To expand on Andy’s point: The concerns about a “North American Union“ obviously sound pretty black-helicopter-ish, but not as much as they used to. The proximate cause of this concern is the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), an office in the Commerce Department intended to promote “greater cooperation and information sharing” between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
Looked at on its own, that seems reasonable enough. But when looked at in context, you can see why people would be worried. After all, the EU started as the very narrow European Coal and Steel Community. Thus people can be excused if they don’t take at face value the assurances at the SPP FAQ page that “The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.”
Now, if the president were truly a zealous defender of America’s borders and sovereignty, and hadn’t, in particular, sought to delegate American immigration policy to the Mexican government, assertions about the benign nature of the SPP would be more believable.
Nor is that all. The Council on Foreign Relations released a report last year specifically applauding the SPP and calling for a “a security and economic community for North America.” The commission that issued that report included former INS commission Doris Meissner and Bill Weld, Clinton’s ambassador-designate to Mexico City, whose appointment was quashed by Jesse Helms. Vice-chairman of the CFR commission was Robert Pastor, who was at the NSC under Jimmy Carter, and he’s already coined a name for the common currency — the “amero.”. Likewise, Mexico’s UN ambassador said a few weeks ago in San Antonio that an EU-style arrangement between the US and Mexico was needed within the next eight years, before the Baby-Boom generation starts retiring. And don’t forget Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under Clinton, who has explicitly called for world federalism.
In other words, this is no longer a figment of the fever-swamp’s imagination. The idea of dissolving America’s sovereignty into a regional superstate is utterly mainstream among much of our country’s elite. This is an indication of how deeply post-American (or cosmopolitan, in Huntington’s terminology) our elite has become, both on the Left and the Right.
And Tancredo isn’t the only one concerned. In September, Rep. Virgil Goode introduced a bill, H.Con.Res.487, rejecting the idea of a North American Union. See also Eagle Forum’s page on the North American Union.
To get back to the original issue — is President Bush a post-American? I don’t think he is. But it’s no longer an absurd question.