Friday, March 31, 2006

More thoughts on the War(s)

The American Thinker has an article by Christopher G Adamo which neatly ties together two of the topics that have been occupying my attention of late. One, the fact that the true enemy in the war we are fighting is not “terrorism” but Islam.

From a strictly military perspective, Iraq represents a stunning victory for America. But as capably as American forces prevailed over Saddam Hussein on the field of battle, the post-war effort has been frustrating, to say the least. Endeavors to elevate Iraq’s new government to a modern version of the democratic process, despite seeming so close to the final goal, are regularly discouraged and stalled.

The reasons for this quandary are simple, yet fundamentally profound. In short, democracy (or any of its derivatives such as our own representative republic) cannot by itself create or uplift a culture. Rather, it will only succeed at reflecting it.

To the degree that democracy has succeeded in western civilization, it has done so as a result of an inherent regard for the rights of all, including the weak, which itself is rooted in the Judeo-Christian belief system undergirding that civilization. Among those cultures that do not inherently recognize such truths, democracy, if it is to succeed at all, must be introduced or imposed by an outside force.

Though such an assessment may sound arrogant and elitist, historical facts bear it out. President Bush has conceded as much with his inarguable assertion that America cannot presently leave Iraq, for fear that the country would quickly descend into chaos, followed by civil war. The result of which would be dominance by the strongest Muslim faction, with little hope of harmony or justice for any weaker factions.

As long as Middle Easterners embrace Islam the imposition of democracy will not solve the problem. As Mel Gibson’s character said in the movie The Patriot, “why should I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?” As long as the great majority of persons in a Middle Eastern nation would voluntarily go to the polls and vote to impose a vicious, murderously oppressive 8th century religious code upon their society Democracy could actually be counterproductive. Remember, the theocracy in Iran was upheld by a free election.

The next point that Mr. Adamo makes is that the unchecked influx of illegal aliens pouring into the United States threatens to shatter the fabric of our shared idea of America.

Despite constant assertions from the White House and some in Congress, a common “desire for freedom and prosperity” is no unifying force that might automatically generate good Americans out of the invaders. And while many immigrants have historically aspired to the highest American ideals, those who trample its laws to seize its fruits, by definition, do not.
Nor should they be expected to yearn for assimilation into a culture that is increasingly treated with contempt by America’s own academic elites, is only selectively invoked as a tool by manipulative politicians, and is ultimately dismissed as a matter of complete irrelevance by economic pragmatists, and now the President.

Moreover, the illegal alien controversy is not merely a matter of post 9-11 security concerns, as is so wrongly asserted by many, including even some prominent conservatives. It was a problem long before that. This nation’s citizens are properly alarmed about an unchecked influx of invading hordes who make it unmistakably clear that they have absolutely no desire to be Americans.

Meanwhile, businesses profiting by paying substandard wages are perfectly willing to increase their margins while letting taxpayers make up the difference in benefits and services. So, the present situation (endorsed by Bush) will result in ever-escalating numbers with growing political clout, but no intention or incentive to ever assimilate into America’s vanishing “melting pot.”

The problem is not that a lot of people what to come here and work and become Americans. The problem is that a lot of people what to come here and work and remold America into a carbon copy of the nation which they left. That such a transformed America would offer as little opportunity as Mexico is lost on them.

Mexico is not poor because the land is poor. Before the US Civil War Mexico was the most prosperous nation in the Western Hemisphere. Its mineral and agricultural resources generated more wealth than the United States and Canada combined. Those resources have not been depleted. They are under utilized because of corrupt, inefficient socialistic government.

The truly sad thing is that the average Mexican citizen thinks that he is poor not because of an absence of Capitalism, but because of an excess of it. At a recent press conference Mexican President Vicente Fox was asked how long it would be before Mexico would be able to become prosperous enough that Mexicans would no longer seek to enter the US. He said that it would take generations to equalize the income differences between Mexico and America.

The difference in wealth between the two nations will never be equalized as long as Mexico’s governing class believes that prosperity results from government action. If the Mexican government would simply get out of the Mexican people’s way the transformation of the Mexican economy would begin almost overnight.