FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

The dispute over Elian Gonzalez has created a media and political firestorm. Even those few remaining observers who have, to date, insisted this matter is nothing more than an insignificant squabble over one little boy should now be persuaded by Vice President Al Gore’s well-timed change of heart that the stakes are, in fact, very high.

Make no mistake, this conflict represents not a disagreement over technical aspects of the law or judicial procedure, but a clash of competing values.

The Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, has repeatedly insisted that her actions have been guided only by a deep concern for Elian Gonzalez’s welfare. Ms. Reno is no doubt telling the truth, and it is this sincerity, oddly enough, that represents the most disturbing aspect of the entire case.

That our nation’s Attorney General genuinely believes living under communist oppression can ever be in a child’s best interests is nothing less than astounding. After all, Ms. Reno has the responsibility of enforcing the country’s laws, laws that recognize as unalienable the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Communism and these fundamental rights are not just incompatible; they are irreconcilable. No dialogue, negotiation, or discussion can find "common ground" between such competing worldviews; there is no "third way" that offers a convenient compromise.

Consequently, conflicts between the values of a democratic republic and a communist tyranny require that one system give way to the other. When a democracy is compelled by brut force to make such a concession, it is tragic. When it does so voluntarily, it is an inexcusable betrayal.

For this reason, I consider the government’s treatment of Elian Gonzalez the lowest point of the entire Clinton Administration, a statement I make with full knowledge of this regime’s considerable excesses and transgressions.

Yes, Elian Gonzalez is just one little boy, but American democracy is all about protecting and preserving the individual rights of the vulnerable and the meek. It is exactly because a small child’s rights hang in the balance that this case is so important. How dare we not choose to give this boy freedom? How can we even think of offering him up to a communist dictatorship dedicated to the destruction of liberty itself?

Ms. Reno bases her position on an unwavering allegiance to family unity at all costs. I will not at this time detail how the Administration she serves has hardly been the strongest ally of the traditional nuclear family. I will, however, confidently suggest that President Clinton and the Attorney General are making the wrong decision because they suffer from misguided priorities.

Throughout our history, millions upon millions of families across the globe have made the painful decision to separate so that one generation could flee oppression and seek out freedom in the United States. These immigrants valued, and continue to value, family unity no less than the President or the Attorney General. Nevertheless, they were willing to endure without one another to acquire the freedom that is the lifeblood of the human spirit.

More often than not, immigrant families place a higher value on freedom than on undisturbed family unity, and the decision to risk so much for eternal, universal values has preserved the American way of life for more than 220 years.

The Clinton Administration should, just once, subordinate the contrivance of process (their absurd effort to rig the legal system) to the greater question of what is right (the easy choice between freedom and oppression).

Elian’s mother, Elizabet Rodriguez, sacrificed her life trying to get her son to our shores. Her sacrifice was neither an irrational act nor an imprudent repudiation of family unity. Rather, it is a vivid reminder of the moral foundation of American democracy.

In the simplest terms, President Clinton and Attorney General Reno are working -- with an inexplicable zeal -- to reverse a mother’s decision and force her six-year-old boy to live without freedom. It is a cause worthy only of disdain. It is a compromise of American values that should not be tolerated.