Steve Sailer is an outstanding journalist. Witty, erudite, and possessed of sufficient guile that the less discerning might even believe his diffidence wasn’t an act. As with anyone worthy of notice he undoubtedly gathers detractors, though as an objective quality measure stripped of all finger-pointing hysterics, he should be a standard rather than a pariah. In context of even the profession’s supposed elite, he is in most instances embarrassingly superior.
Yet hatred permeates every word of his prodigious pen, thus rendering him quite unemployable.
And so that questing, insightful, angle-finding mind is left to solicit Internet donations from commenters whom Tom Friedman wouldn’t tip to park his Bentley.
This state of affairs quite noticeably chafes Mr. Sailer. And he plainly covets the rarefied air occupied by America’s premier media shamans, though is bitterly shackled by the principles that impede his ascension to their roosts. An aggrievement he assuages, at least in part, through self-certainty that the world is listening to, if not paying for, his analyses.
More succinctly: he seems a swell guy who does good work and hates being paid like a street urchin. And it is because he is held in such esteem that I will expend the next few dozen keystrokes disagreeing with the conclusion inferred from a recent column.
The world has gotten more peaceful under the post-WWII system that is:
– Mildly averse to redrawing borders (e.g., African countries complain about their legacy borders, but African rulers are very reluctant to allow them to be redrawn: splitting Sudan along sensible racial lines took decades)
Russian annexation of Crimea following military operations, even if by referendum (but only in Crimea, not in Ukraine) violates all three.
If Russia wants to annex Crimea, it should offer to buy it from Ukraine (like the U.S. bought Alaska from Russia), with the deal needing to be ratified by a majority of voters in both Ukraine (minus Crimea) and Crimea.
A purchase price that Ukraine would be willing to accept for Crimea would sneer down upon the term astronomical. And would further represent quite a return on investment since Khrushchev administratively transferred the peninsula gratis in 1954. While it is always preferable when parties agree on a transaction, when they can not are options now foreclosed to one? So our wives would have us think.
Though more importantly, the precedent of people deciding a border rather than a detached government and its pilot fish is one to be applauded. And not only because it devolves power away from hostile elites. But also because it would serve to focus the collective mind of the state and conceivably begin to realign its interests with that of the nation. If a state apparatus understood that its imported replacement drones may–and likely would–one day elect to secede from its control, while spiriting away a large parcel of valuable real estate, it may begin to embrace the nuevo aphorism: Homogeneity is a strength!
As a for instance, Mr. Sailer is no doubt advised of the revanchist impulse circulating among his state’s new plurality population. Undoubtedly it along with the whole of the American southwest would now have exited via plebiscite if the mestizos there didn’t have their canines deep into the neck of the white taxpayer. And if some economic maelstrom were to tear the sinews out of this host, the de facto border would soon enough become de jure. And empires only cry when they contract.
There is no small amount of utility in the state fearing its loss as acutely as the nation. Heighten that fear sufficiently and the former may even sue for peace with the latter.