It has been one week since the end of a 35-day shutdown of the federal government — and it is two weeks before another possible closure.
And while it is tempting to declare winners and losers in the standoff or make prognostications about future stalemates, such proclamations tend to be counterproductive. The goal must be to avoid another partial shutdown while advancing policy that benefits Americans.
To that end, Democrats in Congress must demonstrate that they have ideas for securing the nation’s southern border, even if they do not support a wall proposed by President Donald Trump. And Trump should recognize that shutting down the government while demanding funding toward a wall is not a politically viable position.
Instead, intransigence led to the recent shutdown, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates resulted in the permanent loss of $3 billion in economic activity. The shutdown proved unpopular with the public, according to various opinion polls, and it resulted in the president receiving nothing for his five weeks of impetuousness. Democrats, who control the House of Representatives, refused to budge on the wall, and Trump finally acquiesced and approved funding to reopen the government.
“If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15 again, or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency,” he said.
Declaring a national emergency to secure funds for a wall would be a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot political move and a questionable constitutional one. According to a Monmouth University poll released Monday, 34 percent of Americans believe Trump should declare a national emergency; 64 percent believe he should not bypass Congress.
Such a tactic would invite immediate court challenges and set a dangerous precedent. It would open the door for future presidents to, say, declare climate change or gun violence a national emergency and devote billions of dollars to the issue without the approval of Congress.
Trump’s insistence that there is a crisis at the border that constitutes a national emergency seems impulsive. If there is an emergency now, then there was one during the first two years of his presidency, when Republicans had control of the House, Senate and White House. Yet Republicans declined to fund a border wall.
During the shutdown, some 800,000 federal employees — including many in Clark County — were sidelined without paychecks, making for a costly tactic that resulted in no evident benefits. The impasse between Trump and Congress stands where it was six weeks ago, and there remains a need for improved border security.
The Columbian has written editorially that we believe a wall would be ineffective. While reasonable arguments to the contrary can be found, evidence suggests that increased border patrols and high-tech surveillance would be more effective in preventing undocumented immigrants from crossing the border. Those tactics also would provide needed flexibility that is not available with a wall designed to be permanent.
While most Americans oppose construction of a wall, most of us should be able to agree that secure borders are essential to a thriving and self-determinant nation.
But in the wake of a divisive government shutdown and with the specter of another on the horizon, we are reluctant to declare winners or losers. After all, Americans are on the same team, even when we disagree.
