Mercer, WorldNetDaily.com, Jul. 16
Not allowing the clouds to cap one’s
vision is an admirable quality, but allowing them to cloud reality
is hardly praiseworthy. The principled positions of the Libertarian
Party should have the potential to unite America in a common political
purpose. Not the current Libertarian Party, however. Not after nominating
a presidential candidate who refuses to see the perils of free,
For the first time in an eternity,
libertarians can begin to make political inroads. The libertarian
opposition to unprovoked wars of aggression appeals to a sizeable
anti-war constituency, left and right, for which the invasion of
Iraq was a watershed event.
The LP’s stellar stands on civil
liberties, and privacy, and its firm opposition to the war on drugs
? these are bound to attract yet more liberals and some conservatives
who rightly believe that government has no place in the nation’s
medicine cabinets, snuff boxes, or hovering over their deathbeds.
The Patriot Act, tariffs, First Amendment
infringements, the unparalleled expansion of Medicare entitlements,
and the scrofulous spending are making it hard for neoconservatives
to continue to pretend that Emperor George is clothed.
Ideologically, Kerry is also naked.
When Howard Dean primal screamed his
way out of the race, left-of-center Democrats were left less.
John Kerry will not capture these disaffected voters. The LP has
the potential to so do. Considering its candidate’s
strong commitment to the actual defense of America (as opposed to
gratuitous foreign offensives), the LP might even manage to woo
neoconservatively inclined Democrats.
Why, the sky could be the limit. The
chaos neoconservatives leave in their wake may just prime Americans
for an awakening.
The canonical William F. Buckley recently
apostatized over the invasion of Iraq, prompting other Big Government
conservatives (or neoconservatives) to do a double take: If
I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would
be in, I would have opposed the war. Buckley also confessed
to being enormously bothered by the growth of government under Bush.
With a vital program that promises
to beat back government and reinvigorate civil society, the LP is
well positioned to return America to the vision of the founders:
a free society founded on individual rights and responsibilities.
Yet hardly any of my readers will
cast a vote for this party.
As traditional Taft Republicans, they
are the natural allies of libertarians. But like most Americans,
left and right, they desire greatly reduced legal immigration and
a swift end to the illegal influx. What an opportunity for the LP
to fill the void and become the only party to respect the
people’s leave-me-alone (negative) rights.
On immigration, however, the LP is
no better, and perhaps much worse, than the Democrats and the Republicans.
Inviting an invasion by foreigners and instigating one against
wrote, are two sides of the same neoconservative
coin. A Libertarian government may never invade, but
it’ll definitely invite an invasion.
Against such an eventuality Thomas
Jefferson famously cautioned in Notes on Virginia (Q.VIII,
1782. ME 2:118):
[Is] rapid population
[growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible . .
. founded in good policy? … They will bring with them the principles
of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or,
if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded
licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another.
It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of
These principles, with
their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion
to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will
infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render
it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass … If they come
of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship:
but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements
Alas, the LP has selectively picked
and chosen from the richly textured words of Jefferson, and turned
this classical liberal into their Emma
Lazarus. But somehow, our state-planned,
multicultural, egalitarian quota system, which divides visas between
nations with an emphasis on mass importation of people from the
Third World ? the short and sweet of our immigration system ? didn’t
enter Jefferson’s consciousness.
And not because his was not an extremely
Writing of immigration to George Flower
in 1817, Jefferson worried about consecrat[ing] a sanctuary
for those whom the misrule of Europe [my emphasis] may compel
to seek happiness in other climes. And to J. Lithgow in 1805,
A first question is, whether it is desirable for us to receive
at present the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of the old
cities of Europe [my emphasis]. Jefferson feared that
immigrants under the maxims of absolute monarchies — again,
he was not talking about the monarchies of Buganda or Ethiopia — may
not acclimatize to the freest principles of the English constitution.
What would he say about arrivals from
Wahhabi-worshiping wastelands whose customs not only preclude natural
right and natural reason, but include killing their hosts?
That would have appalled Jefferson, and again, not because of his
limitations, but because of ours; because of how low we have
The greatest-ever American (no, it’s
Jacoby) would not have lower[ed]
the requirements for coming to the U.S., as the LP proposes,
but would have raised them to impossible heights. And most Americans
share his standards.
In order to complete the construction
of a serious alternative to the current Tweedledumb
electoral alternatives, the Libertarian Party must heed Jefferson
on immigration and scatter the clouds of unreason.
Ilana Mercer is a columnist for
WorldNetDaily. Her new book is Broad
Sides: One Woman?s Clash With A Corrupt Culture.
To learn more about Ilana and her work, please
visit her website.
(Posted on July 16, 2004)
Post a Comment