ShareThis Page
Jonah Goldberg: Border wall a symbol of our symbolic politics |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Border wall a symbol of our symbolic politics

Jonah Goldberg
| Monday, December 31, 2018 8:03 p.m
A Central American migrant lowers herself down from atop the border wall onto the U.S. side, after crossing in Playas of Tijuana, Mexico, Dec. 3.

As we close out 2018 with a partial government shutdown merely adding some extra spice to the monotonous stew of political rage served daily, it’s worth noting that the primary sticking point isn’t an ideological split over border security, nor is it the recalcitrance of the president or the Democrats. It’s about symbolism, for want of a better word.

I am in no way trying to minimize the disagreement. We often dismiss controversies or concerns by waving our hands and saying something like, “Oh, that’s merely symbolic,” as if the meaning we give to symbols is somehow irrelevant compared with more tangible things. But symbolism — the way we reduce broad concerns, agendas and visions to images or rituals — has played a defining role in human life since there have been humans.

Try burning a flag or a cross in front of the wrong audience and then tell me symbolism is nothing. The rifts between Shia and Sunni, Eastern Orthodox and Catholic, Israelis and Palestinians, Tibetans and Chinese, obviously have real political, theological or economic substance behind them, but they are often reduced to symbolism. If you study the history of nationalism, it is often a story of symbols. What flag shall we fly? What icon shall we mount? What books will we revere — or burn?

The defining feature of American politics for the last half-century has been our increasing reliance on symbolism. As my National Review colleague Ramesh Ponnuru noted almost 20 years ago, presidents are now symbols of the culture war.

George W. Bush represented “Red America,” and Barack Obama represented “Blue America” — at least in the eyes of many of their supporters and critics. President Trump makes much of that look quaint, given that Bush and Obama at least made the effort to sound as if they were looking out for the interests of all Americans.

One of 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. It’s like the famous line, “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

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.

There’s an irony to this turn in American thinking. We treat the presidency like it’s a symbolic monarchy, but real monarchs have the power to make compromises for the common good. Julien Benda observed in his 1927 classic “The Treason of the Intellectuals” that the rise in popular democracy, or populism, robbed rulers of the unilateral ability to decide what was consonant with the nation’s interests and, more importantly, the nation’s honor.

In the modern age, the people get to choose their own symbols, and they aren’t in a mood to compromise.

Jonah Goldberg is a columnist for the Tribune Content Agency.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.