Murray Rothbard embraced the lunatic fringe of the anti-war movement for reasons that remain somewhat puzzling. ~Reihan

But there is really nothing puzzling about this.  George Grant (not a libertarian, I know) was as vociferous a critic of “American imperialism” in Vietnam as the most hard-core of war opponents down here were, but no one would have confused him with someone who inhabited the “lunatic fringe.”  It is much easier to understand why an American libertarian, for whom state coercion is a virtually unmitigated evil and for whom any hint of aggression is a mark of profound immorality and a violation of the rights of others, would have strongly opposed Vietnam and would have found himself in the company of “the lunatic fringe,” since it was mostly this fringe that actively opposed the war in the beginning.  For reasons that continue to escape me, many of the most otherwise sensible people in the world become very strange and almost irrational when the subject of this or that war comes up.  Opposition to our many bad wars in the 20th century was often reserved to, or was at least characterised as the work of, “the lunatic fringe,” which may be more or less accurate depending on the war, because all “respectable” people were frequently conventionally in support of the war (regardless of whether it really made any sense to support it).  I think WWII and Roosevelt had a lot to do with encouraging the bad habit of making support for wars into the obvious, default and respectable alternative.  Calling war opponents “the lunatic fringe” is probably most accurate about opponents of Vietnam, and yet the presence of someone as wise and sober as Murray Rothbard suggests that it may be a lot less accurate than many of us would like to suppose.  There were slightly more compelling reasons for U.S. armed forces to be in Vietnam in the 1960s than there were for them to be in Iraq now , which is a nice way of saying that the reasons for intervening in Vietnam aren’t (and weren’t) terribly convincing, either.  Rothbard saw that a lot sooner than many Americans on the left and right who should have seen it.  Of course, it depends on what constitutes “the lunatic fringe” of any antiwar movement.  By most standards, I would guess that I have been on that fringe, or at least on what was considered a fringe before the events of the last two years moved a lot of people fringewards.  Looking back on Vietnam, the lunatic position appears now to have been the one that favoured intervening in the first place.

Most of Reihan’s outstanding post has nothing to do with Rothbard or war and a lot to do with immigration and with libertarians who find themselves attracted to figures on the political left, with Spanish PM Zapatero as Exhibit A.  This is where it actually gets very interesting, as it brings us back to the enthusiasm for immigration shown by certain libertarians.  Apparently everyone who’s anyone is talking about Christopher Caldwell’s article on immigration into Spain, which includes this insightful point about the impact of the “free movement of labour” (as immigration fans like to euphemistically call it) on the home countries whence all these African immigrants to Spain are coming:

Well-meaning people like to talk about Africa’s admirable ethical norms and systems of familial solidarity–and they’re right to. But when we think of Africa in the future, we must think of Africa without those things. The rising generation has traded them for Baywatch, or whatever it thinks the West is.

This is a lot like when certain “well-meaning people” in this country talk about the Catholic piety, work ethic, natural conservatism and family values (they don’t stop at the Rio Grande!) of Mexican and Latin American immigrants as a way of conning American conservatives into seeing mass immigration as a huge net gain.  Even if those claims are true of this generation of immigrants (which we may have reason to doubt), they will probably not be true of the next generation in Mexico and Latin America.  As some commenters and correspondents have rightly pointed out when I have said favourable things about assimilation, immigrants who successfully assimilate to the culture they find here in America will assimilate to the worst, trashiest elements of our pop culture.  How could they not?  What other examples do they have to follow?  This is true, but it is also true that the “ethical norms” and “familial solidarity” that serve crucial social functions in their home countries will be eroded and corrupted by the processes of social upheaval and “creative destruction” that the promise of “opportunity” unleashes.  The success of migrant workers apparently can also create the problem of a remittance glut that stifles development and enterprise back home:

In a 2005 study, that bank [Bank of Mexico] found a negative link between development and remittances — the more remittances, the less overall development. The bank even went so far as to suggest poverty was caused by the dependency, not the other way around.

Because most cash sent back is used for consumption, and not investment, it gives only a short-term boost to GDP.

“Evidence also suggests that members of recipient households have fewer incentives to search for alternative sources of income,” the bank noted, describing a burgeoning private welfare culture.

To ameliorate its immediate social and economic problems, the Mexican government has encouraged emigration and remittances and may find itself in the future in an inescapable loop of draining off more and more of its human capital to make up for all of the development that past remittances have effectively discouraged.  Stopping the outflow of their human resources might be just the thing needed to force Mexico to change.

The erosion and disappearance of the “ethical norms” and “familial solidarity” Caldwell mentions is part of the same process Michael identified in the weakening of pre-political loyalties and the rise of a consumer identity.

Addendum: Dr. Wilson has another thoughtful column on some related matters, in which he writes:

Two ugly thoughts about immigration. A blog writer recently complained that the U.S. is admitting immigrants “who don’t want to become Americans.” This writer’s attitude is part of the problem. The question should not be whether they want to be Americans but whether we want them to be Americans. The game has already been forfeited when immigration objectors adopt such arguments. (Of course, the complaint makes little sense any way because nobody knows any longer what an “American” is; but save that for another day.) The blather about English as official language and compulsory assimilation falls in the same category. I prefer that illegals do not speak English and do not assimilate. In the highly unlikely event that we are ever lucky enough to have real law enforcement, they will be easier to catch. Official English, under current dispensations, becomes just one more educational entitlement for illegals—for which apparently vast sums are already being spent.