Europe is awash in prohibitionist and antiabortion fanatics. Like America’s Rapture-awaiters, Millerites and Left-Behind fans, these lot are basically suicidal. Laws cannot control those who do not value their own lives. Europeans call their newcomers rapefugees, in honor of their religious custom of raping and killing women. It therefore makes as much sense to import this form of induced mental illness as to make it a policy to import Ebola, Yellow Fever and Anthrax victims. The difference is that the latter at least mean no harm, but the consequences of their crossing borders uninspected could be catastrophic. Given this background, what is the dumbest thing a political party could possibly put in its platform but a confusing straddle plank that serves only to arouse the most baleful misgivings? I’ll just lay it out for you:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders…
It starts with a platitude more easily interpreted as a jab against tariffs (present since colonial times) than against the income tax (a Communist Manifesto plank injected into the Constitution). Through this, the Federal government has taken up running an asset-forfeiture racket and seeks to indict individuals for “laundering” money to thwart such parasitism. But we already have a plank denouncing the income tax. The second part once had useful meaning–when Democratic German Todes-schutzen sharpshooters shot entire families attempting to escape their Socialist paradise. Today it is a platitude best left to those capable of drawing inferences–inferences other than that the LP wants Ebola-packing Saracen berserker terrorists streaming in through unmarked borders. For that is what DemoGOP demagogues are gleefully bandying about as the “libertarian” policy. So widespread is this gleeful bandying that a second clause was tacked on in a desperate attempt to keep wiser heads from scrapping the entire error: However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
The only politician in history capable of pulling this off was Republican prohibitionist Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy’s campaign perorations ran into many dozens of words arrayed in serried ranks of subordinate clauses and modifiers that practically cancelled each other entirely. Mr. Dooley’s satire sums up the formula perfectly:
“The Trusts? I’d crush ’em underfoot! Then again, not so fast!”
Today’s voters listen to so many bipartisan attackers tearing apart insurgents’ pronouncements in search of contradictions that straddling only damages the cause it is intended to promote. Libertarians have already placated Republican lynch mobs and gunmen stalking Planned Parenthood clinics to the point of changing THEIR platforms. Now they admit they haven’t a leg to stand on constitutionally. Still they seek to enlist the help of the budget-cutting Congress in order to again endanger public health and–if miraculously successful–cause the Rumanian-style violent crime wave the statistics in Freakonomics lead us to expect would result. Our work is done, the mooted threat to women’s rights can safely be ignored. The alternative is to needlessly reinforce fanatics and invite voters to tar-and-feather us alongside them.
Scrapping both straddles would improve OUR platform. After all we still have the Non-Aggression Principle as a guiding light and protection from conspiracy buffs. Instead of painting ourselves with easy targets, let the anarchists, religious torturers and communists look for new ways to twist and misinterpret that. Their parties all advocate violent coercion, and we get more votes than all of them put together. Once you’ve beaten them, don’t join them.