EI3IT0RrnThomas FlemingrnASSOCIATE EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, jr.rnEDITORIAL ASSISTANTrnChristine HaynesrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnJohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.].rnBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelrnFrancis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnJanet Scott Barlow, JohnrnShelton ReedrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCOMPOSITION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Mam Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815) 964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P. O. Box 800,rnMount Morns, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Erank at (815) 964-5811.rnU. S. A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern New^rnDistributors, Inc., 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopynght © 1992 by The Rockford Institute.rnA]] rights reser’cd.rnChromcks (ISSN 0887-5731) js publishedrnmonthly for $24 per vear by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and additional mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P. O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed m Chronicles arc thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe vicvv^ of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.15, No. 11 November 1992rnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn ‘Black Illegitimacy’rnIn an August 1992 Cultural Revolutions,rnAllan Carlson takes President Bush tornthe wood shed, as I guess he shouldrnhave. But I have a question regardingrnhis statement, “During the Great Societyrnera, the black illegitimacy rate actuallyrndeclined from 100.8 in 1961 to 76.0rnin 1975.” Since Roe v. Wade went intornlaw in 1973—and it’s my understandingrnthat 40 percent of all abortions arernfrom black women—would that not accountrnfor the drop in live births?rn—Rodney G. DowniernDr. Carlson Replies:rnMr. Downie makes a valid point. Therngrowing availability of abortion-on-demandrnin the eady 1970’s (at first in NewrnYork and several other states, and thenrnnationwide courtesy of Roe v. Wade)rnprobably played a partial role in the declinernof the illegitimacy rate amongrnblacks (births per 1,000 unmarried blackrnwomen, ages 15-44) after 1970. However,rnthis development cannot explainrnthe decline of the black illegitimacy raternfrom 97 in 1965 to 82 in 1969 (introductionrnof the birth control pill, though,rnmight be a factor here), let alone thernprior decline from 100.8 in 1961 to 97.5rnfour years later.rnMy argument in the article was thatrnto the degree that “the urban familyrnproblem” is understood by the Bush administrationrnto be code words for blackrnillegitimacy, then the Great Society programsrnof the 1965-69 period cannot reallyrnbe held accountable. We have tornlook deeper into our nation’s past to findrnthe causes of family turmoil, an investigationrnthat Mr. Bush (let alone Mr.rnClinton) will predictably avoid.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnWATERGATE was once again the siternof intrigue and stealth, only this timernthe GOP head of state couldn’t wait torntell the world about what it all had produced:rnsomething called the NorthrnAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).rnThe White House was in a panickedrnrush to complete the free trade accord,rnlinking the American, Canadian,rnand Mexican economies in time for thernRepublican National Convention. ButrnCongress, vested with constitutional authorityrnin foreign trade matters, wouldrnnot be allowed to see the treaty for severalrnmore weeks.rnGovernor Clinton, the elites of bothrnpolitical parties, and most of the Americanrnbusiness community support NAFTA.rnThe conventional view is that byrnremoving trade and investment barriersrnin all three nations (thereby establishingrnthe single largest “trade bloc” in thernwodd), our manufacturers will better bernable to compete with their increasinglyrnformidable and bold Asian and Europeanrncounterparts. Moreover, its advocatesrnsay, NAFTA will lock in the dramaticrneconomic reforms undertaken byrnthe Salinas government in Mexico, enhancernpolitical stability there, and relievernimmigration pressures here.rnWhile there indeed may be somernnice things to say about the agreementrn(the text had not yet been released asrnof this writing), the speed and secrecyrnwith which the treaty was forged leavesrnunanswered several troubling questionsrnthat have always surrounded the conceptrnof “free trade” with Mexico. Perhapsrnthe chief question facing the Presidentrncenters on what is perceived to bernhis primary political vulnerabilit}: WerernAmerican economic interests once againrnsubordinated to foreign policy concerns?rnA case can be made that NAFTA is notrnso much a foreign trade initiative as it isrna foreign aid initiative. In the era of nornCold War and big deficits, the State Departmentrnboys arc looking for back-doorrnways around the political taboo on foreignrnaid. Through NAFTA, critics claim,rnFoggy Bottom can give aid to Mexico byrnsending them jobs now held by Americans.rn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn