He's at it again!

The more I think about that Hill and Billary luncheon pitch, the more it bothers me.

I was describing it over breakfast to my wife (a much better table companion by far, and with no need for a donation), and what angered her about it is that this Democrat who claims to care for the poor is exploiting the poor with a lottery.

This is a particularly odious form of fundraising. It is not a straight donation, as in: if you support me, send in $100. It is not a standard "pay up and you get close to the candidate" donation. That would be the $1000 a plate dinner. Wealthy people go to those things, and they know what they are getting for their money. You pay your $1000 and you know that you will get a nice meal, a relatively exclusive audience with the candidate, and the status boost for having been there.

Hillary Clinton is running a lottery, however. Lotteries take advantage of the poor. They take money from people who can ill afford to spend it, but who spend it anyway in the vain hope of easy wealth or, in this case, a brief encounter with fame and power.

On top of that, she adds the deceitful hook. She addresses me personally, asking me to get together with her informally. You have to scroll down to find out that it's a lottery that requires a donation. (Of course, as I read it I'm skeptical. Where's the catch? What's her angle? But you respond this way to people whom you suspect are conning you.) And that line about Hillary popping out to pick up groceries for the meal? Whatever.

Then the letter from Bill as though he just "heard about it" and wants in on the pleasant conversation. He gets so little time with her...and there's also you! None of this is presented as a joke. There is no tongue in cheek, no wink. They are preying on the silly dreams of "the little people." It seems that P.T. Barnum is on the payroll. There's a sucker born every minute, and these emails trolling for them.

Then to complete the hard sell, they send out this email from Patti Solis Doyle, Hillary's campaign manager.

Dear David,

Here at campaign headquarters we can't stop talking about the response to Hillary and Bill's latest messages -- it seems like everyone in the country wants to sit down and have lunch with the two of them. And I know Hillary is looking forward to meeting the winner!

If you haven't participated yet, you haven't missed your chance to have lunch with Hillary and Bill -- there are still a few hours left. If you make a contribution to the campaign by midnight tonight, you could be having lunch with the Clintons at their home in Washington.

Click here to make a contribution.

...You have until midnight tonight. Make a contribution, and you could be coming to Washington, DC for lunch with Hillary and Bill. Why miss this chance?

Thank you for everything you do!

Sincerely,
Patti Solis Doyle

How often have you been pressured to "take advantage of this deal now because quantities are limited and the sale ends at midnight?"

Does this provide us with insight into how she views the people she proposes to govern and how she would conduct her presidency?

Hillary's problem is that most people see her as inhumanly cold, selfishly ambitious, and fundamentally dishonest. This stunt, part of her "national conversation" theme which is here reduced to the level of personal chit chat with the common man or woman, is perhaps designed to address the first problem. Humanize Hillary. (If you have to be "humanized," you have a problem from the start. Remember John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis? Do you see a pattern here?) Convince people that she just like one of them. (News: Almost no one in Washington is like "one of us." Hillary Clinton even less than most.)

But that appeal will fail unless the campaign first addresses the credibility problem. People's perception is that she is so "up there" and "into herself" that you cannot trust a word that she says or anything that she does. But the Hillsters will not address this problem because Hillary doesn't see it, and no one around her has metal to tell her.

Update: I got another email from Hillary today. She's so sweet. It looks like "Julie" from Milford, Ohio, will be shooting the breeze with the Clintons over tofu bulgar salad and (no doubt) home baked cookies. Even though she's hugely busy, she takes time to tell me personally who won the luncheon lottery. All is forgiven.

Dear David,

Let's do lunch. Let's talk, you and me -- about whatever you'd like. Our hopes. Our goals. Our work. The weather. Maybe even politics.

I think it would be fun to have you over for lunch, at my table, in my home in Washington. You and I both know that we need a serious change of direction in this country. So let's sit down for a meal and talk about exactly the best way to make that change a reality.

Of course, that change can't happen if we don't win. So I'm asking you today to demonstrate your commitment to real change by supporting my campaign with a contribution. We're going to choose one supporter to come to my house in DC, along with a guest, to share lunch and talk. And if you contribute between now and midnight Friday, September 7, it could be you.

Click here to make a contribution.

...I'm really looking forward to this conversation. I'll pick up the groceries before you get there. Let's sit down and talk about how to change America!

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Have you seen Hotel Rwanda? See it. I make all my Introduction to Politics students watch it (or Schindler's List, The Killing Fields, or The Inner Circle) to dramatize the fact that the stakes involved in politics are deathly high. In 1994, in a genocidal rampage, Rwandans from the Hutu tribe slaughtered 800,000 Tutsis and Tutsi sympathizing Hutus.

Now, 13 years later, Nicholas Kristof reports in The New York Times ("Africa: Land of Hope," July 5, 2007): Rwanda "is clean, safe and enjoying economic growth more than twice as fast as the U.S. or Europe." After the transition of many African nations to independence, "Africa drove over a cliff. Of those countries with good data, one-third now have lower per capita incomes than they did at independence (typically about 1960), and the five worst-performing economies in the world from 1960 to 2001 were all in Africa. What went wrong? The two most important reasons were that Africa was terribly governed and that it was torn apart by wars."

It is academically unfashionable to suggest that individuals, even "great men," shape and direct history, but Kristof points to the presidency of Paul Kagame who is "honest, intelligent and capable. President Kagame reads Harvard Businesss Review...." Kagame is candid in recognizing that his country lacks "that culture of hard work, that culture of being ambitious and wanting to achieve. I believe that those values were in Africans, but I don't know what dampened it -- what killed it." Kristof suggests that "malaria, anemia, worms and misrule" explain a lot. Of course, the misrule explains a lot of the malaria, anemia and worms. Marxist sympathizing, U.S. Constitution despising American leftists should take note.

Africa is the one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. National independence, western educated leaders and an immense wealth of natural resources, yet devasting poverty, disease, despotism and bloodshed. Will the 21st century see the rise of Africa? Kristof sees hope: "when African countries have enjoyed stability and sound policies, they have often thrived. Indeed, the fastest growing country in the world from 1960 to 2001 was Botwana (South Korea was second, and Singapore and China tied for third). More and more African countries are now following the Botswana model of welcoming investors and obeying markets."

Hey, Mr. Kristof! Can you convince your friends in the Democratic party to show a similar respect for markets? (See The Wall Street Journal on the same day: "Trade Double-cross: House Democrats Go Protectionist," the lead editorial, and "Dodging the Guest-worker Bullet: the last thing our economy needed was the Senate's ham-handed attempt to regulate the flow of low-skilled labor," by Gordon H. Hanson, pp. A14-15.)

The words preached by Benjamin Colman in a 1730 sermon delivered in Boston are aptly noted here:

God hath set the world upon the gorvernments and rulers, whom he has made the pillars of it. ...[T]he peace, tranquility and flourishing of places are made to depend on the wisdom and fidelity of their rulers, in the good administration of the government. While the utmost misery and confusion defalls those places where the government is ill administered. The reason is given in the text [I Samuel 2:8], "God has set the World" on this foot; it can't stand on any other bottom. The virtue and religion of a people, their riches and trade, their power, honour and reputation; and the favour of God toward them, with his blessing on them; do greatly depend on the pious, righteous and faithful government which they are under." -- Political Sermons of the American Founding Era, Ellis Sandoz ed. (LibertyPress, 1991)

The debate on immigration reform has cooled somewhat since the most recent immigration bill failed. But the problem is still there, and it will re-emerge in public debate in 2008 when the presidential campaign heats up between the parties instead of within them. Consider these common sense steps to solving the illegal immigration problem.

1. Secure the border

We are being invaded -- not by a hostile army -- but nonetheless invaded. Put up a fence and regulate traffic through the open bits. If we can drop Shock and Awe on Iraq, surely we can face down Mexico with a fence. Get it done, and fast.

2. Enforce the immigration laws

Start identifying who is here illegally and start putting them gently on the other side of the fence. Twelve million people are a lot of people. No problem. Take twenty years to do it, if necessary. In the end you may be repatriating someone who has been here for thirty years. He can thank the Lord that he has had thirty years in America. I hope that he is saving. What if these people have children born here? Those children are American citizens. Fine. They are repatriated with their parents and when they turn 18 they can come back to the land of their birth, America. If you let parents stay because of their American-born babies, guess what? (Follow the logic of predictable human behavior.) People sneaking into the country will secure their permanent residency by having babies here. What if an illegal marries an American? Will we split up families? If you marry someone who is illegally in the country, you have implicitly agreed to follow your beloved to his or her country of origin if need be or live potentially very separate lives. Otherwise, people will sneak into the country and secure their permanent residency by marrying the first gullible Americans they can dupe into wedlock. Can't have that. (Remember AFDC?) It's tough love.

3. Open the immigration spigot

Raise the caps on immigration much higher than they are now and employ enough people at DHS to process them in a timely manner. That's growing the government. That's something we do well. There is surely a majority in Congress for that.

4. Change the laws to at least discourage abortion (Rudy, can you do that?), and then to encourage families to have children and stay together. David Brooks broached this subject in his May 15th 2007 New York Times column, "A Human Capital Agenda," saying, "It means increasing child tax credits to reduce economic stress on young families. It means encouraging marriage, the best educational institution we have." John Mueller of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, in his bold and illuminating book, Redeeming Economics, notes a relationship between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and our current labor shortage. He writes, "Most immigrants are in their twenties, and the annual number of legal and illegal immigrants to the United States is now almost exactly equal to the number of abortions 20 to 25 years earlier: about 1.5 million."

Recognizing the need for these measures and rallying the country and our legislators to support them is the work of a statesman and the measure of a successful presidential candidate in 2008.