casus), Russia poses uo threat to the vitalrninterests of the United States. But a Bushrnvictorv would continue the policy of humiliatingrnRussia, turning it from a vanquishedrnally into a resentful enemyrnseething with rage at the United States.rnhi i’^sia, Bush’s goal is to expand tradernwith China while constructing air anticommunistrnring of states around it, relyingrnon Japan as the primary bulwark andrnguaranteeing the security of Taiwan,rnSouth Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand.rnBush’s foreign-policy team has alsorncalled for supporting hidia as a majorrnAsian power to weaken China’s influencernover the region. However, Beijingrn—for all of its belligerent nationalismrn—does not threaten American strategicrninterests, and Bush’s policy of containmentrnwill only aggravate tensions betweenrnChina and the United States, possiblyrnsetting the stage for another Asianrnwar in the future.rnThe Texas governor is most dangerousrnon the issue of Mexico and Latin America,rnwhere he shows himself to be a multiculturalrnglobalist who possesses no conceptionrnof the United States as a distinctrnnation-state with its own cultural identityrnand interests. In a speech in Miami,rnBush told a largelv Hispanic audiencernthat “America has one national creed,rnbut many accents. We are now one ofrnthe largest Spanish-speaking nations inrnthe world. We’re a major source of Latinrnmusic, journalism, and cidturc.” Hernwent on to say, “Just go to Miami, or SanrnAntonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or WestrnNew York, New jerse’. , . and close ourrneyes and listen. You could just as easilyrnbe in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or SanrnMiguel de Allende.” “Bv nominatingrnme,” Bush boasted, “my part}- has made arnchoice to welcome the new America.”rnIndeed it has. Bush’s “new America,”rnbased on unlimited immigration, celebratesrnthe transformation of the LhiitedrnStates into an Hispanic nation, abandoningrnthe country’s cultural and constitutionalrnheritage.rnDuring his tenure as goernor ofrnTexas, Bush has engaged in a longstandingrnlove affair with Mexico and shamelesslyrnpandered to the Hispanic voters inrnhis state: He not only supported NAPTArnbut called for bilingual education andrnopposed Proposition 187. Bush also hasrnenjoyed a cozy relationship with Mexico’srnnotoriously corrupt 70-year rulingrnparty. The fact that the PRI is now out ofrnpower has not stopped Bush from championingrna Western hemispheric freetradernzone and declaring that one of hisrnfirst acts as president will be to ask Congressrnfor fast-track authority to extendrnNAFTA to Chile, Brazil, and Argentina,rneventually encompassing all of LatinrnAmerica. Whatever remains of America’srnmanufacturing base will witirer awayrnunder a Bush presidency, and America’srnslide toward a hvo-tiered societi of “haxesrnand have-nots” will continue.rnHELP THE ROCKFORD INSTITUTE . . . HURT THE IRSrn^ii4rnThere is often a tax advantage in making a gift of appreciatedrnstocks or bonds to TJie Rockford Institute.rnWhen you do, there are two winners: you andrnThe Rockford Institute. The only loser is the wicked andrngreedy tax collector.rnHere’s how it works:rnWhen you sell appreciated securities, you are taxed onrnthe capital gains. However, if you contribute appreciatedrnstocks or bonds to The Rockford Institute, the gainsrnare not taxable. In fact, you will receive a charitable deductionrnfor the full, fair-market value of the securities asrnof the date of the gift. To qualify, you only have to havernheld the stocks or bonds for more than one year. Your securitiesrnbroker can even wire the shares directly to ThernRockford Institute’s investment account.rnFor more information, please write or call:rnChristopher Check, Executive Vice PresidentrnThe Rockford Institutern928 North Main StreetrnRockford, Illinois 61103rnTelephone (815) 964-5811rn• r « ‘ #’rnThere is nothing “consen’ative” aboutrnBush’s internationalist brand of dollarrndiplomacy. It is not just that he is vacuousrnand pathetically uninformed, referringrnto Greeks as “Grecians” or confusingrnSlovenia with Slovakia, but that he doesrnnot grasp the essence of a successful foreignrnpolicy: It must be based strictiy onrnthe national interest. The major conservativernEuropean statesmen of the 19thrncentury, such as Aletternich, Bismarck,rnand Lord Salisbur)’, understood that thernkey to a secure and stable world dependsrnupon balance-of-power diplomacy. Powerrnand self-interest, not idealism, best ensurernstability and peace in the internationalrnarena.rnNeither Gore nor Bush understandsrnthat America’s hubris and meddlesomerninterventions of the past decade have leftrnthe United States in a precarious position.rnRather than focusing on untappedrnmarkets in Latin America or Africa, orrnimaginary security threats posed by globalrnwarming or Russian imperialism, bothrnmen would better serve their coimtry’srnnational interests by concentrating onrnproblems closer to honre —the porousrnborder with Mexico, the onslaught of milimitedrnimmigration, the likely breakuprnof Canada within the next decade, andrnthe loss of state sovereignty and nationalrnidentity. But that would require a disciplinedrnforeign policy, which is beyondrnthe capacit}’ of either candidate.rnJeffrey Thomas Kuhner is the assistantrneditor of Chronicles.rnHISTORYrnOur Presidentsrnin Songrnby David B. KopelrnBill Clinton and George Bush, Sr.,rnshare something: They are the onlyrnpresidents since George Washingtonrnwho were elected without having a campaignrnsong written for them. Perhaps as arnretlection of tiie vacuousness of their platforms,rnthe hvo candidates used popularrnsongs for their campaigns. George Bushrnsurely made Woody Guthrie spin in hisrngrave by adopting “This Land Is YourrnLand.” Bill Clinton did better vithrn42/CHRONICLESrnrnrn