Clinton on what we must do for Haiti
The good news: he doesn’t say that we must bring the Haitians here. (After all, he was the President who sent the Marines to change the Haitian government in order to stop the Haitian boat people from coming here.)
The bad news is in the bolded text:
First we must care for the injured, take care of the dead, and sustain those who are homeless, jobless and hungry. As we clear the rubble, we will create better tomorrows by building Haiti back better: with stronger buildings, better schools and health care; with more manufacturing and less deforestation; with more sustainable agriculture and clean energy.This goes well beyond Haiti’s immediate health, shelter, water, food, and rebuilding needs following this horrible catastrophe. He’s saying that we must create better schools (i.e., better education) for Haiti, that we must provide the Haitians with better health care, that we must create Haitian manufacturing, that we must redesign their methods of agriculture.
It’s absurd, it’s … gnostic. One nation cannot turn another, dysfunctional nation into a functional nation. It cannot create that nation’s basic institutions and make them work. It cannot create and maintain that nation’s educational system and health care system. Either that nation does these things for itself, or they’re not going to be done.
The U.S. has intermittantly occupied and governed Haiti over much of the last hundred years. If Haiti is unable to govern and maintain itself at a level that the conscience of mankind can accept, which may especially be the case after this calamity in which so much of its structure and infrastructure has been destroyed, then it may simply be necessary for outside forces to govern the country. As I said, one nation cannot build another nation. But one nation can take over and govern another nation, and, in that position of actual power and leadership, build up its infrastructure, its education, its health care, its agriculture and manufactuing and so on. How about the French? They haven’t done anything helpful and positive in the world in, oh, a couple of centuries at least. They’ve got that “mission to civilize,” haven’t they? Well, here’s their chance—and also perhaps a historical chance for them to make right whatever went wrong the first time they colonized Haiti. At the least it will give them a useful job to do, instead of their usual activities of conspiring with the enemies of Israel and facilitating the Islamization of Europe.
I know the idea sounds ludicrous, since the first French colony ended with the Haitians massacring the French colonists. But that’s a long time ago, and, frankly, I’m anxious to find a way to save America from having to be the occupying power in post earthquake Haiti.
Bill Clinton is just doing what he does best when it comes to Haiti: saying stuff that sounds good. It doesn’t mean a thing. Like many other liberals, he confuses words with action; so long as he says the right things, why, it’s as if he actually did something. Consider Jesse Jackson: how many times has he blathered on some TV show about “babies makin” babies,” in a reference to underaged unmarried pregnant girls? I’m sure hundreds, if not thousands of times. Now, how many times has Jackson actually proposed any sort of concrete solution to the problem? I believe the number is less than zero, if you count his bastard child(ren).An Indian living in the West writes:
What about the French? They haven’t done anything helpful and positive in the world in, oh, a couple of centuries at least.Nik S. writes:
It comes down to this: Haiti, and Haitians, would be much better off if France had never left.Einton writes:
Karl D. wrote on your site: “I am just waiting for the ideological gymnastics that will come in the ensuing days as to why Haiti is a perpetually failed state.”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 14, 2010 05:18 PM | Send