ican culture.rn”Brown anti-Semitism,” which a fewrnofficers of Hispanic clubs and societiesrnon campus proclaim, consists of a clusterrnof ideas about Jews in Mexico and inrnAmerica. One of the ideas advocated isrnthat the president of Mexico is a Jew,rnwhich explains his heartlessness towardrnthe poor and unempowered peasants inrnMexico. Another notion is that all Mexicanrnbanks are owned by Jews and thatrnthis explains their unwillingness to extendrncredit and loans to indigenous Mexicans,rnespecially Indians in Mexico. Jewsrnare also portrayed as encouraging thernmigration of impoverished Mexicanrnpeasants to the United States, a kind ofrnMexican enclosure movement spearheadedrnby Jewish bankers. And, ofrncourse, the prominence of Jewish moviernmoguls explains the relative lack of successrnof Hispanic producers, directors, andrnactors in the American film industry.rnIn many ways, the chanting of “HeyrnHey, Ho Ho, Anglo Gringo, You Got TornGo” is less troubling than the smaller,rnbut more hateful, expressions againstrnJewish Americans that are bandied aboutrnwith no objection from Stanford’s administration.rnIf Stanford’s Hispanic studentrnpopulation is any indication, we arernin for a situation in which a HispanicrnFarrakhan could unleash a new wave ofrnhatred toward Jewish Americans on collegerncampuses.rnA kind of terror exists at Stanford,rnsuch that I do not dare to have my name,rnmajor, or dorm printed in any publication.rnThere were five major fist-fights onrncampus last year between Hispanies orrnbetween Hispanies and members ofrnother ethnicities on the issue of Hispanicrndoctrine and its correct application torncampus political and social issues. “Chicanismo”rnis taken very seriously by Hispanicrnstudents and the administration,rnand it is feared by many students andrnfaculty who tailor their remarks in accordancernwith that fear.rn—NathanrnMILITARY INVOLVEMENT inrnHaiti is the stuff of nightmares. In comparison,rnthe oil and arms blockade, reinforcementsrnin the Dominican Republic,rnand sanctions against commercial airlinerntraffic from Port-au-Prince occasionrnmere despair. President Clinton’s prodemocracyrnbroadcasts delivered viarnhelicopter-borne bullhorn and QuebectrainedrnHaitian police (fresh from humanrnrights seminars) are but passingrncomic moments. No international interventionrncan gain for Haiti the loftyrnprize of democracy; embargos andrnbeachheads thus pointlessly add to misery.rnInstallation of an elected presidentrn(Aristide or any other) will not bringrndemocracy to Haiti, because impoverishedrncountries cannot be governedrndemocratically. When resources fallrnchronically short of basic needs, rationingrnbecomes inevitable and democraticrnsolutions to distributional problemsrnvanish.rnResource shortages lead to resourcerngrabs. The real choice is between anrnauthoritarian government that distributesrnresources in line with its ownrninterests and values and no governmentrnat all. The authoritarian governments inrnHaiti and China are improvements overrnchaos. Even authoritarian governmentsrnhave some interest in the well-being ofrnthe governed, because stability (publicrnpassivity) keeps the established elite inrnpower. The United States, attempting torndestabilize governments in order to introducernthe chimera of democracy intornsettings where it has no chance, does arndisservice to the common people ofrnevery country in which it intervenes.rnAlexis de Tocqueville observed thatrnthe roots of our democracy were plantedrnin the natural wealth of the continent.rnWith fewer than 50 million people, citizensrncould prosper without taking fromrnfellow Americans (although historyrnshows that many did take and still, ofrncourse, do). Democracy has a chancernwhen each man and woman can creaternwealth from a bounteous nature. Butrndemocracy has no chance after naturernhas been raped—as in Haiti, where arndecent living can be had only at thernexpense of another’s livelihood.rnPopulation growth beyond the carryingrncapacity of the environment is thernroot cause of resource shortage. Haitianrnwomen average six children each. Thernpopulation in Haiti is growing so fastrnthat it is on track to double in 23 years.rnHaiti can lift itself from poverty and beginrnto restore its environment only byrnreducing the number of children eachrnwoman bears—the fertility rate—to twornor fewer. Assisting Haiti toward thisrnmodel goal is a proper subject for debaternand policy.rnElsewhere I suggest that helping torncreate jobs for women is the best strategyrnfor slowing population growth; ifrnwomen’s time has a market value,rnchildrearing carries an opportunity cost.rnOn the other hand, providing large-scalernsubsidies for Third World “development”rnand opening the door for thernimmigration of others’ excess populationrnare the worst strategies. Bothrnmislead ordinary people into the falsernbelief that resources are abundant—inrntheir own country or in ours. And whenrnpeople perceive expanding economicrnopportunity, they want more children,rnnot fewer.rnUnited States citizens have acquired arnsense of limits. Because many Americansrnfear for their children’s future, ifrnnot their own, family size has shrunk.rnOut of prudence, young couples oftenrndelay both marriage and the birth of arnfirst child. Americans’ self-restraint isrnnullified, unfortunately, by immigrationrnand the high fertility of new immigrants.rnBecause of immigration, conservativernprojections show America’s populationrndoubling in 64 years, with no stabilizationrnin sight.rnRapid population growth could evenrnjeopardize our democracy. America’srnresources are not limitless. Known andrndiscoverable oil and natural gas reservesrnare predicted to last 10 to 13 years.rn(Overseas oil could see us through anotherrn30 years, but at what price?) Ourrntopsoil disappears 18 times faster than itrnis replenished with current agriculturalrnpractices, and even clean water couldrnbecome a costly commodity. Will ourrnresources be adequate to support democracyrnas we approach this crowded future?rnHistory should warn us against trying tornfind out.rnMeanwhile, let us institute a time-outrnon immigration in order to enjoy measuredrngrowth. And let us encouragernWashington to accept different forms ofrngovernance worldwide and to recognizernthat only strong hands can divide fewrnresources among many people. Americarncannot afford the naive belief thatrndemocracy will flourish apart from arngainfully occupied and prosperous citizenry.rn—Virginia AbernethyrnSTUDENT RADICAL ACTIVITYrnis alive and well at American universities.rnOf course, it is difficult to be a radicalrnwhen so many radical ideas of the 60’srnand 70’s—including feminism, institutionalizedrnegalitarianism, Marxism, messianicrnenvironmentalism, race theories,rn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn