As this column goes to press, the partial governmental shutdown in America may be entering its fourth week–the longest in our history. The battle lines are drawn. President Donald Trump is very much betting his presidency on forcing Congressional Democrats to fund his “wall” with Mexico. While superimposed on a $4.4 trillion federal budget, the $5.8 billion requested by the president for this barrier hardly qualifies as change. Yet, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde’s quip about the pettiness of academic life, because the stakes are so small in dollar terms, the politics have become so sharp. Clearly, the president is honoring his campaign promise “to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it.” Of course, the wall is a metaphor for border security. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, the president refuses to accept that metaphor even though his definition of “wall” may be a changing. As for Mexico paying, that was absurd from the start. While the revised Nafta Treaty, still to be approved by the Senate, is being used as a surrogate for payment in that the benefits according to the president will amount to Mexican pesos for the wall, only the true believers will accept that falsehood. The real reason for the president’s obstinence is that to govern, he needs his base of about 30% of voters. Fellow travelers who support that base perhaps add another 10%. With this 40% approval, the president has sufficient political capital to dominate politics. The wall is vital to maintaining his base. Democrats are correct in that border security not a wall is needed. Further, the notion of a national security crisis on the southern border is as bogus as Mars attacking earth. By every measure, that border is more secure today than in the past. The same cannot be said of the borders with Canada through which more watch list terrorists can flow and the enormous sea coasts that have tens of thousands of unprotected and unsecured miles that are potentially far more vulnearable than the nearly 2000 mile boundary with Mexico. The tragedy is that the shutdown was caused by the failure to govern by both sides although the president deserves the lion’s share of responsibility. 800,000 government employees and possibly a million or more contractors and workers depending on government for daily livings are being held hostages in this fight. None of this is fair. But fairness seems to have been dropped from the American political lexicon. The fundamental problem is the U.S. needs bridges not walls to ensure its future security. One can argue that in the past, walls may have offered protection. China had the Great Wall. But that wall was impotent against foreign “barbarians” who seized huge swaths of China’s coastal cities and imposed great demands that today are not forgotten in Beijing. As this column goes to press, the partial governmental shutdown in America may be entering its fourth week–the longest in our history. The battle lines are drawn. President Donald Trump is very much betting his presidency on forcing Congressional Democrats to fund his “wall” with Mexico. While superimposed on a $4.4 trillion federal budget, the $5.8 billion requested by the president for this barrier hardly qualifies as change. Yet, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde’s quip about the pettiness of academic life, because the stakes are so small in dollar terms, the politics have become so sharp The Soviet Union erected the Berlin Wall that proved ultimately ineffective. States such as Israel have used walls as did the U.S. for a time in Iraq during the 2007 surge to reduce the violence. That latter proved temporary. And the former, it can be argued, is worsening the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The U.S. needs sensible border security. That relates back to immigration reform among other issues. As long as the immigration quandary remains unresolvable, border security will be a bridge too far, no matter what sort of obstacles may be erected on the Rio Grande and the Mexican border. What is needed is building bridges. Much of the forced migration is caused by violence, crime and instability in Latin America. Here bridges must be built with Mexico and the more stable regional states as well as with the Organization of American States (OAS) and the UN. But what is being done here? The answer is very little. Similarly, the Trump “America First” policies are demolishing too many bridges between the U.S. and the international community. Rejection of the Transpacific Partnership (TPP); the Paris Climate Accord; the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran; and links with our closest allies in NATO is part of this bridge burning. And embarking on trade wars with allies and with China in erecting tariff walls that as with the Mexican border will prove unworkable. This column questions whether our system of government created by the best minds of the 18th century can weather the political tsunamis of the 21st century generated by hyper-partisanship on both sides of the aisle. A key indicator of where we are headed is clear. Will the U.S. attempt to build more walls with the outside community? Or will bridge building return as a means to enhance proseperity and peace? Stay tuned. And prepare to be disappointed. Dr. Harlan Ullman is UPI’s Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist. His latest book is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Has Lost Every War It Starts Published in Daily Times, January 16th 2019.