Red, Brown & Blue

What This Border Boy Saw in Ted Kennedy

I met Ted Kennedy one breezy autumn afternoon in Boston’s North End. I was surprised to see him alone, striding across the street with one hand in his pocket and his trademark jaw jutting up towards the slate grey sky, looking every bit the sartorial Senator.

Without hesitation, my pulse quickening with my pace, I changed course to intercept him as he reached the corner and waited to cross. In my early 20′s, probably wearing my school uniform of torn jeans, who knows what he might have expected me to say as his curious, twinkling blue eyes pierced mine.

I offered my hand and blurted out, “Senator Kennedy, my name is Rudy Ruiz and I’m a student at the Kennedy School of Government. I just wanted to meet you and thank you for all that you and your family do.”

There. I’d said it. My cheeks were probably flushed redder than his, but we were both smiling. He warmly replied in that classic accent, “It’s good to meet you, Rudy.”

For him I was but one of probably hundreds of thousands of people he met throughout his long and illustrious career, eager to shake his hand, admiring of his towering achievements, frankly in awe of his family’s legacy. But for that moment, he paused and genuinely fulfilled my wish to converse with him, granting me a lifelong memory I’ve always cherished.

With his passing, I’ve remembered that moment poignantly. And I’ve marveled about how much Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy legacy has meant to me in my life, a phenomenon that at first glance I found rare but upon further reflection makes perfect sense.

Born on the US-Mexico border – in Brownsville, Texas – what could a small town boy who didn’t speak a word of English when entering kindergarten relate to within the persona of Ted Kennedy and the mythos of his wealthy, powerful family of New England aristocrats?

As a child I was first drawn to the Kennedy mystique while devouring biographies in my elementary school library. Somewhat of a nascent policy geek, I appreciated and admired the stories of great American heroes much like any other child growing up anywhere in our nation. When I read the book about Teddy’s older brother, John, I was moved to tears. I must have been about 10 years old and – like many full-grown adults to this day – I could not understand how someone with so much promise could be so ruthlessly cut down in his prime, robbing all of us and the world of his vision, charisma and heart. John F. Kennedy’s formula for success, though, shared a variable with several other Presidents who also made an impression on me, including John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The common denominator was Harvard, one that Ted Kennedy shared as well. In the pages of those books, the seed was planted in my mind that in order to achieve my fullest potential and contribute to my country I should start at Harvard.

When I asked my mom about John F. Kennedy, she mournfully recalled the day he was assassinated.

“I was working as a teller in a large bank in Mexico City the day it happened,” she said, a faraway look in her eyes. “When they announced in the lobby that President Kennedy had been killed, everyone stopped what they were doing. It was completely quiet. And then everybody broke down crying.”

I asked her why people in Mexico were so affected by his death. To which she explained, as if I should have known at birth, that the Kennedys had always been loved in Mexico, that they were also great friends of immigrants, and they were simply good people devoted to helping others. A devout Catholic, my mom naturally attributed much of this commitment to serving humanity to the Kennedy’s faith. She then told me that John F. Kennedy had faced great challenges overcoming prejudice against Catholics to win the presidency.

I was stunned. I had learned in school about the struggles of African Americans to gain freedom and equality, but I had no idea Catholics or Irish Americans had faced prejudices as well. When I asked her why people were afraid of having a Catholic as president, she replied it was because they worried that he would be subject to the Pope’s influence and thus undermine American sovereignty.

I found it hard to believe, but my appreciation for the Kennedy family was only heightened by the discovery of those two commonalities: their experience as an immigrant minority and their religion. The fact that they had overcome prejudice in ascending to prominence also fueled my own aspirations to rise beyond the circumstances of the border, with Harvard as the gateway to that future.

When Teddy ran for President in 1980 I was twelve years old but followed it as closely as I could, enamored with the possibility that the shattered dream of Camelot might be poetically restored via the youngest brother.

And when the Senator’s fatal flaw doomed his candidacy, I found him strangely more compelling a figure, tragic in his own right, enigmatic. He was a sobering reminder that – regardless of our childhood dreams – not all of us can be President. Most of us probably do not manage to reach the pinnacle of our dreams. But that doesn’t mean we should give up on doing good for the world. That’s a lesson to be learned from Ted Kennedy. For despite all of his name recognition, family wealth and connections, Kennedy failed to capture the brass ring of the Presidency. And, while he wavered at times, in the end he persevered in his efforts to quietly, consistently deliver on the idealistic promises embodied by his clan.

Looking back at his most famous speeches, two seem to stand out: his eulogy at brother Robert’s funeral and his concession speech at the 1980 Democratic Convention.

At St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, he said of his brother Bobby: “My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it…”

Later when conceding defeat to Jimmy Carter, he electrified the crowd with his rousing sentiments as he proclaimed that despite his defeat, “…the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.”

As memorable as his words were in those moments of loss, more memorable is the manner in which he forged those values into law in the decades that followed, touching millions of lives via his authoring and support of far-reaching legislation in the areas of civil rights, immigration reform, health care and social services.

He failed. He wavered. But in the end, he persevered in doing good work.

Coincidentally, those were his parting words to me that crisp, cool day in Boston’s version of Little Italy. As he stepped off the curb, he looked back at me and cheered me on: “Keep up the good work!”

Speechless, I stood there with a goofy smile plastered on my face as I watched one of my heroes walk away.

When I graduated from Harvard’s Kennedy School I was inspired by the Kennedy legacy to apply myself to the betterment of society, to serving diverse communities and individuals in need, and to search for creative, entrepreneurial ways of doing so.

Since I didn’t reply to the Senator then, I’ll do so now as I join the world in watching him walk away with his head held high:

Senator, thanks to you and your family’s inspiration and accomplishments. In transcending race, religion, class and nation of origin, your ideals and spirit were truly the essence of America. For that reason, they resonate with people from Boston to the border, from Latin America to London. And regardless of whether I realize the fullness of my dreams, whether my shortcomings slow my progress, whether I waver at times, I will keep up the good work. Hopefully, thanks to your example, many others will do the same.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

For the People: Herr Obama and the Socialist States of America

A basic principle upon which I’ve learned to live my life is that I should never be surprised at people’s ability to disappoint me. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and begin relationships from a position of trust. I believe that most people want to do what is right and good and fair. I have simply learned that I am often wrong about that, and I should not let myself get too down when people reveal themselves to be of a different persuasion.

As part of that principle, there comes a corollary requirement to forgive those who disappoint.
I have been feeling a great deal of disappointment lately. Though I have remained steadfast in my insistence on not being surprised, I’m having more difficulty with the forgiveness part. So, before I begin my criticisms of the poor behavior I’ve witnessed, let me take a moment to embarrass you fools who clicked into my post solely for the title, believing this would be another outlet to reinforce the hateful and barely masked racist attitudes you’ve promoted. You’re not going to find what you want here. I do hope you’ll stick around, though. It will be good for you.

I’m disappointed in our President. I feel that President Obama has squandered a tremendous amount of political capital and good will, just as his predecessor did. The people in our own country and throughout the world looked at the election as a graduation from our own past. Because our national history is riddled with inhumane transgressions against people of non-white races, to see a brown-skinned man elected to the highest office in the land gave all a sense that we were moving on, and the change in attitude towards race was interpreted as a signal of further and greater changes to come. Our President and the newly-empowered Democratic Congress have unfortunately demonstrated a tendency to stay the course, and follow in the footsteps of the “leaders” who participate in a puppet-show of political debate while allowing and assisting in quiet Constitutional erosion. But, to borrow a common quote from our Chief Executive, “let me be clear.” My complaints about Obama and the Democratic Party are based in reality. Comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, or shouting the word “socialist” every time a piece of legislation is designed to benefit all Americans (not just the rich ones) is nothing but hateful, lazy, and uninformed fiction.

Adolf Hitler is no longer simply a historical figure – a point of reference for those with an understanding of history. He’s the very opposite. He is a euphemism made possible by his wide recognition, and thereby becomes a simple and fast symbol to communicate negative characteristics to a populace without the time or inclination to think through such a comparison. He is a synonym for Darth Vader. Any person who dislikes another person can lazily invoke the name of Hitler as a slur and achieve some success at disparaging them. Just a partial list of the people who have been subject to that comparison includes Arnold Schwarzenegger, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, the nation of Israel, Clarence Thomas, Martha Stewart, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, global warming, and vegetarians. It’s absurd. It’s wrong. It’s offensive.

When people discuss Adolf Hitler, is the major criticism that he wanted to ensure health care for all of Germany’s citizens? I don’t see that as Hitler’s defining characteristic. Socialism? There are many nations of the world that operate under socialist governments, yet we don’t label each of their leaders as another Hitler. Even if you want to label Obama as a socialist (and I’ll get to that fallacy in just a minute), I still know that the following conversation has never taken place:

“Class, I’d like you to get your text books and turn to page 213. Today we’re going to begin studying World War II, the Holocaust, and the evil of Adolf Hitler.”

“Mr. Professor, what made Hitler such an evil historical figure that he still evokes extreme disdain and nearly universal condemnation?” asked young Johnny.

“Well, Johnny,” said Mr. Professor, “He was a socialist.”

Never happened.

Comparing a fascist dictator responsible for the extermination of 6 million Jews to a democratically elected President attempting to make sure all Americans have access to health care is reprehensible in every way. It might be wiser instead to remember that Hitler came to power and outlawed opposing political parties, which brings to mind Karl Rove’s blueprint for a permanent Republican majority. He cultivated a populist base by exploiting xenophobia and racial pride, like the Republican “birthers” and the persistent anti-immigration platforms of the Grand Ol’ Party. Those today so vocally opposed to same-sex marriage might be reminded that Hitler was also interested in the sanctity of that institution, and banned marriages between Jews and Aryans. He was a proponent of war and military expansion and was uninterested in the stress those pursuits might put on the national economy, an attitude mirrored by the last three Republican Presidents, at least. So if we want to draw comparisons, let’s make sure we draw them all.

It’s less offensive but equally absurd to paint our President or the Democrats in Congress as socialists. First of all, socialism is not a terrible concept. Like many other parts of our language it has been turned into a pejorative by people who have poorly understood it and misused it. It doesn’t help that the word became guilty by association with foreign governments that were often opposed by our own in the last century, even though those governments were not actually socialist but rather fascist. Have you ever seen those dreams of the future from the 1950′s, in which all of our lives were made better by robots and computers? The fantasies of a 20-hour work-week made possible by advances in technology – technology which would eliminate manual labor, solve the social ills of hunger, poverty, and illness? Those were illustrations of socialism – the application of technology and resources for the betterment of all members within a society.

Obama is no socialist, despite contrary misconceptions. He still supports the American capitalist idea that you can start with nothing, work hard, be competitive, and have it all. He’s actually not a bad example of that concept. He believes in that idea, as many Americans do despite the fact that they’ll never achieve it because they’ll never really be allowed the opportunity. Americans cling to the notion of rugged self-sufficiency without recognizing the publicly supported advantages they already possess, and remain willfully ignorant that barely-checked capitalism in this country has allowed the rich to get richer while the poor become poorer; that the gap between the two groups grows ever more wide; that the laws and organizations of the nation are undermined by corporate interests; and, that most citizens and a growing number of corporations benefit from “socialist” services all the time. I wonder how many people that have bandied about the word socialist at town hall meetings or at the dinner table or on Facebook in relation to their disapproval of our President have ever driven on a road, walked on a sidewalk, visited a public park, checked a book out from the library, had a relative on Social Security, called the police, learned something at a public school, left trash at the curb for pick-up, been thankful to have a fire department, cheered for a sports team at a publicly-funded arena, or supported our troops. Those services and benefits have all been as socialist as a national health care plan could be.

My point is simple. I’m not mad at you, just disappointed. Grow up. If you have a disagreement, discuss it like an adult. Name-calling has no place in civilized debate. It just makes it appear that you don’t know your facts because your ideas were spoon-fed to you in the first place.

Jake Negovan strives to shine a light on truth and hypocrisy when the mainstream media overlooks those small details. “…For the People,” Jake’s column, is his platform to address the issues that our country faces as we continue growing toward a society of equality.

Blue Dogs Barking.

The Blue Dogs are identified by their conservative tendencies. And holding on to those tendencies, the Blue Dogs exhibit a partisan trend: reluctance to reason.

There are instances where followers of both of the major political institutions in our country sway from red to blue and vice versa; it is then that the boundary fades, often due to convenience more than conviction, and this is the case of the Blue Dogs who – although certainly members of the Democratic Party – act more like Republicans.

For those still learning the terminology, the Blue Dogs are a group of legislators who, although registered Democrats, are as conservative as most Republicans.

My friend and historian, Beto Calderón, tells me the Blue Dogs are members of a caucus that was formed in December 1994.

Another friend, Humberto Caspa, a professor of political science, explains: “It is a political coalition from the Democratic side of the aisle.  It was formed 15 years ago and is today 51 members strong.  They insist they are moderate Democrats, but they are really conservative on social and economic issues.  They are not in agreement with Barack Obama´s policies; many of them do not agree with the healthcare reform he proposes.  We could say they are the “Reagan Democrats” in Congress.  A more extensive explanation is being broadcast by the media during this period of pro and con discussions. It´s been said that these are Democrats that gained previously traditional Republican seats thanks to the havoc created by the Bush administration and its lack of popularity; however, their ideology on abortion or the right to bear arms is very close to the Republican position.  They are also opposed to an increase in taxes or public spending, and this is precisely how the Blue Dogs can be identified on the issue of healthcare reform.

Obama hoped the healthcare reform would be approved before the recess on August 8th, but that did not happen and the issue was postponed until September.

During this deadlock, the Blue Dogs left their demand on the table: a reduction in the cost of the proposed reform and a guarantee that Obama will not force a particular plan on the public.

It would appear the scales are tipping in favor of the opponents to healthcare reform, that is, the majority of Republicans and a handful of Blue Dogs. The postponement of the vote could be interpreted as a victory, but we cannot discount the fact that Obama is not the type of politician who will take a wait-and-see attitude.

He has increasingly spent time explaining and clarifying his proposal for healthcare reform and pushing for it, much as if he were campaigning. In effect, his actions and speeches are a campaign for healthcare reform. Hopefully we´ll see him acting the same way when it´s time to debate immigration reform.

The president is putting forth the same proposal he had mentioned prior to his election, a reform that will protect the public against unfair practices from insurance companies and provide affordable health insurance.  It remains to be seen whether the public will understand it as such and send a message to their elected representatives.  There is, after all, no better lobby than the voice of the people. Most Democratic legislators are doing their job and showing their support by explaining the proposed reform to their constituents.

The president assures the public that health care providers have already agreed to reduce costs and that pharmaceutical companies have agreed to reduce prices for seniors.  Under his reform plan, 46 million people who do not have medical insurance today would be protected and coverage would be extended.

Republicans hope they can defeat the president and obtain their first victory in the Obama era, then continue to build on that victory to invalidate the moves and political advances of the one who threw them out of office.

And they have certainly stirred up a hornets´ nest.

It would not hurt for the Democrats in Congress to mediate with those who will stir the nest each time there is a possibility of important change offered by President Obama. After all, during key and decisive moments in history, blue should remain blue at all cost.

For now though, it seems the real motivation of the recalcitrant blues is fear of change; they want to “let sleeping dogs lie”.

In response, Obama might well quote the famous words of Don Quixote: “The dogs are barking (Kathleen), we must be moving forward.”

.

Raúl Caballero is the Managing Editor of Diario La Estrella.

Justice Should Be Color Blind, But People Aren’t.

The debate over President Obama’s selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has incited many reactions. Opponents of programs designed to counter historic discrimination and prejudice claim that justice should be blind, seizing on Sotomayor’s ethnicity and past comments about the positive values of diversity to not only undermine her credibility but also to take a vicious swing at the kinds of policies that opened doors for her and other Hispanics and Blacks. This is an opportunistic and insidious endeavor, a clear attempt to leverage a truism about justice to undermine policies designed to engender equality. It’s a disingenuous threat that must be countered.

I agree that justice should be color blind, but people aren’t. Just the fact we have to say justice should be color blind implies that in our society, when we have allowed color to factor into our verdicts the results have been unfair. It’s a sad reality that has pervaded our history, dogs us today and is reflected in our society and economy. I agree that in the best of all worlds, in a utopia, race and ethnicity would not factor into decisions made by the courts, nor would they figure in deliberations by government agencies, schools, and corporations in awarding access to opportunities. But we don’t live in a utopia. Human beings must execute the laws and policies of our government. And last time I checked, human beings weren’t perfect. Human beings must make the final decisions. And human beings are driven not only by reason but also by emotion. Human beings still find comfort in familiarity and sense self-consciousness in the face of the different, whether it drives them to act negatively, justly or to overcompensate in a positive direction. The result of human racism over the centuries is that in America – although we have our first Black President – it is important to still note the following:

• Obama is the first minority President in over 200 years in a land first inhabited by Native Americans and then built largely on the shoulders of slaves and immigrants.

• Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in proportion to their population in practically every elected body in our nation, from Congress to the boards of Fortune 500 companies.

• Blacks and Hispanics, along with other minority groups, not only face discriminatory and predatory lending practices and higher foreclosure rates during the current mortgage crisis, but also exhibit enduring educational attainment gaps, income gaps, and health disparities.

The results of a history of racism and prejudice cannot be wiped out by one election. Color blindness cannot be achieved at the grassroots level simply because we have a few enlightened leaders and media pundits who would like us to believe it can be that easy. Those who would overturn race- and ethnicity-based policies designed to eliminate these types of gaps would also have us blindly believe we are living in a utopia.

The illusion of Paradise Found is treacherous and must be dispelled. Much of the racism and discrimination that minorities encounter today is not as overt as it was in the past, rendering it easier for those who either wittingly or unwittingly propagate it to argue that it doesn’t exist. There are no signs that bar us from using the same bathrooms. We don’t have to sit in the back of the bus. Instead, we face a more quiet, lingering form of racism and prejudice that will take generations to overcome. It is a de facto or subtle racism that does not necessarily result from outright racially motivated decision making, but rather from decisions driven by other emotions, interests and relationships that coincidentally tend to correlate with race and ethnicity. For example, lucrative government and corporate contracts, as well as admission to exclusive schools and organizations are often awarded to equally or less qualified individuals or companies simply because of familiarity, relationships, and insider access. These types of relationships are often non-existent within minority communities because we are only beginning to build elite and professional classes of our own. So, in lieu of those types of built-in advantages, race- and ethnicity-based policies that encourage decision makers to provide opportunities to qualified minorities and minority-owned businesses are designed to level the playing field. It may be an imperfect solution for an imperfect world, but it’s better than turning a blind eye on a persistent problem.

As the debate rages on until Judge Sotomayor is sworn in as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, it is important to speak up against opponents who would turn the race card against minority groups and interests. It’s a coy game they are playing. And while I do agree we should aspire to a world where decisions are made regardless of color or creed, I’m not naïve enough to believe that we’ve reached that utopia. I also am not naïve enough to believe that the path to racial equality will be hastened by eliminating the few, weak and complex initiatives designed to help us reach that very goal. I’d much rather toil to eliminate the blatant disparities between all groups. And when statistics show that we are all truly functioning as equal peers in this society, then by all means, let’s do away with the mechanisms designed to help us get there. Then instead of being color blind, perhaps both justice and society will be capable of seeing us all – in full color – as equals.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Resources: To help protect the civil rights and advancements of multicultural communities, support MALDEF. Click here to learn how.

Dream. Act. Now.

As Americans, we all know that the difference between a dream and reality can be a fine, blurring line. The beacon that has drawn immigrants from around the world to America has been — that through our liberties and opportunities — everyone can realistically hope to transform their own existence and rise up from their reality to reach for the dream of a better life for themselves and their family.

Great stuff. It’s America’s most enduring product, for both internal consumption and for exportation: Hope.

So why curb the supply when there is so much demand in the world? I can understand that many opponents to increased legal immigration fear potential negative impacts on our nation, whether those be cultural or economic. But even thinking conservatively, why oppose strategic immigration policy that keeps the dream alive and channels well-intentioned, talented, committed, productive people into the American mainstream? Why wait on comprehensive immigration reform, which is complex and will likely require a long-winded debate, to determine the fate of thousands of currently undocumented college students and graduates? Why delay action on The DREAM Act? Why keep good people like Benita Veliz waiting in the shadows for their chance to transform their lives and — in the process — maximize their contributions to America?

I first heard about Benita from a colleague at RedBrownandBlue. A college graduate with the dream of attending law school, Benita was the valedictorian of her Texas high school. Her story came to national attention when it was featured in the New York Times. Fascinated by the tale of this young, overachieving dreamer, I reached out to her. Benita explained to me how she was brought here as a young child and has not returned to Mexico since then. Raised as a Mexican-American, she first began to notice that she was different from most of her friends when they started getting drivers licenses and jobs at the mall. Without the proper documents, she was afraid to come forward and join them in those teenage rites of passage. In some way, perhaps it served her well. Instead of working part-time and cruising, she focused on school and graduated at the top of her class, earning a full scholarship to a private university.

Today, as a product of public schools, Benita says she yearns for the chance to “pay America back by being a productive, tax-paying citizen.” But today, as an undocumented immigrant, Benita is also in danger of being deported. What good would that do for America? What in the world would it do to Benita?

I asked myself, how bad would it be for a bilingual young Latina to be sent back to Mexico? She could surely go to school there, find a job, start a new life, couldn’t she? Many Americans like me have been fortunate to face choices like studying and working abroad. They are enriching experiences, but in the end we know we can always come home. If deported, Benita would not be able to do that. Her studies, her dreams, America’s own investment in her and her potential, would be squandered to prove a petty point. What point is that? That we are a nation of laws.

I agree that we are such a place, where the law should be respected. But I also believe that the law is made to serve mankind, not the other way around. Our Congress has the opportunity to pass a new law, The DREAM Act, to provide people like Benita an opportunity to legitimize their presence on American soil and get on the path to citizenship by contributing to our nation’s future prosperity and security.

I urge you to contact your elected officials to voice your support for The DREAM Act. About 65,000 students like Benita could be impacted positively by The DREAM Act each year. In exchange, they must go to school or serve in the military, proving themselves worthy of citizenship. It’s not a bad way to keep the dream alive. It’s actually a great way to affirm that – in America – we’re still at our best when we’re turning dreams into reality.

Resources for Action:

Ten Things You Can Do for the DREAM Act!

Find Your Elected Official and Send an Email of Support for the DREAM Act via Congress.org.

Learn more about the DREAM Act and Comprehensive Immigration Reform at MATT.org.

To help Benita specifically, send a letter to:

Michael Pitts
Field Office Director
U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
8940 Fourwinds Drive
San Antonio TX 78239

In your letter to Mr. Pitts, you can ask ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcements, to consider “dropping removal proceedings” against Benita Veliz. Friends of Benita have also started a page on Facebook to marshal support.

Drug Wars: Stop Gunning for the Symptoms. Start Shooting for the Cure.

“One river, one nation,” we used to say during my childhood on the border. Well today, my country is falling apart. It’s dying. Blood has been running in the streets for years. But now – with Secretary Clinton’s trip to Mexico, President Obama’s impending visit, Mexican troops massing on our borders, and dead bodies piling up on both sides of the Rio Grande – this Drug War is getting more buzz than our megabillion dollar wars overseas. So what’s the real problem? Is it the drugs? Is it the guns? And do you ever wonder why no one seems to tie any of it back to the waves of immigrants washing over our borders? While the guns, violence and sexiness of it all have lured Anderson Cooper and others to the seedy, shadowy corners of places like Juarez, Tijuana and Nuevo Laredo to shine their lights on this dark pornography of the human soul, far less sexy and news-hole friendly issues drive this human tragedy. But they are challenges that must be faced if a lasting solution – rather than simply a passing diversion – is ever to be found.

Remember when we waged a War on Drugs? That War was supposed to not only hit the cartels that brought in the Supply. It was also supposed to attack the other source of the problem: the Demand. What happened? After all, if our culture were not so drug-obsessed, the destructive filth these ruthless criminals peddle would find no harbor near our homes. But it seems that War was long ago forgotten. Perhaps it was too difficult to wage. Perhaps the disintegration of the American family unit, the decay of our educational system, and our youth’s growing sense of futility leading to escapism at any cost were too harsh, too mind-numbing, too complex and too unpopular to tackle. So instead our attention was diverted, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf. When I studied International Relations at Harvard, I learned Rule #1 of politicians facing trouble at home has always been to divert attention outwards. Could the new Administration be playing the same game now? Trouble at home? Us? No, surely the foreigners are to blame. Saddam Hussein. WMD. Islamic terrorists. Afghans. Mexican Drug Cartels. Everyone. Anyone. But us. Let’s just pop a national Ambien/Xanax cocktail and go back to sleeping at the wheel.

So if not blame ourselves for the Drug War that’s raged on our border for decades, then why not guns? That’s the hot topic as anti-gun and pro-gun lobbies debate whether lax gun laws are to blame for the escalating violence.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, write:

This crisis is not happening because our border is loose. It is happening because our gun laws allow guns to be sold by unlicensed sellers without background checks required by the Brady Bill, military-style assault weapons to be freely sold and corrupt gun dealers to thrive.

Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association fires back:

Everything Mexico’s murderous thugs are doing is already illegal. At issue is not the absence of law, but the absence of political will to enforce the laws that both nations already possess.

As tragically confused as the border I grew up in, they are both right and they are both wrong. Kennedy Townsend is correct that the border’s porous nature is not to blame. But she’s wrong to decry easy gun sales as the cause of the violence. Just because you can buy a gun doesn’t make you want to kill people.

Wayne La Pierre is right that if these evildoers couldn’t get the guns in a store or gun show in Texas, they’d get them somewhere else. He’s also on target in saying that the problem is not an absence of law. But he’s terribly naïve in opining that the solution is finding the political will to enforce existing binational laws.

What they both don’t get is that at its murky depths this heinous crisis ripping our nations apart at the seams is not about broken laws; it’s about broken cultures. It’s about something way deeper than both the law and the Rio Grande that divides our systems of justice. It’s about what drives young Americans to throw away their futures and seek out drugs despite their self-destructive power. It’s about what compels young Mexicans to jettison their values and join the drug trade. It’s not about absence of law, but it is about absence of better things to do with their lives. It’s not about lack of political will, but it is about lack of meaning, purpose and legitimate opportunity in these people’s lives.

I grew up on that border that now draws so much attention with buzz over building walls, gory beheadings, and violence spilling over into sleepy American neighborhoods. I almost drowned in its desperation right on the shores of the Rio. And I’m haunted every day as I see Mexico dying from a new manifestation of the same disease that has been killing it since the day it won independence from Spain and then started having pieces of itself chopped off and consumed by its ambitious neighbor to the north. Mexico is trapped in a culturally engrained system of impenetrable social stratification and personal economic paralysis. It is nearly impossible for a person to rise up from poverty or family anonymity to wealth and fame through legitimate means. So those with desire and any shred of imagination are left with two viable options: leave the country (hence the immigration problem) or join the drug cartels. It’s the only way to grow out of the circumstances into which people are born. Imagine that. And here in America, our youth – trapped as well – seek the only escapes they can find and afford: video games, mobile technology, the internet, music, sex and, of course…drugs. We’re all mired in shallow ground. Who’s going to throw us all a communal rope so we can climb back onto the banks?

In the end, arguing about laws, border security and military crackdowns is not going to end the Drug War or the problems that cause it. That’s like arguing over what size or color of Band-Aid to put on a broken heart. What we need to talk about, work on, and figure out – both as autonomous nations and as symbiotic neighbors – is how to mend our inner selves as “a people.” It’s harder and not nearly as sexy as showing pictures of federales battling machine gun-toting killers in a Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino-esque hyper-reality that has become the evening news. But it is only through the inglorious, surgical labor of cultural introspection, rehabilitation, and evolution on both sides of the border that the bleeding wound we both share – the carved deep wound I crossed every day as a child – will ever heal.