by C.J. Maloney

At any given moment there is a general tacit agreement
not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact.
– George Orwell

During the period preceding and following our Glorious Revolution of 1776, our Founders' generation wrote volumes of radical political thought in the form of pamphlets. Political philosophy and daily events were freely debated in astounding volume, a proud American tradition that has continued to this day. It seems every candidate for the office of President puts out a booklet-sized essay "Why I Should Be President" during their run. It is my firm belief that either nobody reads them or the candidates have no real ideological differences to argue about. Some of the things these candidates for office write are astounding. Why Rick Lazio, for example, didn't shred his opponent Hillary Clinton over the contents of her Communist, reactionary screed It Takes A Village is beyond me.

Now before my fellow Young Republicans mail me a dead rat, please allow me to clear up the air. I realize that I will not be making any friends within our party for what I am about to write, I write it with hesitation. Like your team winning the World Series, your party holding the ultimate seat of power-the presidency-is not a given, and you should appreciate it while it lasts. But I cannot. I feel the same about George W. Bush holding presidential office as a Republican in much the same way I would feel should Roger Clemens pitch my Mets to the World Championship-glad we made it but not too happy with who led us there.

All would agree that we must, at all times, put our nation above our party. None would disagree that "my country wrong or right" is the doctrine of a man that refuses to think. The same may be said of the doctrine "my party wrong or right." Our Republican Party stands for certain principles-free markets, individual rights, and peaceful co-existence with our neighbors-which time, experience, and President Bush's own words and actions have shown that he most certainly does not.

I have come to my sad conclusion about President Bush via two avenues: first, through his actions during his first term as our president, second through his own views as expressed in his book A Charge To Keep. According to President Bush, this book outlines his "values and philosophy."(p.IX) I believe from the bottom of my Republican heart that George W. Bush is unfit to represent our party, and he is certainly unfit to represent our nation.

So please hear me out, fellow Young Republicans, then, if you still desire, mail me that dead rat you've been saving for a special occasion.

The Rise of the Republocratic Party
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
–P.J. O'Rourke

A fool and his money are soon parted-unless, of course, that fool is government. Tocqueville once wrote that democracy can only last until the people figure out they can vote themselves money out of the public till, and brother, have we learned it. We have dug ourselves into a $40 trillion or so deficit hole. (The $7 trillion figure bandied about is, like most government proclamations, a wee bit south of true.) In reading George W. Bush's pre-election words, one could get the feeling that the socialist monstrosity of a government we've built – one mindless vote at a time – had him worried as well.

In A Charge To Keep he writes of "the need to slow the dramatic growth of government" (p.31) and that "I am a fiscal conservative."(p.235) Unfortunately, like most government proclamations, these both have turned out to be a wee bit south of…well, you know. During his years as Texas governor (1995-2000), President Bush never, not once, reduced spending. He's got the tax cut part down pat, but when it comes to drawing the line about giving away other peoples' money, he falls down on the job. In 1994, the Texas state budget was $35.6 billion. In George Bush's last year as governor, the budget was $49.7 billion, a 39.6% increase. He describes the government he left behind as "limited," though limited in what manner is anyone's guess. Thus lies the "compassionate" fiscal conservative.

He has continued this trend, with a vengeance; at the Federal level, he's got oodles more of other peoples' money to be compassionate with. Between fiscal 2001 and 2004, total Federal outlays will increase 24%, from $1.864 trillion to $2.305 trillion, and that's not including the recently passed $87 billion to re-build Iraq. In its first three years in office, the Bush administration has given the American people three of the top ten biggest annual increases in discretionary spending in the past four decades. And before the defense spending retort springs up, non-defense discretionary spending is up 31% over the same 2001-2004 period. Under our current Republican controlled federal government, the political pig trough has never been so full of other peoples' money.

On the non-discretionary side (in which, for some reason, the Judicial Branch has deemed it law that one American is entitled to another American's money) the Bush Administration enacted a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill, only to turn around not a month later and declare that it was actually going to be $520 billion. But what's $120 billion for a taste of bipartisanship? After all, "legislators who want to get things done check partisanship at the door."(p.114)

If I hear one more word about bipartisanship, I'm going to Ohio to shoot at cars. Why don't we all just form one giant party? There is a reason that the two major parties should be at loggerheads-because we are supposed to be ideologically distinct. When both parties "check partisanship at the door" we get $520 billion handouts of other peoples' money. I like a divided federal government-an Executive of one party combined with a Legislature ruled by the other tends to prevent the worst excesses that both Republicans and Democrats exhibit when in exclusive control. A Republican Party machine bought Nassau County, New York to fiscal ruin; a Democratic Party machine did the same to New York City in the 1970s. Remember our party's 1994 Contract With America, committed to "restoring fiscal responsibility?" (Don't worry, neither does anyone else.) Our current Republican-dominated federal government is spending the workers' money as fast as we can work two jobs to earn it.

Ronald Reagan once quipped that "neither the Congress nor the executive branch has really faced up to the fact that the federal budget is the responsibility of everyone and therefore in reality - no one." In this case, where our party controls both the executive and legislative branches, we have no big-spending liberals to blame.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

The Forever War
We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.
– George W. Bush, inaugural address, January 20, 2001

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
– H.L. Mencken

How many Americans have woken up after a restless night of tossing and turning and looked at their spouse bleary-eyed because the difficulty of the Iraqi Constitution has them worried? The answer is none. Ask any American if we must use our military to spread democracy and freedom throughout the globe, and the chances of you getting even a small minority to agree to it is almost nil. Hence the need for the WMD hobgoblin.

In President Bush's opinion "we must use our power to encourage the spread of freedom."(p.235) "My vision of compassionate conservatism requires America to assert it leadership in the world."(p.236) The reason being? Because "the world seeks America's leadership."(p.240) Nobody has yet told the Iraqis or Afghanis how much they yearn for our leadership, nor reminded President Bush that he was elected to be leader of, not the world, but only America. This has created a volatile, bloody mix.

President Bush's vision of America's role in international affairs is a complete about-face from the warnings against foreign entanglements that our Founding Wigged Ones counseled against. We currently have troops in over one hundred foreign countries, on your average day the Persian Gulf looks like an American naval exercise, and we have, during President Bush's short three-year tenure, invaded two sovereign nations without a Congressional declaration of war. (As required by the Constitution he swore to protect and uphold.)

President Bush is a strong proponent of an American empire, and if you doubt me read his words and look at the website of the Project for a New American Century, a think tank started by his close advisors Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney. It is blatantly imperialist. These men have a mission, not for themselves, of course…tailored suits wrinkle in the desert heat…but for all our children and us. Congress' opinion on this is not known; they're all hiding in the cloakroom.

President Bush's dream of empire, springing from his desire to keep America safe conjoined with his refusal to disengage us from meddling in the affairs of the entire globe, guarantee us a future of perpetual war. The fact is that the Iraqi people, not to mention the Afghani people, have no more desire for democracy and freedom imposed at the point of a gun than Theo Epstein had to see A-Rod in pinstripes. His absolute assurance that these primitive, savage countries would welcome American ideals and culture with open arms comes from either an insufferable arrogance or a complete ignorance of history's lessons. President Bush's assertion that "I also learned the lessons of Vietnam"(p.55) and "we must never ask the military to fight a political war"(p.55) are particularly galling in light of his displayed penchant for empire building.

And if elected again, this imperial policy will continue. "America must not retreat within our borders"(p.240) is his stated desire, and one that all his advisors push with gusto. We have ignored our Founder's dire warnings, we have allowed the rule of law to be trampled upon, and we have allowed the power to make war to come into one man's hands. At the moment, most Americans seem to care more about Janet Jackson's right breast than the Executive's usurpation of the Legislature's power to make war.

The day will come when we will weep for it.



The PATRIOT Act– part II
In an era of sound bite politics, no one wants to be the bad guy who vetoes a bill with a good sounding name. It's a sad fact of political life today that bad legislation sometimes becomes law for this reason.
– George W. Bush, A Charge To Keep

Hence it is, that the republicanism of a great mass of people is often nothing more than a blind trust in certain favorites.
– Fischer Ames

After the September 11th attacks on America, Congress went into "do something" mode, which necessitated, as always, the passage of some, any, type of legislation, so that the various members of Congress could go home and proclaim to the voters that…no need to worry…they've done something. Hence, after about fifteen or so minutes of deliberation, on October 25, 2001 Congress voted 'yea' to institute the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. More thought went into the name, which has the red, white, and blue acronym USA PATRIOT, than went into the contents.

I admit I have not read the entire document, and I would bet junior's college fund that neither have you nor any member of Congress. And, it's small wonder with such easily understood passages like:

SEC. 905. DISCLOSURE TO DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE-RELATED INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Title I of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 402 et seq.) is amended--

(1) by re-designating subsection 105B as section 105C; and

(2) by inserting after section 105A the following new section 105B:

Compare this with our Constitution, which, for all the blather you might hear, is a very simply written, easy to understand document. Laws written in the manner of this Patriot Act spark my suspicion; laws can be written in such a manner as to render their flaws incomprehensible to the people, and that includes those in Congress. They were so eager to being seen as doing something that they flippantly voted for this measure with an understanding of little else besides that it had a sweet sounding name. For those conspiracy buffs among you, this Patriot Act was written before September 11th even occurred.

The immense arbitrary power this act places in the hands of the Executive, as shown by the plight of our fellow New Yorker Jose Padilla, should make any American fear for our safety. To be able to declare any American, at his arbitrary discretion, as an enemy combatant and deny that person one of our most basic, inalienable rights - the right to defend themselves in court - is an undeniable assault on the liberty of all. So much for President Bush's assertion that "due process (is) guaranteed by our Constitution."(p.148)

The powers of hyper-surveillance this act gives to federal agencies, such as the FBI, to tap our phones, go through our personal and financial records, even snoop into our library habits, without the necessity of proving before the judicial authorities that we are deserving of suspicion is ripe for abuse and insulting to the loyalty of the American people.

Doubtless, this act will have its defenders, those who will assure us that the government officials in charge of such a project would only have the best interests of the people at heart and would not dream of abusing such broad powers. And doubtless, those officials may very well be deserving of our trust.

Assuming the current federal employees are deserving of our trust, can the same be reasonably assumed of all those who will come in the future? History, the best record of human behavior, has repeatedly shown us that the folly and weakness inherent in man's nature has influenced those in government to use such broad powers as those now given not to the benefit, but to the detriment, of the very people they were created to serve.

Any law that can be of benefit to man must be made with the nature of human beings in mind. The investigative powers now residing with the federal authorities not only assume, but also require, all future officials be saints, or else these new powers will be used against us. Considering that human beings are who they are, can we rationally make such an assumption? We ignore the timeless wisdom and warning in Patrick Henry's statement, "I will never depend on so slender a protection as the possibility of being represented by virtuous men." Mark my words; this "Patriot" Act will be used against Americans in ordinary criminal cases.

Our Founding Fathers risked their very lives and property in order to secure the rule of law that protects us from government attack; with a flourish of their pens our Congress and President Bush have now just as surely removed that from us, replacing rule of law with the ever shifting, dangerous rule of man.

This Patriot Act is a blatant assault on our inalienable rights, and it was championed by the man who sits atop our party, the man who swore to, above all, protect the Constitution. President Bush wrote that he wants a "judge who will strictly interpret the Constitution"(p.105), unless, now, the vaguely defined threat of terror is involved.

The hijacked airliners that destroyed the Twin Towers just as surely destroyed President Bush's oath to protect and uphold the rule of law.

Calling A Spade A Spade
The Constitutional republic, however, does not call upon men to play the hero; it only calls upon them to do other duty under the laws and the Constitution, in any position in which they may be placed, and no more.
–William Graham Sumner, 1877

President Bush comes across throughout A Charge To Keep as a warm hearted, baseball loving Texan. (When he writes of having mystical feelings towards baseball, (p.206) I can't help but like the man.) He is often called stupid by his political opponents-a ridiculous, irrational charge. No man attains the ultimate seat of power through stupidity. However, he is not a deep thinker. George W. Bush, and if you disbelieve me read this book, speaks the language of freedom and behaves as a socialist. This explains his lack of firm principles. He states that "I base my decisions on principles that do not change" (p.166) but what are those principles?

His four "purposes of government" are telling: "to help secure the retirement and health needs of our senior citizens, to defend our homeland, to help society confront human suffering, and to help keep peace in the world."(p.235) With the exception of defending our homeland, his purposes of government are all the intellectual residue of a socialist Ivy League education. His declaration that "I believe it is far more compassionate to help individuals become independent" (p.236) is telling. It pre-supposes, as all socialist schemes do, that the individual is absolutely helpless without the guiding hand of government. His is not the political philosophy of one who believes in limited government.

How I yearn for a new generation of leaders to rise in our party - ones not imbued with the collectivist claptrap rooted in the reactionary 60s. Where is the leader who, like Thomas Jefferson, believes that the government that governs best governs least? Whether "conservative" or "liberal," almost all the elite of our President's generation have an inherent distrust of freedom, an absolute certainty that mankind left to his own devices will descend into chaos. Consequently all, on the left and the right, have a Big Plan for which they are eager to use government force to impose on We the People.

President Bush, conservative label not withstanding, has that urge. Right from the get-go, his book is a "call to a higher purpose."(p.X) Throughout the book, he spouts off about "changing the culture," having a "big bold idea," "shaking things up," "making a difference," and "changing the future" - all of course done not through the peoples' free choice and voluntary interaction. He's convinced himself that his Big Plan, under the rubric of "compassionate conservatism," feeds all Americans' needs because "people are starved for faithfulness."(p.8) And he intends to use government force to give it to them.

How he can claim to be for limited government while presiding over the greatest expansion of government power over the American people in our history? How he can claim to "believe in the free market"(p.66) then show the effects of his socialist Harvard education by approvingly quoting that health insurance companies are "intruders in the relationship between doctor and patient" who "are worried more about profits than about…patients?"(p.188) (The urge for socialized medicine is a bipartisan one.) How can he claim that "quotas and preferences demean the individual and lower standards" (p.208) while also stating that "I don't believe in quotas or racial preferences but…?" (p.103) How can he claim that "I do not support import fees"(p.65) and that he wants "to tear down barriers, so the whole world trades in freedom"(p.67) and go on to institute socialist and protectionist programs for agriculture, steel, textiles, medicine, and education?

The 60s, like it or not, had its ideological way with him. How else can one explain the utterly irrational theory of compassionate conservatism, which is to American socialism what glasnost was to Russia? How else can we explain his assertion that America is a "single, moral community with obligations to each other"(p.228) and his repeated urges to form "armies of compassion?"(p. 232, 243) Some passages from A Charge To Keep had me checking the front cover to see if I was re-reading Hillary Clinton's It Takes A Village.

This is the man to lead the fight against socialism, to protect the property and liberty of us all from collective tyranny? I think not. Despite wearing the cloak of Republican, President Bush embodies everything-socialist programs, huge spending, centralization of power-for which we excoriate our Democratic Party opponents. We have fallen in love with the man's stated party affiliation, while ignoring his words and actions.

Our Constitution specifically mandates and protects man's right to the fruits of his own labor, a limited government that upholds impartial law and otherwise leaves Americans in peace, and a policy of peaceful inaction with all nations who do us no harm – but these are not on his agenda.

President Bush's charge to keep was simple: to protect and uphold the Constitution. It is in this, his most important task, where he has failed miserably.

He had learned that the cashiering of bad kings may be not only right but a duty.
– Lord Acton

Mr. Maloney originally published this article in two parts on the NYYRC The Record website.