海角大神

Will the government shut down again in three weeks? That might depend on what the meaning of the word 鈥渨all鈥� is.

Or rather, it might depend on whether Democratic and Republican congressional negotiators can agree on border security measures that meet their mutually exclusive 鈥渨all鈥� definition needs.

Democrats are firmly opposed to a physical wall 鈥� 鈥渁 big, beautiful wall,鈥� in President Trump鈥檚 phrase. But they are open to spending for replacement fencing, levees, bollards, and electronic barriers. Mr. Trump has insisted on an imposing Great Wall-type structure, but at various times he鈥檚 said that would be concrete, or could be steel slats, or maybe even based on drones, sensors, and other 鈥渟mart wall鈥� technology.

Upcoming talks thus may be as much about semantics as about stuff. In this they could be a symbol for American politics in a polarized age, where the fight is about messaging as much as policy, and winning means the team on the other side of the aisle should lose.

The upshot: The 鈥渨all鈥� has become what political scientists call a condensation symbol, something that stands for schism, frustration, fear of immigrants, Trump himself, opposition to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and a lengthening list of other positions and feelings.

鈥淎ll of these things are embodied by the wall itself ... all of this cultural symbolizing is packed into the wall,鈥� says Jennifer Mercieca, an assistant professor and historian of American political discourse at Texas A&M University.

The 17 House and Senate negotiators named to come up with an agreement on Department of Homeland Security spending for fiscal year 2019 will meet for the first time on Wednesday. They have until Feb. 15 to strike a deal on border security that threads a needle and satisfies lawmakers of both parties on the wall and other difficult immigration issues.

The chairman and ranking minority member of the appropriations panels of both chambers will lead this conference committee. That鈥檚 cause for hope, say some analysts. Appropriators are generally pragmatic dealmakers used to simply finding an acceptable compromise between spending proposals.聽

They could take Trump鈥檚 $5.7 billion wall request, find a midpoint with the Democrat鈥檚 $1.6 billion offer for non-wall security, and then finesse language that allows the president to claim he鈥檚 got a wall down payment, while Democrats insist that the money is for items that don鈥檛 really constitute Trump鈥檚 cherished hard barrier.

鈥淚t is possible for them to reach a basic agreement,鈥� says G. William Hoagland, a senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington.

The wild card, as has often been the case in the last two years, is the president. The wall was a core promise in Trump鈥檚 campaign but most congressional Republicans have shown only tepid interest in the concept, at best.

Thus a deal that satisfies the Senate GOP might not work in the Oval Office. In an interview published in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, Trump said there was less than a 50-50 chance that Congress would strike an acceptable agreement. If it doesn鈥檛 include a 鈥渧ery strong form of physical barrier,鈥� said Trump, he could invoke a national emergency and proceed on the wall by himself.

Such a declaration could quickly become mired in the courts. GOP lawmakers are worried it might eventually produce a precedent that future Democratic presidents could invoke to take executive action on their own big issues, such as climate change or health care.

But the president has also occasionally talked about the wall in a way that seems open to compromise with Democratic positions. He鈥檚 talked often about 鈥渟teel slats鈥� as an alternative to concrete slabs, and mused on occasion about the possibility the wall could include 鈥渟mart wall鈥� sections of drones and other non-permanent infrastructure.

It鈥檚 possible the president is sending up trial balloons with this sort of language, says David Barker, executive director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. If he doesn鈥檛 think he鈥檒l lose the right wing or his core supporters, he might edge closer to approval of a House-Senate compromise where he gets more border money, but there is language circumscribing the money鈥檚 use.

鈥淭hat offers the possibility that Trump could claim victory because he got his underlying interests served, because he can say he secured the border, and Democrats can say they didn鈥檛 capitulate to this idea of the wall,鈥� says Professor Barker.

After all, in a polarized world where voters pay less attention to detail and focus instead on cues given by party leaders, a 鈥渧ictory鈥� can be in the eye of the beholder. The ability to present events in the best light has been a Trump trademark, and he could do that again if conferees produce a deal.

鈥淲hatever he signs, he鈥檚 going to say it鈥檚 a win. It could be a bridge letting people in and he鈥檇 frame it as a win,鈥� says Erin O鈥橞rien, an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Boston.

The 鈥渨all鈥� lends itself to that kind of redefinition, because as noted above, it鈥檚 symbol as much as steel. Maybe 鈥� probably 鈥� more so.

Defining it as a condensation symbol, in which it includes meaning that is not directly relevant to the wall itself, is one way to look at it, according to Professor Mercieca of Texas A&M. It could also be seen as the opposite 鈥� an empty signifier. It means nothing, and everything, at the same time.

鈥淪o you can put whatever you want into it,鈥� she says. 鈥淒iscourse defines the 鈥榳all.鈥� 鈥�