Trump's Entry Visa Restrictions and the Problem of Political Decision-Making
By P.J. O'Rourke
Donald Trump has only been a politician for a little while. And given the way he campaigned against politics-as-usual, political correctness, and the political establishment in general... Donald Trump didn't really become a politician until he took the oath of office as president of the United States.
But the presidency is, for sure, a political office. Once you're president, you're a politician, whether you like it or not. Every decision you make is viewed as a political decision. And in my view, politics is a bad method of decision-making.
Politics ignores individuals and their liberties. The purpose of politics is always to increase political power. Every political decision is against individuals and in favor of politics. Politics is a football ref whose every penalty call gives an automatic first down to the referees instead of the football players.
Of course, individual decisions can be bad too – my first marriage, for example. But just one person (or two, counting her lawyer) were mad at me. Political decisions have larger ramifications. "Who gets the house after the divorce?" is of little long-term historical significance compared with "Who gets the House of Representatives after 2018?"
It only took Donald Trump a few days of being a politician to fall prey to politics. He made a political decision – a highly political decision. Like most things that are highly political, it was a screw-up.
A 120-day ban has been imposed on refugees from everywhere in the world. I have a Republican friend who's in the hostile territory of lefty Portland, Oregon. Does this mean he can't leave? Will he be marooned for the next four months in a place where everybody hates him and there's nothing to eat but GMO-free, locally sourced, fair-traded, artisanal vegan tofurky?
A 90-day ban has been imposed on visitors from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya. Do we get a lot of tourists from Yemen and Libya?
At first, the prohibitions were also applied to holders of green cards, who are legal residents of the U.S. Then someone noticed the "legal" part of the phrase "legal resident" and the decision was reversed in a great flurry of bureaucratic confusion.
This is one objection to politics as a method of decision-making. All political decisions result in a great flurry of bureaucratic confusion. Bureaucracies are easily confused. But in the private sector, bureaucracy serves an administrative purpose. In politics, bureaucracy IS the administrative purpose.
Politics isn't "a means to an end" for individuals. Politics is "a means to the end OF individuals." Don't look for help from politics. If politics were the IT department you wouldn't call them because your computer crashed. They'd call you to crash your computer.
More severe than any freeze-up on a laptop was what happened to a number of previously vetted and approved refugees and other travelers surprised and stranded by a sudden political decision.
This was, at best, unkind. (And let us hope it doesn't prove tragic for some of those affected.) But since when did kindness have anything to do with politics?
Personal decisions may be cruel, but at least they're personal. Politics, by its collectivist nature, moves us away from persons and into the realm of the cold-blooded. A journalist covering political decision-making is like a herpetologist studying the feeding habits of crocodiles: Kindness is not a concept that figures into the analytical equation.
But effectiveness does. Political decisions can be judged by their effects. And I don't see how this decision will produce any good ones.
We have temporary executive orders barring a small number of people from a somewhat random list of places. (A list that, notably, does not include any of the places the 9/11 terrorists came from.)
True, the executive orders fulfill a political promise. But does the word "promise" belong in the same sentence as the word "political" any more than the word "kindness" does? If a promise is political it is, by definition, a promise that considers individuals to be meaningless. Is there anything meaningful about keeping a meaningless promise?
The executive orders sound like a loud call to action. It's as if a fire alarm has been pulled. A fire alarm is a loud call to action. But what if you pull the fire alarm in a building that's miles away from the fire?
In that case, it's just noise. I'm afraid the noise will be distracting to members of the Trump administration who are trying to put out real fires.
Nobody doubts that America's immigration system needs emergency attention. But the most problematic aspect of immigration is the illegal part. When people are illegal immigrants, they haven't gone through America's immigration system. They haven't gone through any system. There is no system.
You can't fix something that doesn't exist, no matter how many executive orders you sign. I realize that more stringent border control is on the Trump administration agenda. But in the meantime, one drug smuggler wading across the Rio Grande with a backpack full of fentanyl poses more danger to America than any number of people stuck in airports.
The effect of the political decision to impose temporary travel restrictions is mostly nil except for one thing. What isn't nil is the encouragement given to nihilists. Their huge political anger has been allowed to coalesce around this relatively small political issue.
All sorts of malcontents and sore losers with a vague and unfocused hatred of the Trump administration have – unnecessarily – been given a specific focal point for their wrath.
President Trump can be commended for the speed at which he has undertaken major construction work on American regulatory, tax, trade, and indeed, immigration policy. But he should be reminded that, when you're holding the nail of power between your thumb and your forefinger, don't go handing out hammers to your enemies.
Regards,
P.J. O'Rourke