As a rule, people in democratic societies prefer to take care of the business of life. They raise families. They work and they trade. They create wealth and they share it. Above all in free societies, we live by the law – and, at our best, we look after one another, too. ~Fred Thompson

Actually, people in pretty much all kinds of societies do all of these things, because these are all basic elements of social life.  If you think this is trite, just wait for the rest:

Often the cause of our grief is a misplaced trust in the good intentions of others. In our dealings with other nations, people in free countries are not the type to go looking for trouble. We tend to extend our good will to other nations, assuming that it will be returned in kind.

He is speaking in London, and he is referring primarily to America and Britain.  America and Britain don’t “go looking for trouble” in the world?  Leave aside Cold War era policies for now, and let’s try to forget, if we can, the close, longstanding links between British trade and British imperialism in the last two centuries before WWII and the various pro-corporate “small wars” of the early 20th century.  At the very least, you can count the governments of these countries as parties to two aggressive wars in the last eight years and they were the leading forces enforcing the sanctions and (illegal) no-fly zones against Iraq.  We don’t go looking for trouble, but we have hundreds of bases all over the planet.  We extend goodwill to the world, but have a bad habit lately of bombing and/or occupying other countries.  I don’t know what troubles me more: that Thompson has no idea how ridiculous this sounds to the rest of the world, or that he knows and doesn’t care.

Then there was this hegemonist clunker:

The American response is to ask how, then, does one justify non-Security-Council-sanctioned actions, such as Kosovo?

I don’t know, Fred.  How does one justify a war of aggression?  We’d all like to know the answer to that one.

He just keeps going:

Many in Europe simply have a different view from that of the United States as to the threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism. They think that the threat is overblown. That despite September 11th, and July 7th and other attacks in Europe and elsewhere, America is the main target and therefore the problem is basically an American one. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraqat a particular point in time resolves the matter for them.Also, they see no meaningful connection between terrorist groups and countries like Iran [bold mine-DL].

Well, it has been overblown by some people in Fred’s party.  People who speak casually of “existential threats” are exaggerating the threat.  That much is clear.  The threat of “radical Islamic fundamentalism” hasn’t got anything to do with whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq at any point in time, but notice the phrasing “at a particular point in time.”  This seems to mean that Fred thinks that there were WMDs in Iraq, but not in 1998 and not in 2003, which suggests that he buys into all of the most preposterous “they were shipped to Syria” conspiracy theorising of pro-war circles.  The last sentence doesn’t even make sense.  Do many Europeans actually disbelieve Iranian connections with Hizbullah?  Europeans might very well recognise Hizbullah as principally an enemy of Israel, which is true, and they might not understand why Iranian support for Hizbullah is their concern.  If Fred is talking about imaginary Iran-Al Qaeda ties, no one should be surprised that Europeans see no “meaningful” connection here, because there is no connection at all.  

He then distorts the position of opponents of the war:

Admittedly, even some in America think that the threat is overblown, and that if we had not gone into Iraq, we’d have no terrorism problem. 

Actually, regarding this latter point, no one here says any such thing.  War opponents almost to a man say that we already had a terrorism problem and that this problem had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.  Opponents of the war said crazy things like, “Maybe the war in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda and the Taliban should be our top priority, instead of invading a country essentially entirely unrelated to anti-American terrorism.”  Had we not gone into Iraq, our “terrorism problem” would probably be less severe than it is now, as we would not have given jihadi terrorists a huge propaganda coup and a major conflict for them to use as a rallying point for their cause, but unlike war supporters we do not inextricably link the “terrorism problem” with the war in Iraq because they are actually not very closely related at all.  Unlike those who warn against terrorists “following us home” if we leave Iraq, opponents of the war assume that anti-American terrorists are perfectly capable of targeting American interests whether or not we are in Iraq.  Our presence in Iraq does not deter terrorism, it probably encourages it and it wastes our resources on an unrelated fight.  That is what critics and opponents of the war say.  That old Fred thinks he can rely on such lazy, false charges to advance his boilerplate foreign policy agenda proves that he actually is relying on the insights of the Liz Cheneys of the world for his ideas, and that is truly frightening. 

Of course Fred wants to “let old arguments go” while still casting himself in the role of a far-sighted Churchill lecturing those whom I assume he takes to be Chamberlainesque ninnies of Britain in his audience.  Letting old arguments go is the approach someone on the losing end of those old arguments would take.  Someone who apparently didn’t know until recently that “geography, history, and ethnicity are important factors to consider in making decisions regarding today’s enemies” would very much like to put aside old arguments in which his side of the argument demonstrated powerful ignorance of all these things.  Someone who didn’t fully understand the “importance of preparation, of alliances, and the continuing support of our people” would like us move on and look forward…to endorse his basically unchanged vision of the world that promises more of the same.

It may be that Giuliani’s perplexing ability to hold himself out to the media as a foreign policy/national security candidate while possessing absolutely no qualifications in these areas is coming to an end.  We can only hope.  Faced with a choice between working with the Iraq Study Group or bringing in a lot of cash through speeches, he chose the latter.  It’s not so surprising that he did, since he probably has even less relevant expertise to offer than some of the other worthies assembled for that commission. 

Now he wants to weasel out of trying to have it both ways last year.  Having had a chance to serve as part of the ISG, which he blew off, he would like to associate himself with it by saying that he would have been part of the effort but for his future presidential campaign.  He says this for two reasons.  The obvious reason is that his preference for cash over public service on a key foreign policy matter shows him to be something of a fraud of a foreign policy candidate.  The other reason is that he would very much like people to associate him with the ISG now that the administration has started reconsidering its recommendations after six months of little or no progress in Iraq.  This would also partly make up for his impressive lack of any ideas about what should be done in Iraq.

Update: I don’t know what Nexis shows, but trusty old Google News tells me that media all over the place have been picking up the Giuliani-ISG story.  True, a lot of places have just picked up today’s AP wire and run with it, but the story is receiving coverage.  Relevant here is the fact that Newsmax, a site popular with many conservatives, was one of the first to pick up the story.  Unlike Giuliani’s total lack of national security credentials to date, this story is not going to go unreported.  The AP story has the added bonus of including the report of Giuliani’s (now former) South Carolina chair being indicted on drug charges.

Second Update: Media Matters has a nice skewering of Politico for being largely oblivious when it came to this story.

We always tend to think of the U.S. as a “nation of immigrants.” ~George Borjas

The U.S. is even more of a laggard in inflows of foreign nationals as a percentage of population. ~ Will Wilkinson

You can almost hear Gen. Buck Turgeson declaring, “Mr. President, we cannot allow an immigrant gap!”  It might be that we are not “falling behind,” as Mr. Wilkinson puts it, but are instead doing a bit better for ourselves.  If we keep “falling behind” like this, there might cease to be any excuse to continue calling America a “nation of immigrants,” and that sounds like a healthy thing to me. 

That line from Mr. Borjas’ post struck me.  I suppose it is fair to say that a majority of Americans, perhaps a very large one, thinks that America is a “nation of immigrants,” but to say that “we always” think this is odd.  Who is this “we” he’s talking about, and why would “we” have always thought this?  I mention this because not all of “us” agree that it is actually true.

My article on neoliberalism is in the new issue of The American Conservative.  It is not online, so you will have to read it the old-fashioned way.  Also in the June 18 issue and available online are Kara Hopkins’ article on the GOP and Ron Paul, Michael’s cover story on Ron Paul, Steve Sailer on La Raza and immigration, Jim Antle on Hugh Hewitt’s Romney book, and Theodore Dalrymple on Walter Laquer’s The Last Days of Europe.  It looks like a great issue, so I encourage everyone to go get a copy.

President Bush began by paying tribute to the founding father of Czech democracy. “Nine decades ago, Tomas Masaryk proclaimed Czechoslovakia’s independence based on the ‘ideals of democracy.’”

Well, that may be what the Masaryk said, but it is not exactly what he did. In 1918, he did indeed proclaim the independence of Czechoslovakia, confirmed by the Allies at Paris. But inside the new Czechoslovakia, built on the “ideals of democracy,” were 3 million dissident Germans who wished to remain with Austria and half a million Hungarians who wished to remain with Hungary. Many Catholic Slovaks had wanted to remain with Catholic Hungary. Against their will, all had been consigned to Masaryk’s Czech-dominated nation. ~Pat Buchanan

Words fail me.  There’s simply too much hilarious irony so densely packed in one article.  There is simply nothing else to do but point and marvel.

Thompson’s advisers aim to use the London events to bolster his foreign policy credentials and elevate him above the increasingly contentious fray of the GOP race. ~The Politico

Via Yglesias

I wish I could acquire “foreign policy credentials” just by going out of the country and giving a speech full of tired bromides about the “special relationship.”  Note that former Sen. Thompson doesn’t actually have any foreign policy credentials at the present time (just wait till you see who is advising him!).  In the Senate, he was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee–not exactly Foreign Relations, is it? 

These items made me laugh out loud:

Liz Cheney, the former State Department official and the vice president’s elder daughter, is consulting on foreign policy. Longtime GOP guru Mary Matalin, a friend of Thompson, will help shape the campaign’s message.

That would be thisLiz Cheney (via George Ajjan), and Mary Matalin, the woman who helped run an incumbent, victorious war President’s re-election into the ground (granted, she had a lot of help from the candidate and a funny guy from Texas).  So I guess all those hours labouring for Libby weren’t in vain after all, were they, Fred?  It would appear that he has the whole of Cheney’s ever-shrinking empire behind him.  That right there is as clear a strike against him as anything I’ve seen.

On the contrary, the 30 or so conferees–Iranian-born intellectuals, Middle East scholars, journalists and former officials from Democratic and Republican administrations and foreign governments–could agree on little other than that Iran is a uniquely aggressive regime intent on becoming the predominant power in the Middle East [bold mine-DL]. ~Bret Stephens

So the one thing all could agree on happens to be only half true, if it is that.  Is the Iranian government intent on becoming the predominant power in the Middle East?  Probably.  That is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw from its actions over the last few years–that doesn’t mean that it will happen or that Iran can actually achieve its goals, but it is at least within the realm of the possible.  Is it a “uniquely aggressive regime”?  Obviously not.  To the extent that it is aggressive at all, it is so in the very commonplace way of funding proxy fighters.  For the most part, the Iranian government is not terribly aggressive by the standards of some other governments. 

To say that it is uniquely aggressive is to say that it is aggressive in a way unlike any other state on earth.  This is a sorry abuse of language.  The absurdity of a contributor to the Wall Street Journal editorial page complaining about a foreign government’s unique aggressiveness is simply too perfect.  You cannot exaggerate the bizarre, grotesque and strange ideas that appear in that paper.  Today Iran is uniquely aggressive (though it does not illegally occupy someone else’s territory), and the other day Libby was declared a “fallen soldier.”  What could be next?

Leaving aside all this talk of Mexicans, did the core of Mr. Wilkinson’s response to Ross’ remarks on immigration make any sense?  Ross said, in reply to Yglesias:

Of course, one might argue that reducing illegal immigration is something that would “compromise the interests of the global elite” – which is one reason (among many others, some of them quite high-minded) why so many members of that elite are on the “left” on immigration. A slightly better way of putting what Matt is driving at, I think, is this: Large-scale immigration from Mexico to the United States is a form of de facto humanitarianism, and since Americans are generally leery of humanitarian spending (primarily because we overestimate the size of our existing foreign aid budget), liberal humanitarians have a vested interest in preserving the existing immigration system. It’s a rare issue where business interests line up on the side of raising the living standards of Third World peasants, and why mess with a good thing? Better, as Matt suggests, to go after the global elite in other arenas – like tax policy, say – where the business class’s preferred policies don’t have humanitarian externalities.

So here we can see that Ross is clarifying the point that Yglesias was making on why liberals could still support mass immigration even though said immigration has a negative impact on the wages of American workers and thus increases the income inequality that also exercises liberals.  For his exegetical efforts, Ross received the following tongue-lashing from Mr. Wilkinson:

It’s a rather profound error to characterize voluntary trade between American employers and Mexicans workers as equivalent to ”humanitarian spending,” as if money tax revenue had been withdrawn from the Treasury and sent to Mexicans. There is indeed a pecuniary externality of Mexican workers in the American labor market â€“ downward price pressure from competition — and this can indeed have an effect on the pattern of American incomes. But it is a pretty basic and embarrassing mistake to confuse (1) coercive state confiscation and reallocation of income with (2) changing patterns of income from voluntary exchange.

Um, okay, but for this criticism to make any sense it would have to be aimed at someone who actually confuses these things.  If anyone in this debate might have confused them, it would be Ross’ imaginary liberal restating Yglesias’ argument.  At no point in his post did Ross say that he regards these things as equivalent or comparable, but that it seems to him that this is how liberals reconcile the apparent contradiction between their concern over inequality at home and their support for importing ever-greater inequality from abroad.  Ross’ rejoinder to the liberal position is that this justification is “slightly perverse,” since it seems to privilege the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the American poor, which Ross says is a bizarre way to engage in a “humanitarian” politics.  In other words, at the heart of this dispute are Mr. Wilkinson’s profound outrage at the position with which both he and Ross basically disagree and Mr. Wilkinson’s mistaken attribution of that position to Ross and his “populist nationalism,” under the “heel” of which he is “grinding” his Christian universalism.

Young Zeitlin continues to impress (even though I suspect Ms. Franke-Ruta will not be pleased with the comparison).