LOPEZ: Tell me a little about the moral case for patriotic assimilation. How can that be helpful to the public-policy debate about immigration? For pastors working with immigrants, many of them undocumented, as they say?
FONTE: As I said earlier, I’m talking mostly about American constitutional morality. Illegal immigrants have come here against the consent of the American people (democratic consent is expressed by the American people as a whole through our body politic, not by individual outlaw employers who want cheap labor). The clergy who are aiding and abetting illegal immigration are showing open contempt for a core concept of our constitutional morality: government by consent of the governed.
Also, in terms of religious morality, these pastors, by supporting a vast increase in cheap labor, are undermining the economic status of our poorest and most vulnerable American citizens, many of them, of course, African-American and Latino. In this regard, Big Religion (clerical elites rather than most parishioners) has joined forces with Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Media. In addition, all of them support multiculturalism, bilingualism, and dual citizenship, which erect barriers to the patriotic assimilation of immigrants. So, I’m not impressed by the alleged “compassion” of any of these elites.
LOPEZ: “Almost no serious analyst today speaks of world government or world federalism.” Similarly, do sovereignty advocates need any language or other PR pointers?
FONTE: That is the reason I came up with the term “Philadelphian sovereignty” and contrast it with “Westphalian sovereignty.” Americans think of sovereignty as belonging not to the state, but to “We the People of the United States,” as stated in the preamble to our Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787.
LOPEZ: Is your book as much about Israel as it is about America?
FONTE: No. There is a full chapter on Israel, and I note that Israel is the most embattled of all the democratic nation-states. But in the final analysis, American sovereignty and American exceptionalism are the major impediments to the global-governance project.
LOPEZ: Liberalism under assault isn’t a good thing in your book, is it?
FONTE: That’s right. I’m talking, of course, about classical or traditional liberalism, meaning individual rights, free speech, the free market, and the like. In Chapter 4, I examine the assault on traditional liberalism (and even New Deal liberalism) from multiculturalism, the diversity agenda, and the whole Gramscian-Frankfurt School “critical theory” nexus.
LOPEZ: Explaining that even a Republican (well, Olympia Snowe) and goofy Joe Biden have been invaded by Marxist thinking, you write: “The public debate had moved beyond liberalism, both traditional and modern. Post-liberal or even anti-liberal ideas have gained a foothold.” Again, isn’t the cat out of the bag?
FONTE: Yes, the cultural-Marxist cat is out of the proverbial bag, and he is clearly influential in our public discourse. Thus ordinary American politicians like Vice President Biden and Senator Snowe will unwittingly parrot cultural-Marxist conceptions like “institutionalized oppression” without being aware of their origin.