alliance against the United States.nAs Sam Francis points out, the Iraqi dictator has committednan unforgivable sin by acting as a nationalist in anninternationalist age. Now that the Cold War is over andnhistory has come to a screeching halt, the United States andnits once-again noble ally the Soviet Union will join hands toninsure the peace and freedom of every oasis and shantytownnin the world. That, at least, seemed to be the burden ofnPresident Bush’s speech on August 8. Like most Americans,nI am completely in favor of actions taken to protectnAmerican lives in Liberia (what these people are doing innLiberia or Iraq is another matter), but I can find nonconceivable justification for sending in American boys to dienfighting for this or that group of heroic democrats orngangster allies. If the Russian bear has really clipped hisnclaws — as both the President and the Democratic leadershipnappear to believe — then the last pretext for Americanninterventionism has been taken away.nWhat possible good do we think we can accomplish innLiberia or Haih or Iraq? People who have been butcheringneach other for centuries are not about to recognize any PaxnAmericana that is not enforced, day after day, by bayonetsnand strategic air strikes, and the same Americans who arencrying out for the blood of Saddam Hussein will be singing andirge six months from now as the body bags are carried pastnthe CBS cameras on the Evening News. We don’t have thenstomach for empire; we showed that in Korea and Vietnam,nand if we did embark on a course of imperialist aggression, itnwould be nice to think that the American people stood tongain something more than lower plane fares.nWhy not take a page out of the Israelis’ book? Israel hasnbeen denouncing the evil Hussein for years, demandingnaction from the United States, but now that the New Hitlernhas succeeded in provoking us, Israel’s leaders have declarednthey won’t get involved in a war that does not aflFect theirnsecurity or material interests. Exactly. It is impossible not tonadmire a country that is brave enough to pursue a policy ofnselfish nationalism in this age of internationalism and thenNew World Order.nIt is not that the internahonalists don’t have a case. If thenchoice is between a peaceful worid administered by thenU.N. Security Council or a world periodically torn to piecesnby homocidal despots, drug lords, and ethnic terrorists, whonwouldn’t choose to cede major portions of national sovereigntynin the interest of peace and freedom? SaddamnHussein wouldn’t, and neither would I. He, because he is annIraqi nationalist and perhaps an Arab imperialist; I, because Inbelieve that we — and by “we” I mean first the Americannpeople but also everyone on the face of the earth — stand tonlose more than we will gain.nTo explain what I am talking about requires a briefndetour into political theory. Two years ago in a bookn{The Politics of Human Nature) I attempted to refine thenold distinction between community and society (Tonnies’nGemeinschaft and Gesellschaft). Institutions of community,nso I argued, are all rooted in the family and are exemplifiednby the long-suffering love of a mother who accepts hernchildren no matter what they have done. Institutions ofnsociety, on the other hand, derive from male groups,nhunting bands for example, in which the ruling principlesnare not love and acceptance but competition and excellence.nTHE WISDOM OF THE PLANNED GIFTnThere are a variety of ways to give to educational and charitable organizations, likenThe Rockford Institute, publisher of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.nMost people make outright gifts which result in a “charitable deduction” from a person’sntaxable income.nAnother option is to establish a Charitable Remainder Trust. For example, supposena person bought some stock at a cost of $20,000 many years ago that is now worthn$50,000 and pays 3 percent in dividends. One way to lock in the current value,navoid capital gains tax, and derive more income would be to create a CharitablenRemainder Unitrust. Pay-out percentages can be fixed from 5 percent to 8 percent,nand the investments are in secure income-producing investments. If the trust earnsnmore than the agreed pay-out amount, that additional money is added each yearnto the trust so that the size of the trust increases. Upon the death of the donor or hisnbeneficiary, the trust would become the property of the Institute or other charitiesnof the donor’s choice. Estate taxes are eliminated and there is a sizeable charitable deduction in the year the trust isnestabUshed. The amount of the charitable deduction depends on the age of the donor and the income retained.nLegacy Program, The Rockford Institute, 934 North Main Street, Rocliford, IL 61103nn Please send me general information on the various “Planned Giving” options.nn Please send me information on the Institute’s Charitable Remainder Trust Fund.nNAME.n.ADDRESS.nCITY .nSTATE ZIP PHONEnIf you have a specific asset, such as stocks, that you are considering for a contribution, and if you would like the Institute to evaluate the financialntax implications for your gift, please include the following information:nSS # SS # (SPOUSE)nCOST OF ASSET ESTIMATED MARKET VALUEnnnNOVEMBER 1990/13n