New Era of Big Government

If someone described for you a national incident involving unprecedented loss of life, poor government planning, the failure to hold any government official accountable for mistakes, and Congress responding to the crisis by throwing money at the problem, chances are you’d conclude they were speaking about the causes and aftermath of 9/11. Actually, they could just as well be describing the siege and invasion of the Branch Davidian Compound at Waco, Texas, in 1993, during President Bill Clinton’s first term.

Now, if that same person were to ask you which recent president’s term in office was characterized by support for the so-called assault weapon ban, a huge increase in deficit spending, bigger budgets for virtually every domestic program—including Americorps and the National Endowment for the Arts—and signing into law a massive increase in federal government regulation of political speech, whose administration would you suspect they were describing? That of Democrat Bill Clinton? Nope. They’d be talking about the first term of Republican President George W. Bush.

The fact is, the records of these two presidents, Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican George W. Bush, are much more alike than either man would likely feel comfortable admitting. With Bill Clinton, a record of Big Government and lack of accountability, which is precisely what we witnessed from 1993 to 2001, was pretty much what most of us expected; we got what we deserved when we elected him president. With George W. Bush, however, what we have gotten is not what we bargained for—that is if we hoped for a president committed, as Bush said he was during the 2000 campaign, to smaller and more accountable government. Has America been betrayed by President George W. Bush? In his most recent book, The Bush Betrayal, James Bovard poses and then answers this question with a resounding “yes.”

Coming out as it does in the immediate aftermath of the extensive, if still incomplete, post-mortem of the 9/11 disaster, and while American troops and civilians are still dying in the dust of Iraq, there may be a tendency to minimize Bovard’s book by considering it as simply an analysis of the Bush administration’s sleight-of-hand in getting us involved with a war in Iraq. To be sure, the author does take the current administration to task for the basis on which the war in Iraq was predicated and on which it continues to be prosecuted; Bovard labels this Bush’s “greatest abuse of power” (a characterization with which I disagree—not that it isn’t an abuse of power, but it isn’t the worst one).

The importance of Bovard’s book, which, incidentally, follows and builds upon his outstanding 2003 volume, Terrorism and Tyrrany, goes far beyond an analysis of the Iraqi War or even the response by this administration to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The importance of The Bush Betrayal lies in the author’s impeccably researched exposition of what may very well be the central theme underlying modern politics in America: despite promises, regardless of rhetoric, and irrespective of party label, once a politician is in power, what We the People get—and which we’ve got in the current administration—is, in Bovard’s words, “Washington business as usual.”

Bovard lays out a convincing case. With the thoroughly researched and footnoted style that has become his forte, and with the heavy doses of relevant anecdotes and dry humor that have become his trademarks, the author has compiled a virtual almanac of American political abuse. And while it’s not a pretty picture he paints, we ignore Jim Bovard’s work at the risk of being repeatedly seduced—“betrayed”—by the siren songs of presidential candidates of both parties.

Each administration, it seems, must have a central theme around which its policies and actions revolve, and which provides a constant excuse for or explanation of why it does what it does. Who can forget the constant invocations by the Clintons that whatever the former president or his administration did, it was “for the children”? For the current administration of George W. Bush, any program, policy, or power grab—domestic or foreign—is justified because it furthers the War on Terror. Both the current and the immediately past administrations have fallen back on this ploy whenever criticized or attacked for their actions. After all, rather than bother to defend their actions as consistent with a core philosophy, it is much easier simply to label critics as “extreme” by claiming that if they are opposed to something the president or his employees are doing or have done, then by definition those critics must be against children or don’t support fighting terrorism. Shibboleths make such handy shields.

It truly is amazing, when you stop to think about it—as Bovard in his latest book forces us to do—that virtually everything the Bush administration has done to expand government power or expenditures is justified as being essential to winning “the war against terrorism.” Propping up farmers through outdated and expensive subsidies? Helps fight terrorism. Subsidies to sugar producers in order to keep prices of American sugar uncompetitively high? Necessary to fight terrorism. Tobacco subsidies? Ditto. How about a plan to have the government pay the way for lower-income home buyers who haven’t been able to save the money or qualify for loans to make their own down payments? A ridiculous and economically disastrous program, to be sure, but it’s worth the price to the Bush administration because—you guessed it—it creates stronger communities, which in turn are essential to improving America’s ability to fight terrorism. Hallelujah, and pass the collection plate!

Foreign aid to corrupt regimes and bloated international bureaucracies is extolled because it helps fight terrorism abroad. Don’t mind the fact that some of the terrorists who succeeded on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two countries that have received more U.S. aid and business investments than all but a handful of other countries.

It is not only Americans as taxpayers who are being forced to accept a broad range of increases in federal spending as the price the Bush administration extracts for pursuing its policies. Americans as targets of federal law-enforcement power are being made to pay a heavy price as well. The powers of the federal government—and, indirectly, state and local government, which often emulate their federal big brother—to snoop, surveil, search, and secretly arrest people with no more “reasonable suspicion” than a vague notion of “preventing terrorism,” have reached not just unprecedented, but frightening levels. And James Bovard shines the light on them all. From Attorney General John Ashcroft’s notion of “ordered liberty,” to Solicitor General Ted Olson’s argument to the Supreme Court that virtually anything President Bush wants to do is justified on the basis of his self-defined and overarching “constitutional authority to protect the nation,” Bovard opens his readers’ eyes to the still ongoing expansion of federal power during this administration’s watch.

But to me, the most devastating act of the Bush administration—which constituted such a fundamental betrayal of the First Amendment’s guarantee of our freedom to speak, petition, and assemble that it takes your breath away—was the president’s signing of the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2003. James Bovard pulls no punches in laying out just how devastating to freedom this law—upheld in all its major parts by the Supreme Court, despite eloquent dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia—truly is. Not only is the law deeply and fundamentally contrary to our constitutional liberties, but the president and Republican congressional leaders knew it was unconstitutional when they allowed it to be brought to the floor, voted on, and signed by a Republican president. Yet they did it anyway. In so doing, they betrayed us and the Constitution, and they did it in the full light of day.

To rub salt in the constitutional wounds the campaign law created, the Bush administration has cynically employed it in recent months in an effort to silence criticism of its policies.

Perhaps the clearest evidence of how detached this administration is from the constitutional underpinnings that used to hold presidents at arm’s length from near-absolute power is a quote unearthed by Bovard and included in the closing chapter of The Bush Betrayal. In April of this year, at a news conference, Bush described himself as “the ultimate decision-maker for this country.” As Bovard correctly notes, of course, Bush is at most the decision-maker for the executive branch of the government; the people are the ultimate decision-makers for America. Our Founding Fathers knew that. Generations of Americans understood that. Previous presidents recognized that. Sadly, that constitutionally based and historically sound perspective, which is the cornerstone of what America should stand for, appears not to be a component of the current administration’s thinking. And that is a betrayal. _______________________________________________

Former Congressman Bob Barr (R-Ga., 1995-2003) is the author of The Meaning of Is: The Squandered Impeachment and Wasted Legacy of William Jefferson Clinton.

"Installment 3 of why I'm not voting this year."

That's good. I suppose you'd expect a better run government, more efficient government, a safer America, and more localized control under a Kerry presidency. If so, don't vote. It is certainly your constitutional right to not do so. Sit it out! We applaud you for sitting on your laurels during a historic time in history.

I personally want to thank you for doing nothing when your country needs you most. That wasn't fair. You are posting this article on which I'm in agreement with most of. You and thousands of people like you are why we got a Clinton aberration. And I suppose that made you feel better. Well, enjoy! You may reap what you sow! Absolutely nothing!

You are right about not voting, but wouldn't it have been nice if the so called conservatives on this board, and throughout the land, had complained loud enough for GW to get the message that we expect a smaller govt, and the rule of law to be upheld?

"Former Congressman Bob Barr .."

Yep, I like the sound of that. Can I hear it again?

Former Congressman Bob Barr

Get's better every time.

Former Congressman Bob Barr

Bob Barr is a good example of why people should never put too much faith in any politician. Barr is wrong when he writes:
" to me, the most devastating act of the Bush administration—which constituted such a fundamental betrayal of the First Amendment’s guarantee of our freedom to speak, petition, and assemble that it takes your breath away—was the president’s signing of the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2003"

President Bush did not sign the Act because he desired the legislation; he did it only after the Republican efforts to block it failed, after a poison paragraph was inserted that was generally acnowleged to result in the Supreme Court voiding the entire Act; and after President Bush had warned Congress that he would not let them force him into vetoing a bill that they didn't have the political courage to vote against.

It was the Supreme Court that betrayed the First Amendment when they too refused to provide political cover for Congressmen who wanted to be able to say they voted for campaign reform, but didn't want the bill to become the law.

Voting is a responsibility of each American Citizen. Why are you shirking? Is being bitter over being decieved more important to you than your participation in a participatory democratic process to exercise your most important "freedom of expression?

I may be wrong, but I value voting far more than pouting. No one has given their life in combat to protect pouting. Sometimes one has to vote as a defense against the greater of two evils and not abandon keeping one's finger in the conservative dike against the unbridled evils of tyrannical Socialism/Commonism!

Please change your stance just enough to vote with me to keep America as "exceptional" as it can remain until we ultimately find someone with enough class to win the hearts and minds of a majority without abandoning the Conservative dream of constitutionally restrained government growth!

It's been done before with Reagan and even he disappointed over not balancing the budget. But what the heck? Our school kids don't have to "duck and cover" under their desks due to nuclear threats like they might if you don't vote and the two "Johns" win and lose the WOT!!!

Just this once, stop holding out for the perfect only to enable the terrible. Hold your nose if you have to, but don't take the future of America for granted, please!!!

Well done.

Bob Barr makes some very good points here, but he is one of those conservatives that make conservatives look like ogres.

More to the point, you are correct on the historic importance of this election. I hope those conservatives who sit this out will be pleased when Kerry's complete lack of leadership--his ONLY plan for the future seems to be to ask France to like us, and if they don't, well...--leaves a country far more damaged and decayed.

Imagine the kind of government spending we'll have to do to recover from the numerous 9-11s and school house massacres sure to follow after Kerry's rise to power.

"President Bush did not sign the Act because he desired the legislation; he did it only after the Republican efforts to block it failed, after a poison paragraph was inserted that was generally acnowleged to result in the Supreme Court voiding the entire Act; and after President Bush had warned Congress that he would not let them force him into vetoing a bill that they didn't have the political courage to vote against.

It was the Supreme Court that betrayed the First Amendment when they too refused to provide political cover for Congressmen who wanted to be able to say they voted for campaign reform, but didn't want the bill to become the law."

I'll agree with this as well. We can't blame President Bush for everything. He hasn't got alot of the support he needs from quite a few Senate Republicans, including McCain and others.

"They just better not complain when we cut their sacred taxes, or put Jesus back into our schools where he belongs."

You've done it now. You've used the J-word. I hope you can live with yourself. You need some immediate liberal instruction at your nearest university. Don't you know we can't cram Jesus down the throats of our Muslim and Jewish students. Have you lost all senseabilities, you extremist, Chrisitan conservative you! Hmmmm? :) Hehe!

historic time in history.
you for doing nothing when your country needs you most

I keep hearing this is the 'most important election we've ever had'. But I heard that two years ago, four years ago, I imagine in every election I've voted in that I've heard that. And every time we're told if the right guy doesn't get in or if the right party is not in control, then we'll be sorry. But funny enough, the Republican party continues its move to the left. At least they're finally admitting their more government all the time roots advocated under the first Republican party President.

The War on Some Terror continues. Can't say I agree with many of the decisions but there it is. Doesn't make me any less conservative. From what I've seen I much more conservative than most. Barr makes a point. The administration is using the cover of the WOST to engage in passing legislation for anything and everything, none of it worthwhile, most of it not even attached to the WOST. I will cast a vote for President even though I don't personally believe the President should be elected by popular vote in each state thus deciding how each state's electoral votes swing. I won't vote for Kerry though. Can't see myself doing that

"Imagine the kind of government spending we'll have to do to recover from the numerous 9-11s and school house massacres sure to follow after Kerry's rise to power."

I shutter to think. Of course, this terrible school tragedy in Russia is a perfect example of what WOULD LIKELY HAPPEN UNDER A KERRY PRESIDENCY!

I know there are many parents out there that this school incident makes a sobering blow. Especially, when it comes to voting on November 2nd. A reminder that our children continued to go to school safely the remainder of the year and the last three years after September 11th.

That oughtta sow up the election and importance of voting in this election. What we need is the picture of those Americans jumping out of the World Trade Center. That was a sobering sight, awful to look at, and would keep Americans focused after their vacations went terror free this summer.

wouldn't it have been nice if the so called conservatives on this board, and throughout the land, had complained loud enough for GW to get the message that we expect a smaller govt, and the rule of law to be upheld?

But then we'd lose elections. "Moderation" is the answer. < /sarc >

"I keep hearing this is the 'most important election we've ever had'. But I heard that two years ago, four years ago, I imagine in every election I've voted in that I've heard that. And every time we're told if the right guy doesn't get in or if the right party is not in control, then we'll be sorry."

I guess it's people like you that forget how many terror attacks there were under the Clinton administration. But you vote your conscious. Or don't vote because you're SO CONSERVATIVE!

Get this through your thick skulls: NOTHING IN LIFE IS PERFECT! Not one little thing. And while you're not voting, take a look at the pictures of those people jumping out of the World Trade Center. If you want to make changes, make sure you use your Constitutinal right to vote to do it. Otherwise, what's the point in even complaining! You won't do anything about it!

Of course, this terrible school tragedy in Russia is a perfect example of what WOULD LIKELY HAPPEN UNDER A KERRY PRESIDENCY!

Let's be honest--no one can say there won't be events like this, or 9-11, under a second Bush presidency. But does anyone think the chances of such an event happening here are LESSENED with Kerry in charge?

Kerry's plan for the war on terror is based on this mythical vision of perfect intelligence, targetting terrorist training camps and such. What bull.

In truth, this is his plan: Look French, make some nice speech at the UN, tossing in a few French literary allusions (he and Terayza will savor the Le Monde articles gushing over the French-related President's intelligence, and "European flair")....and in the end he will get NOTHING from Old Europe, which was exactly what CLinton got from them when he tried to get them on the same page with Kyoto, trade, Bosnia, etc. etc.

Having failed in getting the planet to realign after one speech, Kerry will continue the Bush policies. However, the newspapers will be filled with articles about how Iraq is FINALLY getting on its feet again--as if the previous two years of postwar rebuilding had happened overnight.

In the end, Kerry's plan is Bush's plan, except he will say "I asked the world to help us, and we got that help...from The British, Australians, etc." i.e. the people he calls "the coalition of the coerced" right now.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.