The wall as symbol

In the ongoing discussion of the government shut-down, Anne made what I consider to be an excellent comment about the border wall for which President Trump is demanding funding.  Anne's comment included this observation:

...the wall symbolizes [Trump's] campaign and his campaign was based on inciting fear and loathing of Hispanics and of brown refugees who are not christian from other parts of the world.  The walls along the border have not always symbolized racism, but "the Wall" does now, at least to some degree. 

I think this is an astute point: the wall is not just a composite of steel and concrete along a ribbon of land; it is a political symbol that connotes something deeper.

Jonah Goldberg, a senior editor for National Review, expressed similar views regarding the wall and symbolism a couple of weeks ago:

The defining feature of American politics for the last half-century has been our increasing reliance on symbolism ... One the problems with symbolic politics is that it’s hard to compromise, because symbolism enlists notions of honor and identity that leave little room for haggling. In a fight over bread, you can agree on half a loaf, because half is better than nothing. But with symbols, it’s difficult to escape zero-sum thinking.  ...  

Trump’s wall is now an entirely symbolic affair. His biggest supporters insist that he has a mandate for one, and that it was his central campaign promise. I don’t think that’s right analytically. Only two things unified all Trump voters: his promise to not be Hillary Clinton, and his promise to appoint conservative judges. 

But none of that matters now because the symbolism is more important than the reality. Indeed, the president has offered to compromise, saying that we don’t have to call it a wall and it doesn’t even have to really look like one. But that doesn’t matter either, because for Democrats, any structure that the president could claim victory over would be a defeat.  

Immigration policy itself is something of an afterthought. Serious restrictionists readily concede that a wall would be far less useful than mandatory E-Verify and other such efforts to make hiring illegal immigrants more difficult. I’ve yet to meet a serious advocate for curtailing immigration — legal or illegal — who wouldn’t trade a wall for reform of the visa system. On the left, there are probably many who would trade a wall for reforms to their liking. But both sides understand that the base cares more about the symbolism of the wall fight.

Earlier this week, I heard a member of Illinois' congressional delegation, Republican Adam Kinzinger, express frustration over the government shutdown.  He declared his conviction that there are reasonable members in Congress on both sides of the aisle who, if given the opportunity, could resolve the current impasse in five minutes or less.  But it seems unlikely those cool heads will be given a chance.  Because the wall isn't just the wall; it's become a symbol.