DAVID FRUM'S DIARY
JAN. 8, 2004: Q&A 1
NRO Readers Write
Yesterday, I offered to do a Q&A with NRO readers about An End to Evil. If they’d provide the “Q,” I’d do the “A.” As always when NRO readers write in, I am so impressed by the thoughtfulness of what you have to say. I hope my responses can begin to live up to the high standards set and expected by our readers.
Q: Do you think Powell and Armitage will be running the State Department after Bush is reelected? If not, what do you expect?
A: I do not expect Powell to stay on in a second term, and if he departs, Armitage will surely follow him. Unfortunately, though, I do not expect that to change much at the Department of State. The problems at the Department of State originated long before Powell arrived. Powell didn’t overcome those problems – but then again, neither did a long string of Republican secretaries of state before him.
<font size=4>
The single most important of those problems is the State Department’s understandable institutional bias in favor of, well, states. State’s working assumption is that with very rare exceptions the world’s 160+ governments are legitimate holders of power over the people within their borders. As individuals, of course, the intelligent and capable people who staff the State Department may recognize that the relationship of the government of Belarus to its people is not equivalent to that of the government of Belgium. But institutionally, State treats them as if they were functional equivalents.
Thus, no matter how dangerous the government of Iran is to us and no matter how oppressive to its own people, it offends something very deep in the department’s collective mentality to suggest that the United States do anything to hasten that government’s demise. Which is why Colin Powell instead called for “dialogue” with Iran in a December 30 press statement.
It’s hardly sensible to carry on a “dialogue” with people who have repeatedly lied to you in the past – but if you see “dialogue” as your core mission, you almost cannot help yourself: You do it anyway.
<font size=3>
Q: Regarding the war of ideas, with the latest World Trade Center memorial plans just made public and the recent controversy over not allowing the media to cover the return of our fallen soldiers at least on camera - At what point do these otherwise patriotic displays actually encourage our enemies? How do we measure whether these types of displays incite more terrorism or whether they strengthen our impulse to fight?
A: Important question. Displays of weakness may well incite or any rate encourage terrorism – as they did in the 1990s. But I’m not sure that displays of grief have that effect. By now, it should be clear to America’s enemies that Americans will not crumple under adversity. But <font size=4>home-front morale is important – and that’s why the administration is right not to televise the arrival home of each and every casualty. The United States did not do that during World War II. Each casualty is recorded and honored; and when the struggle is over, the casualties will be memorialized – as Washington is now memorializing the triumphs and losses of the Second World War in a beautiful new monument rising on the Mall.<font size=3>
Q: I'm not one of those crazies who thinks that a national ID card will inevitably be followed by the rise of Big Brother, but there are two fatal problems with such a system that I think will be unavoidalbe. First, any ID card (even one with biometric data) will be easily counterfeited. That reduces the whole enterprise to a colossal waste of money and political capital. Second, if there is an ID card the political landscape makes it inevitable that checking your ID will become a precondition of holding a job; if the government's notoriously unreliable databases or clerical workers make one goof, you lose the right to feed your family.
Leaving aside bogus concerns about constitutionality and privacy, why do you think an ID card will actually work?
And no fair saying we need one whether it works or not -- in a nation that shares a 3,000 mile border with a third-world nation, it's perfectly plausible to look at the hand Providence has dealt us and conclude that stricter border control just isn't in the cards.
<font size=4>
A: I’d never say we need an ID card whether it works or not. But if we use the right technology, the card will work – possibly not perfectly, but certainly better than anything we have now. And yes, I think showing the card ought to be a precondition of employment – and employers who hire people who do not carry cards entitling them to work in this country ought to be punished. The whole point of the card is to identify and hasten the removal of persons who are not legally entitled to be here.
Please keep sendng those questions in - more answers tomorrow. Until then, some quick thoughts on President Bush’s amnesty proposals for illegal aliens.
1) The President is right that something has to be done to deal with this problem. It is wrong and dangerous to have 7-10 million living inside the borders of the United States who are largely unprotected by its laws and unrepresented in its government. Illegals do not pay taxes, often do not carry car insurance, often do not send their children to school, often do not obtain their vaccinations. A republican government does not comfortably coexist with a submerged caste of citizens.
2) It is a fantasy to imagine that the US government will round up and deport all or even very many of these 7 to 10 million people. The probable alternative to reform is the maintenance of the status quo.
3) Actually the alternative is worse than the status quo, for as soon as the job market warms up, still more illegals will arrive, intensifying the problem.
4) But merely ratifying past law-breaking is not “reform.” When President Bush first took up the illegal immigration problem back in 2001, he seemed to envision a large settlement between the United States and Mexico that would oblige Mexico to put in place reforms to create jobs for Mexicans in Mexico, including the opening of the Mexican energy industry to US investment. Mexico would also cooperate with the United States in curbing the flow of migrants. All of these crucial elements have since been dropped.
5) Without them, the president’s plan does seem to contemplate an indefinite flow of illegals into the United States. While some employers will be delighted by the ability to hire Mexicans at the federal minimum wage, other less scrupulous employers will continue to prefer illegals, who work even cheaper. The president referred to the possibility of sanctions against such employers, and those would help – but ultimately the only answer is faster economic growth in Mexico.
6) The president referred to imposing new sanctions against employers who hire illegals. It will be interesting to see how serious those proposed sanctions actually prove to be – and what mechanisms will be put in place to catch employers who break the law. Will employers be affirmatively required to verify the eligibility of their workers? If not, then even harsh sanctions won’t make much difference.
All in all: The president’s proposals do not form a coherent whole. They are a disappointment on policy grounds, and I have a bad feelling that they may turn out to be a political disappointment or worse as well.
<font size=3>
12:24 AM
nationalreview.com |
