Multiculturalism and Foreign Policy | Conservative Heritage Times

Scott McConnell of The American Conservative has a great piece today on how immigration policy affects foreign policy. While he makes several valid points, I think his main thrust misses the target.

McConnell argues a multicultural America will be a docile America, one that will no longer want to bomb the rest of the world into submission. His reasoning is that floodtide immigration will dissolve both American will and ability to assert American interests.

His premise is pretty straightforward: Nations fight wars, he says, to further their interests. To prove his point, McConnell invokes Samuel Huntington:

In his final book, Who Are We? published in 2004, Huntington probed deeper. What would become of America’s national identity in an age of mass and especially Hispanic immigration?

“National interests,” he wrote, “derive from national identity. We need to know who we are before we can know what our interests are.”

True enough. But McConnell goes on to speculate that without the Northeastern Puritan impulse to “make the world go around” and Southern martial ethic to enforce it, Americans will have nothing to fight about or with:

Those sections of the country — the South, lower Midwest, and the regions touching the Appalachian mountains—that have received the fewest immigrants from the waves of immigration of the past 130 years not only count as the most Republican; they are the regions least likely to send white antiwar politicians to Congress. They provide a disproportionate share of the nation’s soldiers.

Again, no argument. But I’d say his conclusion is a bit too rosy:

So here is a second paradox, which parallels the irony that neoconservatives support an immigration policy that undermines their own political base. The realists and America-Firsters will find their foreign policy aspirations at least partially satisfied via the unlikely avenues of immigration and multiculturalism. The paleoconservatives, losers in the immigration wars, will end up winners of an important consolation prize: the foreign policy of what remains of their cherished republic.

What McConnell overlooks is the radical disconnect between the ruling elites and the subject population whose tax dollars and bodies the elite still control. I’d argue that a multicultural America (that is, a post-American America) would be powerless to organize against an alien central government with a monopoly on power. As a matter of fact, multiculturalism and imperialism are identical, which requires a powerful central government to hold the whole squirming thing together.

That’s why the interventionists use Martin Luther King as the tyrannizing image of the emerging DC empire. As I posted earlier:

Dr. King said it best: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

This justifies intervention everywhere, whether at home or abroad. If you’ve ever wondered why the media, government, and the education system hype the King myth, it’s about the projection of US power. Like its old rival, the Soviet Union, the US projects itself as a “proposition nation” uniquely committed to equality, human rights, and diversity.

So the Diversity mania of reconstructing every institution into a randomized ethnic mix has the special advantage of giving a global face to DC’s projection of power. When a multicult division of US troops invade, I mean, liberate, it’s not a home invasion; it’s a homecoming.