In her latest column, Rebecca Hagelin quotes extensively from a book called The West's Last Chance, by Tony Blankley. In it, Blankley asserts that America -- indeed, all of Western civilization -- is at war with radical Islam, and that our only hope of survival as a culture begins with acknowledging this fact and addressing it head-on. Well and good. Having read this much, I had no issues with the tenor of the column or the book. Because of this, I was shocked when I read the following quote:

It is increasingly likely that such a threat cannot be defeated while the West continues to adhere to its deeply held values – as it currently understands them – of tolerance, the right to privacy, the right even to advocate sedition and the right to equal protection under the law.... The day is upon us when the West will have to decide which it values more: granting these rights and tolerance to those who wish to destroy us, or the survival of Western civilization.

Before then, I thought I had encountered a reasonable, thought-provoking critique of tolerance. I realized that the man behind the curtain was, in fact, a neocon globalist whose aim was not avoiding the death of the West, but ensuring that it dies by his hand, and no other.

Observe the rhetorical technique by which he equates four quite different concepts. He begins with "tolerance," a concept that conservatives can be relied upon to oppose. I concede that tolerance, in the sense that Blankley means it ("intolerance of those perceived to be intolerant") is rubbish. Next comes the "right to privacy," which will likely evoke visions of drug use, abortion rights, and homosexual orgies in the minds of his readers, and so meet with their approval. These images serve to distract the reader from the many ways in which he actually relies on this right. The right to "advocate sedition" is a clever way of describing the right to free speech -- though if Blankley had used "free speech" rather than "advocate sedition," he would have produced a very different reaction in his readers. The problem here is that "sedition" means "rebellion," implying that to be guilty of sedition, one must be a part of the thing rebelled against. Most of the would-be terrorists, as non-U.S.-citizens, do not qualify. The last right Blankley would do away with is "equal protection under the law," by which he apparently means that some individuals would lose the "protections" that the law affords (see the Bill of Rights). Of course, Blankley doesn't specify who would lose these protections, or how one might be designated a member of this group, or what "protections" one might have against being so designated. Furthermore, these "equal protection" does not apply to non-citizens, if only because they can be deported for any reason.

One wonders why Blankley does not advocate measures that can be implemented without sacrificing the rights and freedoms we currently enjoy. Closing the borders would be a good start. That could be followed by the immediate deportation of all aliens from known terrorist-abetting countries, and of any illegal aliens from any country whatsoever. Such measures are perfectly legal according to current law (law that the Bush administration declines to enforce). A more radical, and potentially more effective, measure would be to relax or eliminate all restrictions against the concealed (or open) carry of firearms.

Taking these steps would increase safety and freedom, but Blankley and his cadre would have us believe that these concepts are mutually exclusive. This is an example of an oft-used political technique, whereby an undesirable alternative is paired with the one the politicians want, and then both are framed to make it appear that they are the only available options. The two-party system is the prime example of this, as are questions like, "Should we increase the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts by seven billion dollars, or only two billion?" In this way, we are forced (or so it appears) to choose evil; so, we naturally choose the lesser. To not choose evil requires that we have vision enough to step outside the question and examine alternatives that it conceals.

If we choose the path Blankley advocates, we may succeed in defeating the threat posed by Islam, or we may not. At that point, it won't matter. The rights to free speech and equal protection are among those without which we cannot function as a free society; removing these organs ensures the death of the patient. Perhaps Blankley prefers a form of slavery that does not require one to bow towards Mecca five times a day; I would rather step outside the question and choose freedom.