country must be partitioned, with eachnpeople — whites, Xhosas, and Zulus —nallowed a homeland. A free market isnalso needed, not only for more prosperity,nbut to lessen group tensions.nDespite their sins — which pale, ifnyou will pardon the expression, next tonthe institutionalized theft, witchcraft,nand mass murder of the typical Africanngovernment — the Boers have built anmagnificent civilization. And not “onnthe backs of the blacks”; South Africanhas by far the highest black standard ofnliving on the continent.nYet the whole country may go up innflames, as Mandela lights the Molotovncocktail. And there is virtually nonAmerican dissent — just media hypendesigned to Jesse-Jacksonize this countrynby strengthening black demands fornrace privilege.nWhen questioned about his endorsementnof Castro, Mandela said “ancountry’s internal policies” were nonenof his business. That was an evasion, ofncourse. Mandela loves Castro’s internalnpolicies. But there is a lesson here.nAmerica, wrote John Quincy Adams,n”goes not abroad in search ofnmonsters to destroy,” lest she be entangledn”beyond the power of extrication,nin all the wars of interest and intrigue,nof individual avarice, envy and ambition,nwhich assume the colors andnusurp the standard of freedom.”nMandela, a smarmy demagogue,nhas assumed the colors and usurpednthe standard of freedom, but we oughtnnot to be fooled.nAlthough we should wish the Boersnand the other great peoples of SouthnAfrica well, their internal policies arennone of our government’s business.nThat means no aid to the terroristnANC, and immediate repeal of theneconomic sanctions designed to lowernblack standards of living, and thusnfoment bloody revolution.nNelson Mandela wants to impale hisncountry on a Xhosa-Communist spear.nWe ought not to be sharpening thenblade.n— Llewellyn H. RockwellnA TALE OF TWO prisoners. NelsonnMandela spent many years under arrest.nAleksandr Solzhenitsyn spentnmany years in a slave labor camp, as anfugitive and exile, and as a nonperson.nMandela resisted a mildly repressivenregime by terrorism. Solzhenitsyn resistedna brutal totalitarian state by heroismnand eloquence.nMandela sought the bestowal ofnbenefits and privileges. Solzhenitsynnsought liberty to work, worship, andnthink.nMandela was freed by bringing tonbear the power of giant empires andnmedia oligarchies on his own smallncountry. Solzhenitsyn was freed bynyears of harrowing maneuver againstnan omnipotent but incompetent state,nhelped by the attention of handfuls ofnpeople in various free countries.nMandela represents an alien, at bottomnincomprehensible culture. Solzhenitsynnrepresents the deepest andnnoblest aspirations of our own culture.nMandela is a very skilled politician.nSolzhenitsyn is one of the greatestnartists and most eloquent prophets ofnour age.nIn America, Mandela is fawned onnby Congress and the President. InnAmerica, Solzhenitsyn is avoided bynPresidents and other politicians.nWhat does this tell us about America?nThink about it.n— Clyde Wilsonn”DON’T VOTE, it Only EncouragesnThem” goes the bumpersticker,nand it is only one among many signs ofnvoter unrest. Another proposal, newlynrevived and cropping up in states likenOklahoma and South Dakota, is tonreform Congress by limiting congressionalnterms. Back in 1978 two thenfreshmannsenators, John Danforth andnDennis DeConcini, sponsored legislationnthat would limit the tenure ofnrepresentatives in Congress to twelvenyears, or two terms for senators, sixnterms for congressmen. Gallup foundnat the time that 60 percent of thenpublic favored the idea. In 1984 JacknD. Douglas, a sociologist at SannDiego, took one step further and suggestednthat all our representatives benlimited to a single term.nThe most recent proposal, fromnAmericans to Limit CongressionalnTerms and with a 70 percent publicnapproval rating, goes back to Danforth-nDeConcini — two men who twelvenyears later are still in office, by thenway — and would limit senators andncongressmen to twelve years. Suchnnnlimits would solve the present problemnof incumbents-for-life, and give newnenergy to elections in which incumbentsnnow enjoy the wolf’s share of thenPAC money (so necessary for thosenexpensive campaigns) and a 98 percentnchance of being returned to office byntheir gerrymandered districts.nIt’s a very appealing idea. Unfortunately,nas I believe the author of thenbumpersticker understands better thanncongressional reformers, without restoringnthe character of the Americannpolitician, true political reform is impossible.nThe more things may change,nthe more the Teddy Kennedys andnAlan Cranstons of this world will remainnthe same and remain in power.nJust look at term limits in Mexico.nMexican law prevents any man fromnbeing president for more than onensix-year term, and I hardly need tonpoint out that this limit has donennothing for voter empowerment there.nIn Mexico’s elTectively one-party system,nthe choice of the next presidentnfalls to the president in office (andnthrough him the PRI power structure).nThe same is true here in one-partyncities like Chicago or states like Kentucky,nwhere the battle for mayor orngovernor is settled in the primary, withnthe ruling party’s choice enjoying thenadvantage. The same is also true fornany race in which an incumbent isnrunning. Given the difficulties of oustingnan incumbent, our United Statesnare essentially a nationwide patchworknof one-party strongholds. Mexico Citynhas little on us.nEven should the term-limit reformsngo through, what’s to prevent our nextnTip O’Neill from spending eight yearsnin Congress, twelve years in the Senate,nand then as much time as the partynwill allow him as Massachusetts’ governornor as a federal appointee? In eachnrace after his first he will still have thenadvantages of incumbency and namerecognition,nand despite limited termsnhe could enjoy a good 25-years plus onnthe public payroll, spending tax money,n(In Mexico, because of the limitednterms and the six-year rollover in rulingncliques, politicos at all levels are veryndependent on the political bureaucracynfor keeping them in jobs when they orntheir patrons are out of power. Institutionalizingnthat further here is not whatnI would call an improvement.)nNo: there is a better way to send anOCTOBER 1990/7n