my understanding of U.S. history. I think we have rarely tied aid in quite this manner but you, faithful readers, may know many instances I am not familiar with. This all does make me wonder how Putin’s actions play into the context. Back to my neighbour’s thoughts.

Republicans between 1947 and the early 1990s deeply feared Russia as the greatest existential danger for our nation. When the recently departed Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon promoted detente in the early 1970s, disillusioned liberals joined the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan to assure the U.S. reverse uncounted vulnerabilities to Soviet power—especially military prowess. Even after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, many Republicans feared the Gorbachev era was a huge stunt to paralyse us. It took the dissolution of the Soviet Union on 31 December 1991, followed by the feeble attempts at democracy in Moscow for Republicans to accept this fall of the ‘evil empire’.

Vladimir Putin interpreted those same actions as a fall but a completely unwelcome one. He has been working for the entire thirty years since the Soviet Union fell like humpty-dumpty to put it back together again. It is impossible for me to see his actions as anything but seeking that outcome. Perhaps he had different goals before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 but I think he may well have simply been more restrained in showing his objective. No matter, he will use whatever options are available to him to recreate his vision of a Mother Russia swallowing up all ‘Russian’ lands as he defines them and showing its superpower status.

Putin’s use of any and all tools ought to put us on highest alert but roughly half the United States does not seem to care. My neighbour’s assertion that Putin ‘has bought’ (his quote) the Republicans is an unabashed condemnation of the Party whose senior elected leader as Speaker of the House of Representatives is second in line to the highest position in government should something happen to the president.

Putin certainly understands the mission the Republicans currently have to remove Joe Biden. That mission coincides nicely with Putin’s goals. What a coincidence of interests. Those interests assuredly will not coincide forever, Republican friends.

The current GOP is anti-historical but it’s likely that many do not remember the existential dangers that Russian activities posed during the Cold War. Are the activities really different because Putin no longer claims the mantle of ‘communism’? Is Russian nationalism any less threatening? Is China truly more dangerous to our interests than Russia or are they both worrisome?

Or is the current GOP returning to the isolationism Americans have lauded through so much of their history? If this is the case, are there dangers to U.S. interests from that behaviour or are the supporters of Ukraine kidding themselves about this?

Or, is the southern border really our most dangerous threat with both China and Russia and Ukraine and Israel a list of places far away? Are we discussing these priorities or talking amongst ourselves in small groups which do not intersect for wider debate?

I ask out of true weariness. One of the subscribers to this column last night forwarded criticism from someone who strongly disagreed with my analysis. I was honestly pleased at the feedback as it makes me refine my thinking and assure I am not falling into the same mistakes I criticise others for making. I responded to the comments, which their author likely did not expect as his criticisms were forward to me by the subscriber. I am truly delighted to know someone thought about my column even if that individual disagreed with my assumptions and analysis. These are invaluable exchanges of ideas, even if unintentional, that we rarely see of late but absolutely need for our society—and security. We need more of this type of exchange where one has to explain, with logic and evidence rather than wishful thinking, one’s points.

Please send me thoughts. Please circulate if you think the ideas worth the consideration of others. Thank you for subscriptions.

Be well and be safe. FIN