Politically inspired logic.

Cognitive dissonance is defined as the confused mental condition that results from holding incompatible beliefs simultaneously. It strikes me that an epidemic of deadly cognitive dissonance is infecting politicians. On one side of the political spectrum are people labeled conservatives. In this country in the past, that label has meant people who scrupulously defend constitutional intents--such as limited federal government, governmental checks and balances, and prudent federal spending. Nowadays, however, many people labeled as conservatives gleefully participate in pork-barrel spending, actively promote legislation that bypasses constitutional checks and balances (like joining the World Trade Organization), and support federal involvement in everything outside constitutional bounds (such as education and social welfare programs). Liberals, on the other hand, who are supposed to favor political reforms tending toward personal freedom, push legislation to criminalize certain thoughts (hate-crime legislation), punish institutions and communities that wish to express commonly held beliefs (anti-religious litigation), and take away freedom of speech (McCain/Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform").

The epidemic seems to be getting worse, afflicting the vast bulk of politicians; and it's extremely resistant to common cures. It's like Alzheimer's: the inflicted often don't realize they're sick, and the symptoms of the disease become more profound over time.

I've explored some possible answers as to what might be causing the spread of this disease. My first thought was that it had to be "something in the water." Not the water you drink, though, but the water people reside by. After all, the people who seem to be least afflicted come from the center of the country; while people from the ocean coasts seem to be most often afflicted --those politicians from New York, Massachusetts, and California were badly hit. But I discounted that reasoning because Senator John McCain of Arizona, an arid state, has a particularly virulent strain of the disease. Then I thought, "Maybe the disease is transmitted by handling cash." There is an abundance of millionaires in politics.

But again, I had to discount this idea--because of personal experience. Being that I'm of an ethnic ancestry reputed to be stingy and that it would take a team of horses and judicious use of a chain saw to get a wayward dollar out of my closed fist, the tact that I don't seem to be infected with the disease must mean that the contagion doesn't originate with money.

Finally it hit me: "The contagion must be passed along by associating with careers of the disease." And so I analyzed who the carriers of the disease might be. My search led me to a group of people belonging to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). To affirm my findings, I analyzed their recent report, Building a North American Community. And, yes, the report showed high levels of cognitive dissonance. Summed up, the report urges federal politicians to work toward combining the economies of the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

The report's writers offered up as one of their main proposals to give U.S. taxpayer money to Mexico so that Mexico can improve its infrastructure and school system. This "giving" is necessary, they say, so that the United States can "integrate" with Mexico (and Canada). Moreover, they say, the United States needs to integrate with Mexico (and Canada) to be able to compete with the European Union and China in trade, and so that our new integration partners can aid the United States in stopping terrorists from infiltrating our country.

The cognitive dissonance in just this little part of their proposal is astounding. First, giving money to Mexico to build its infrastructure is unconstitutional, so asking our politicians to vote for this is promoting long-term harm to our country. Second, if the United States used even a small portion of the money that it would take to build the infrastructure in Mexico to institute border security in the U.S., we wouldn't need "help" trying to stop infiltrating terrorists. Third, trusting Mexico, a country that actively aids people in flouting U.S. immigration laws, to patrol our borders is ludicrous. Fourth, giving money to Mexico is about as useful as setting the money aflame because Mexican authorities are among the most corrupt in the world. Fifth, the United States is nearly $8 trillion in debt, and Americans have to worry about their own schools and infrastructure. Sixth, one of the main reasons that U.S. companies have trouble competing with those in the European Union and China is that U.S. companies are so heavily taxed--to build infrastructure in other countries.

The cognitive dissonance in the CFR report only begins there. The report states that the council is not advocating a European Union-style joining of countries whereby the countries give up independence and sovereignty. However, all of their recommendations lead to the same end.

They want a North American Security Perimeter, really a border around the United States, Mexico, and Canada, instead of around each country separately. They want conjoined military and police forces. They want people from each country to be able to live in any other country without limits. They want a continent-wide energy policy based on the flawed Kyoto Treaty. They want a policymaking unit to determine the rules (laws) for the three countries, If this isn't an EU-style format (and cognitive dissonance), what am I overlooking?