“Person of the Year,” TIME stipulates, “is an annual issue that features a profile on the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that—for better or worse—has most influenced events in the preceding year.”
My Person of the Year flouts TIME’s criteria. He has not “influenced events in the preceding year”; he has been irreparably influenced by events beyond his control. He has not triumphed over adversity, for how can he? To do so, he’d have to be super powerful, like a Super Power. He’d have to be someone with a say; someone whose vote actually counts. He’d have to be wealthy; stupendously strong; immune to daisy cutters, cluster bombs, RPGs, and IEDs.
My Person of the Year is the Common Iraqi.
Yes, it is misguided to celebrate victims. But then I am not celebrating The Average Iraqi. I’m suggesting that he serve as a symbol for the ravages visited by the state. He has constituted collateral damage for two administrations. And he’ll continue to be a pawn in the grubby hands of whoever seizes power in that failed state.
The Average Iraqi’s vote is not a triumph over adversity; it’s a victory over reality, for it is folly to equate freedom with symbols, and rhetoric with reality. Casting a vote to give someone power does not make a man free; freedom is the knowledge that even if one doesn’t perform that ritual, nobody can exercise power over one’s life, liberty, and property.
The Average Iraqi is a tragic hero, not a Randian hero. His image should be seared in the minds of men with a conscience. He is the repository of state evil; first Saddam, and then a faraway president and his Revolutionary Assembly sealed his fate without his consent.
Category Archives: War
Preemptive Defense
The president is cocksure about the need to keep America’s borders open. He is as confident about unleashing his version of the STASI secret service on nationals and non-nationals alike within the United States. Vanquishing foreigners in faraway lands is yet another of his drunk-with-power “defensive” strategies. However, Bush ought to acquaint himself with the duty of a constitutional government: repel foreign invaders. It is incumbent on him to attempt to stop potential enemies of the U.S. before they enter this country. Unlike preemptive assault in the absence of a clear and present danger, preemptive defense is perfectly proper.
Thus Bush might have reinstated the pre-1965 national-origins restrictions in immigration policy. A culturally coherent immigration policy is the logical complement to rational profiling. Both are defensive rather than offensive.
Thomas Jefferson warned J. Lithgow in 1805 about the desirability of welcoming “the dissolute and demoralized handicraftsmen of the old cities of Europe.” Jefferson feared that immigrants under “the maxims of absolute monarchies”—and 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?!
The state compels Americans to bear the consequences of a multicultural, egalitarian, immigration quota system, which divides visas between nations with an emphasis on mass importation of people from the Third World (more often than not of the Islamic faith). It brands as xenophobes patriotic Americans who reject open borders and indiscriminate immigration and demand that rational profiling be conducted at America’s ports of entry. Yet after refusing to restrict admission into the U.S., government proceeds to spy on these “worthies” once they’re in the country.
The Antiwar Radical Left
Could there be a more incoherent and contemptible coalition than the one that convened to protest the war in Iraq? Hardly. No self-respecting libertarian (especially the rightists among us) would be caught dead among a crowd of cheering faux revolutionary socialists and other malcontents, many of whom are probably in the country illegally, judging from their English, or lack thereof.
Speakers for A.N.S.W.E.R, which stands for Act Now to Stop War & End Racism, were Al Sharpton, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, and representatives from the United Farm Workers of America, the Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines, the Socialist Front of Puerto Rico, the Nicaragua Network, the Community Labor Union of New Orleans, Mexicanos Sin Fronteras (?), the Teamsters Black Caucus, and a lone Palestinian activist claiming to have been “framed cointelpro-style,” whatever that means. That decent Americans have jobs to attend may explain why none was seen for miles on end. No, these are not the natural allies of libertarians. Would that there was a respectable, antiwar movement libertarians could get behind, but there isn’t.
Wordless About The War
Ilana Mercer, Iraq, Islam, War
I attempted to explain to conservative Australian writer, Rob Stove, why, after chronicling the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I’d fallen silent:
When my daughter was seven-years old, her school assigned her the task of describing her parents. On her father, daddy’s darling heaped unrealistic praise (the tables have since turned. Excellent!). For her affection-starved mother, the little lady reserved a matter-of-fact appraisal. “My mother,” she wrote in her girly cursive, “is a quiet woman who speaks mainly when she has something to say.” (Rob’s riposte: “if everyone rationed speech thus, the entire mainstream punditocracy would cease to exist.” Amen.)
Pinpointed by my perceptive chatterbox of a child, this economy explains the lack of gush on Barely a Blog. And it explains why I’ve not written much lately about “Mess-opotamia.” I’ve nothing new to say. Few have. This is not to say there’s no place for repetition. But it’s not my place. I’ve said what I have to say, starting in September 2002. And here .
Fine, I’ll elaborate on a fresh observation Lawrence Auster originated: Bush and his devotees showcase their underlying hate of America by continually comparing the carnage in Iraq to the constitutional cramps of early America. As The Wall Street Journal put it, “There were a few glitches 200 years ago in Philadelphia too.”
Yes, the hoots, hollers, and blasts emanating from members of Iraq’s tribal troika capture to a tee the tone of the debates in, what’s that document called? The Fedayeen Papers?
Jalal (Talabani), Muqtada (al-Sadr), and Muhammad (Bahr al-Ulum) are just like James (Madison), John (Jay), and Alexander (Hamilton). Why didn’t it occur to me? Only a fool would fail to trace the philosophical link between the feuding Mohammedans and the followers of John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu. Mr. Auster is right: what a hateful comparison.
The war is even more hateful. And everything that needs to be said about it has been said—to no avail. Words have failed to bring us closer to a moral reckoning. So watch Do You Ever Wonder What 2000 Looks Like—and weep (link courtesy of antiwar.com).