Laura Ingraham
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
For 50 minutes Bill Clinton held a conference of Britain's Labour Party
spellbound. Referring to himself as a "citizen of the world," he bashed
Republicans back home, trashed our Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore,
trumpeted his own political accomplishments, and lavished praise on the UN.
It was as much of a campaign speech as any he gave in 1992-but this time he
sounded like he was running for President of the World.
His platform, in his own words:
- "building the international institutions that in the end we will have to depend upon to guarantee the peace and security of the world and the human rights of all people everywhere."
- fulfilling "the obligation to have everything we do contribute to building an integrated global community out of the interdependent world in which we find ourselves."
- increasing US aid to the UN because "the United States [does] not contribute as much as we should to international institutions."
- in Iraq, "respond[ing] in a way that is consistent with the larger obligation we all have to build a more integrated global community."
Imagine a candidate for US Senate, let's say in Colorado, running on the need to "build an integrated global community," or on the need to increase US funding of the UN?
The Master Communicator's described September 11th as "a microcosmic but painful and powerful example of the fact that we live in an interdependent world that is not yet an integrated global community." (The word "evil" is so 1983!) Bill Clinton, like most of the left-wing in the US, knows that the progressive utopia he envisions won't happen if we leave things up the US electorate, so he is looking elsewhere for the power to get the job done-international organizations and institutions that aren't accountable to the people.
If Democrats wonder why Republicans think they aren't sufficiently patriotic, perhaps they should read Clinton's "critique" of the UN: "There are still people who vote in the United Nations based on the sort of old fashioned national self-interest." Oh, the horror of it all! Leaders who actually put the interests of their countrymen above those of the "global community"!
"I have a difference in opinion with the Republicans about whether we should be involved in the Kyoto protocol, the comprehensive test ban treaty, the international criminal court, and all these things," said Clinton, "but these things stand for something larger which is our larger obligation to create an integrated world." Apart from the sheer classlessness of these attacks on the current Administration, he implicitly says that Democracy of the representative kind we have in the US, doesn't work. He knows most Americans still believe in securing the national interest first, and that they would be chagrined to learn that their tax dollars were being used "to create an integrated world."
As conservatives long suspected, Bill Clinton's loyalty, as evidenced in this speech, is not primarily to this country. His loyalty is to the liberal European elites who adore both him and the prospect of the world where America is no longer the world's sole super power. (Clinton also warned against US efforts to "dominate and run the world.")
For Clinton, a new UN resolution on Iraq is merely a means to a larger goal-"the chance to integrate the world, to make the United Nations a more meaningful, more powerful, more effective institution." The crowd went nuts.
Bill Clinton is still the biggest figure on the Democratic stage. He still raises the most money. He still exerts influence through Hillary and pal DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe. He is still beloved by Hollywood. Republicans should call upon all Democrats to either embrace or distance themselves from this World According to Clinton. Do they agree with Clinton that the US shouldn't try to be a dominant world force? Do they agree that our main goal should be an "integrated world." Do they agree that we're ripping off the UN by not sending more money Kofi's way?
Meanwhile, if Bill Clinton wants, sometime in the future, to be named
Secretary General of a super-sized UN, he already has the campaign theme down
pat: America Last.
Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Laura Ingraham is the host of a radio show syndicated nationally by
Westwood One Radio Network. Comment by clicking here.
10/01/02: Euro-worries about wall flower status
09/26/02: How lucky we are that the Straight Talk Express drove off the cliff!
09/18/02: What Jackson and Sharpton know about conservatives
09/12/02: The Today Show v. guns
08/27/02: Bush not attending the UN-sponsored "bash Amerika" conference!?
08/20/02: The NEA: Let the anti-American indoctrination begin!
08/13/02: Bubba's revenge
08/07/02: Bilingual bust continues its drag on our schools
07/30/02: Dems love for big lawyers=big opportunity
07/23/02: No time for vacation
07/16/02: Is Homeland Security all wet?
06/25/02: The firing season has arrived
06/18/02: Picking the next chief
06/11/02: Intelligence coup, with much more to do
06/07/02: The Bush administration's foul ball
05/30/02: Post-feminism in the aftermath of 9-11
05/23/02: The press gunning for Ashcroft
05/19/02: El Jefe basks in Carter's Light
05/15/02: Former presidents who don't understand the word "former"
05/07/02: Ozzy deified, many mortified, drugs glorified?
05/01/02: Bush: "California here I come ... sort of"
04/27/02: The good news about conservatives versus Bush
04/17/02: While the cat's away....
04/09/02: Preview of 2004: See how Dick runs!
01/29/02: A kinder, gentler human-rights violator?
11/27/01: Military tribunals provide streamlined justice
09/07/01: Scariest animal wears pants
08/17/01: Depressed after seeing uncut version of Apocalypse Now --- and for good reason
07/20/01: The other, maybe more important, news
06/22/01: Washington's pro-Bono worship is unnerving
06/01/01: Burying conservatism
05/17/01: Ashcroft's abuse of power