Forty-thousand people descended upon Seattle to protest the workings
of the World Trade Organization. It was a surreal assembly of
special-interest groups including, but not limited to,
environmentalists, labor unions, human-rights advocates, patriots,
anarchists, revolutionaries and looters. The marchers in Seattle were
indeed strange bedfellows, providing further evidence that a mutual
enemy can create a form of unity, albeit temporarily, among folks who
might otherwise despise each other.

Except for the destructive rowdiness, the protesters deserve
applause. If he were available do so, Thomas Jefferson would agree. In
1787, he wrote a letter to James Madison expressing sentiments that
apply to the relatively mild uprisings in Seattle. He wrote: “I hold it
that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. … It is a
medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

While the protesters may be dead wrong about what they are trying to
get the WTO to do, they are dead right in their demand to be heard. They
are Americans; they do not intend to shut up, sit down, or back off when
negotiations behind closed doors are under way to establish the rules
governing America’s trade with other nations, and to empower an
unelected international bureaucracy to enforce them.

America’s intellectual elite, and the media dupes who parrot them,
have redefined patriotism and national self-interest as “isolationist.”
The late Ayn Rand, in an essay appropriately entitled “The Art of the
Smear,” described these global thinkers as proponents of “… the
suicidal view that our foreign policy must be guided, not by
considerations of national self-interest, but by concern for the
interests and welfare of the world, that is, of all countries except our

If the protesters had properly targeted their problem, they would
have marched to Washington, D.C., and shouted their anger at Congress.
The Constitution explicitly empowers the members of Congress to
“regulate commerce with foreign nations. …” It does not empower them
to delegate their authority to an international organization whose
decisions and edicts are beyond the reach of the ballot box.

Some say that the WTO is an innocuous organization, with no
capability to do damage. They are wrong. Francis Fukuyama described the
agenda of the socialist left in a recent Wall Street Journal article:
“By creating the WTO, global capitalism has solved the left’s
collective-action problem. The WTO is the only international
organization that stands any chance of evolving into an institution of
global governance, setting rules not only for how countries will trade
and invest with one another, but also for how they will deal with issues
like labor standards and the environment.”

Clinton apparently agrees. In his address to the WTO in Seattle, he
advocated “core labor standards” as a “part of every trade agreement.
And ultimately, I would favor a system in which sanctions would come for
violating any provision of a trade agreement.” If implemented, this idea
would strengthen the WTO by empowering it to punish nations who violate
its rules and standards. It is a step forward in a global strategy to
first regulate inter-nation commerce, then, tax it — laying the
financial foundation for eventually establishing an independent,
international military power to enforce decisions.

As for the environment, in a speech to a group of religious leaders
in 1991, Al Gore said, “God is not separate from the earth.” In his book
“Earth in the Balance” (one of the Unabomber’s favorite reads), Gore
wrote, “We must make the rescue of the environment the central
organizing principle for civilization.” Gore’s reverential, eco-jingoism
explains his willingness to subordinate American sovereignty to
international organizations.

Now that political power in the United States is firmly centralized,
we are positioned for the next phase. It has begun. We are in the hands
of political leaders who believe patriotism is outmoded, and who relish
the breakdown of national borders. They are managing a steady leakage of
power from the United States to burgeoning world institutions — and
they are upfront about it.

Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, Clinton’s roommate at
Oxford, wrote this in Time magazine, July 20,1992: “All countries are
basically social arrangements. … They are all artificial and
temporary. … Within the next hundred years … nationhood as we know
it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global

Richard N. Gardner, Clinton’s ambassador to Spain, said this in 1974:
“The ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up.
… An end run about national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece,
will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

If, as you observe what is happening in America, you sense that
efforts are under way to break us loose from the moral and patriotic
anchors that secure us to our beloved country, your instincts are good.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.