HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED
The modern-day
limited-government movement has been co-opted.
The
conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of
government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a
conservative
revolution in Washington. Party control of the federal government has changed,
but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued
unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and
foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this
revolution.
Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a
difference, who’s really in charge? If the particular party in power makes
little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded government programs,
increased spending, huge deficits, nation building and the pervasive invasion of
our privacy, with fewer Fourth Amendment protections than ever before?
Someone is responsible, and it’s important that those of us who love
liberty, and resent
big-brother government, identify the
philosophic supporters
who have the most to say about the direction our country is going. If they’re
wrong—and I believe they are—we need to show it, alert the American people,
and offer a more positive approach to government.
However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live in a
free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong central
government to take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Do the American
people really believe it’s the government’s responsibility to make us
morally better and economically equal? Do we have a responsibility to police the
world, while imposing our vision of good government on everyone else in the
world with some form of utopian nation building? If not, and the contemporary
enemies of liberty are exposed and rejected, then it behooves us to present an
alternative philosophy that is morally superior and economically sound and
provides a guide to world affairs to enhance peace and commerce.
One thing is certain: conservatives who worked and voted for less
government in the
Reagan years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress
and the presidency in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will
realize that the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views
no longer matter.
The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given
us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are
exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion
dollars per year. Taxes do not go down—even if we vote to lower them. They
can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for
one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder
George Bush raised
taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been
reduced—and they certainly should have been—but it means little if spending
increases and deficits rise.
When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must
be paid by either borrowing or “printing”
new money. This is one reason why
we conveniently have a generous
Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to
accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed
and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to
identify it. Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from
rising prices, and those who lose jobs they certainly feel the consequences of
economic dislocation that this process causes.
Government spending is always a
“tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly
distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from
the
deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing.
Many present-day conservatives, who generally argue for less government
and supported the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush takeover of the federal government, are
now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a monolithic group, they wanted to
shrink the size of government.
Early in our history, the advocates of limited,
constitutional government
recognized two important principles: the
rule of law was crucial, and a
constitutional government must derive “just powers from the
consent of the
governed.” It was understood that an explicit transfer of power to government
could only occur with power rightfully and naturally endowed to each individual
as a God-given right. Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be
limited to the purpose of protecting liberty. Unfortunately, in the last 100
years, the defense of liberty has been fragmented and shared by various groups,
with some protecting
civil liberties, others
economic freedom, and a small
diverse group arguing for a foreign policy of nonintervention.
The
philosophy of freedom has had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that
the renewed interest in limited government of the past two decades would revive
an interest in reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more
consistent. Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed
the rhetoric of
politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes it was
just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times, they fell victim
to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited-government philosophy by
politicians who
misled many into believing that we would see a rollback on
government intrusiveness.
Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited government
and maintained a belief in the rule of law, combined with a deep conviction that
free people and a government bound by a Constitution were the most advantageous
form of government. They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity
to be spread to the maximum number of people while promoting
peace and security.
That remnant—imperfect as it may have been—was heard from in the
elections of 1980 and 1994 and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 2002
when
professed limited-government proponents took over the White House, the
Senate and the House. However, the
true believers in
limited government are now
shunned and laughed at. At the very least, they are ignored—except when they
are used by the
new leaders of the right, the new conservatives now in charge of
the U.S. government.
The remnant’s instincts were correct, and the politicians placated them
with talk of
free markets,
limited government, and a humble, non-nation-building
foreign policy. However, little concern for civil liberties was expressed in
this recent quest for less government. Yet, for an ultimate victory of achieving
freedom, this must change. Interest in personal privacy and choices has
generally remained outside the concern of many conservatives—especially with
the great harm done by their support of the
drug war. Even though some confusion
has emerged over our foreign policy since the breakdown of the Soviet empire,
it’s been a net benefit in getting some conservatives back on track with a
less militaristic, interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, after 9-ll,
the cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans
voted for the less-than-perfect conservative revolution because they believed in
the
promises of the politicians.
Now there’s mounting evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the
revolution. Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are
overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new status quo
delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited government and will
find it to be just more of the old
status quo. Victories for limited government
have turned out to be hollow indeed.
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a
half-trillion dollars per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an
astounding $984 billion dollars. Total U.S. government obligations are $43
trillion, while the total net worth of U.S. households is about $40.6 trillion.
The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to notice or care. The
philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially
the expanding
American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our
survival.
In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the Administration
continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming,
medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and
preemptive wars around the
world. Already we’re entrenched in
Iraq and
Afghanistan, with plans to soon
add new trophies to our conquest. War talk abounds as to when
Syria,
Iran and
North Korea will be attacked.
How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t
the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does
anyone care?
Will the euphoria of grand military victories—against
non-enemies—ever be mellowed? Someday, we as a legislative body must face the
reality of the dire situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become
enmeshed. Hopefully, it will be soon!
We got here because ideas do have consequences. Bad ideas have bad
consequences, and even the best of intentions have
unintended consequences. We
need to know exactly what the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this
point; then, hopefully, reject them and decide on another set of intellectual
parameters.
There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign policy
justifying preemptive war.
Those who scheme are
proud of the achievements in
usurping control over foreign policy. These are the neoconservatives of recent
fame. Granted, they are talented and achieved a political victory that all
policymakers must admire. But can freedom and the republic survive this
takeover? That question should concern us.
Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are
well-placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress put
up little resistance and abdicated its responsibilities over foreign affairs.
The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic fervor supporting
the military adventurism advocated by the neoconservatives.
The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government
diminished and had their concerns ignored these past 22 months, during the
aftermath of 9-11. Members of Congress were easily influenced to publicly
support any domestic policy or foreign military adventure that was supposed to
help reduce the threat of a terrorist attack. Believers in limited government
were harder to find.
Political money, as usual, played a role in pressing
Congress into supporting almost any proposal suggested by the neocons. This
process—where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy—is hardly
the domain of any single political party, and unfortunately, is the way of life
in Washington.
There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be nae
for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9-11, protection of privacy, whether
medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free speech and the Fourth
Amendment have been under constant attack. Higher welfare expenditures are
endorsed by the leadership of both parties. Policing the world and
nation-building issues are popular campaign targets, yet they are now standard
operating procedures. There’s no sign that these programs will be slowed or
reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which won’t be soon)
or we go broke and can no longer afford these grandiose plans for a world empire
(which will probably come sooner than later.)
None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic
ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these plans.
The neoconservatives—a name they gave themselves—diligently worked their way
into positions of power and influence. They documented their goals, strategy and
moral justification for all they hoped to accomplish. Above all else, they were
not and are not conservatives dedicated to limited, constitutional government.
Neo-conservatism has been around for decades and, strangely, has
connections to past generations as far back as
Machiavelli. Modern-day
neo-conservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a detailed
strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of
Teddy Roosevelt,
and certainly
Woodrow Wilson, were quite similar to many of the views of
present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman
Max Boot brags that what he advocates is
“hard Wilsonianism.” In many ways, there’s nothing “neo” about their
views, and certainly nothing conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the
conservative movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of
conservatism.
More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a
group historically identified as former Trotskyites. Liberal,
Christopher
Hitchens, has recently officially joined the neocons, and it has been reported
that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc consultant. Many
neocons now in positions of influence in Washington can trace their status back
to Professor
Leo Strauss of the
University of Chicago. One of Strauss’ books
was
Thoughts on Machiavelli. This book was not a condemnation of
Machiavelli’s philosophy.
Paul Wolfowitz actually got his PhD under Strauss.
Others closely associated with these views are
Richard Perle,
Eliot Abrams,
Robert Kagan, and
William Kristol. All are key players in designing our new
strategy of preemptive war. Others include:
Michael Ledeen of the
American
Enterprise Institute; former CIA Director
James Woolsey;
Bill Bennett of
Book
of Virtues fame;
Frank Gaffney;
Dick Cheney; and
Donald Rumsfeld. There are
just too many to mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the
neocon philosophy in some varying degree.
The godfather of modern-day neo-conservatism is considered to be
Irving
Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with his publication
Reflections
of a Neoconservative. In this book, Kristol also defends the traditional
liberal position on welfare.
More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism
are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general
understanding of what neocons believe:
- They agree with Trotsky on permanent
revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
-
They are for redrawing the map of the Middle
East and are willing to use force to do so.
-
They believe in preemptive war to achieve
desired ends.
-
They accept the notion that the ends justify
the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.
-
They express no opposition to the welfare
state.
-
They are not bashful about an American empire;
instead they strongly endorse it.
-
They believe lying is necessary for the state
to survive.
-
They believe a powerful federal government is a
benefit.
-
They believe pertinent facts about how a
society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those
who do not have the courage to deal with it.
-
They
believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.
-
They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.
-
They believe imperialism, if progressive in
nature, is appropriate.
-
Using American might to force American ideals
on others is acceptable. Force
should not be limited to the defense of our country.
-
9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign
entanglements, not from too many.
-
They dislike and despise libertarians
(therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)
-
They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such
as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
-
They unconditionally support Israel and have a
close alliance with the Likud Party.
<
/ol>
Various
organizations and publications over the last 30 years have played a significant
role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. It took plenty of money and
commitment to produce the intellectual arguments needed to convince the many
participants in the movement of its respectability.
It is no
secret—especially after the rash of research and articles written about the
neocons since our invasion of Iraq—how they gained influence and what
organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they
agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The
Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary,
and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s
following the first Persian Gulf War—which still has not ended even with
removal of Saddam Hussein. They became convinced that a much more militant
approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute
necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.
In addition to
publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their
agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New
American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation.
This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill
Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with
the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic
bombings. Obviously, these bombings
were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief
in the neocon agenda.
The election of
2000 changed all that. The Defense
Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the
various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against
Iraq. It wasn’t too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to
reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald
Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an
“American greatness” imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct
possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories.
This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.
The money and
views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as
well as rallying support by the general population, through his News
Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly
Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize
public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated
the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It
would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the
restraints of Colin Powell’s State Department without the successful agitation
of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained:
“Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals
abroad.” This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who
advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American
foreign policy.
Let there be no
doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a
decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it
required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read
of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.”
Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they
knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to
pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the
Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of
this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing
debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger?
Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building
and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own
citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who knows where
we’ll go next—Iran, Syria or North Korea?
At the end of the
Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was
occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a
perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East.
It was recognized
that a new era was upon us, and the neocons welcomed Frances Fukuyama’s “end
of history” declaration. To them, the debate was over. The West won; the
Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was dead. Long live the new era of
neoconservatism. The struggle may not be over, but the West won the intellectual
fight, they reasoned. The only problem is that the neocons decided to define the
philosophy of the victors. They have been amazingly successful in their efforts
to control the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will
be spread throughout the world.
Communism surely
lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, but this can hardly be
declared a victory for American liberty, as the Founders understood it.
Neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free markets and a wise foreign policy.
Instead, it represents big-government welfare at home and a program of using our
military might to spread their version of American values throughout the world.
Since neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. government now operates, it
behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of the Soviet
system may well have been an epic event but to say that the views of the neocons
are the unchallenged victors and that all we need do is wait for their
implementation is a capitulation to controlling the forces of history that many
Americans are not yet ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.
There is now a
recognized philosophic connection between modern-day neoconservatives and Irving
Kristol, Leo Strauss, and Machiavelli. This is important in understanding that
today’s policies and the subsequent problems will be with us for years to come
if these policies are not reversed.
Not only did Leo
Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael Ledeen, a current leader of the
neoconservative movement, did the same in 1999 in his book with the title,
Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, and subtitled: Why Machiavelli’s iron
rules are as timely and important today as five centuries ago.
Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose views get lots of
attention today in Washington. His book on Machiavelli, interestingly enough,
was passed out to Members of Congress attending a political strategy meeting
shortly after its publication and at just about the time A Clean Break was
issued.
In Ledeen’s
most recent publication, The War Against the Terror Masters, he
reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli book. He specifically
praises: “Creative destruction…both within our own society and
abroad…(foreigners) seeing America undo traditional societies may fear us, for
they do not wish to be undone.” Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: “They must
attack us in order to survive, just as we must
destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
If those words
don’t scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don’t know
what could be. It sounds like both sides of each disagreement in the world will
be following the principle of preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe
place for it.
In Machiavelli
on Modern Leadership, Ledeen praises a business leader for correctly
understanding Machiavelli: “There are no absolute solutions. It all depends.
What is right and what is wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.”
This is a clear endorsement of situational ethics and is not coming from the
traditional left. It reminds me of: “It depends on what the definition of the
word ‘is’ is.”
Ledeen quotes
Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader. “A prince must have no
other objectives or other thoughts or take anything for his craft, except
war.” To Ledeen, this meant: “…the virtue of the warrior are those of
great leaders of any successful organization.” Yet it’s obvious that war is
not coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals
justify it, and the politicians carry it out. There’s a precise reason to
argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for “…peace increases our
peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst instincts,
in depriving us of some of our best leaders.” Peace, he claims, is a dream and
not even a pleasant one, for it would cause indolence and would undermine the
power of the state. Although I concede the history of the world is a history of
frequent war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace—believing
peace is not a benefit to mankind—is a frightening thought that condemns the
world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. These are
dangerous ideas, from which no good can come.
The conflict of
the ages has been between the state and the individual: central power versus
liberty. The more restrained the state and the more emphasis on individual
liberty, the greater has been the advancement of civilization and general
prosperity. Just as man’s condition was not locked in place by the times and
wars of old and improved with liberty and free markets, there’s no reason to
believe a new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for
conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for preemptive war
should never be intellectually justified as being a benefit. Such an attitude
guarantees the backsliding of civilization. Neocons, unfortunately, claim that
war is in man’s nature and that we can’t do much about it, so let’s use it
to our advantage by promoting our goodness around the world through force of
arms. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the
Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire indeed.
Ledeen believes
man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own desires. Therefore, he must
have proper and strong leadership, just as Machiavelli argued. Only then can man
achieve good, as Ledeen explains: “In order to achieve the most noble
accomplishments, the leader may have to ‘enter into evil.’ This is the
chilling insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and
challenging…we are rotten,” argues Ledeen. “It’s true that we can
achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.” In other words, man
is so depraved that individuals are incapable of moral, ethical and spiritual
greatness, and achieving excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful
authoritarian leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our
leaders in Washington? The question
Ledeen doesn’t answer is: “Why
do the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where do they
obtain their monopoly on wisdom?”
Once this trust
is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this neocon argues that certain
tools are permissible to use. For instance: “Lying is central to the survival
of nations and to the success of great enterprises, because if our enemies can
count on the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously
increased.” What about the effects of lying on one’s own people? Who cares
if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it “strategic deception” make
lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli argue that it does, as long as
the survivability of the state is at stake. Preserving the state is their goal,
even if the personal liberty of all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.
Ledeen makes it
clear that war is necessary to establish national boundaries—because that’s
the way it’s always been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He
explains:
"Look
at the map of the world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men
leading lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been
established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, most
often bloody struggle."
Yes,
but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What
about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our
own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war
throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the
concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?
Machiavelli,
Ledeen and the neocons recognized a need to generate a religious zeal for
promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially necessary when force is used
to promote an agenda. It’s been true throughout history and remains true
today, each side of major conflicts invokes God’s approval. Our side refers to
a “crusade;” theirs to a “holy Jihad.” Too often wars boil down to their
god against our God. It seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain
approval from the masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake
of the war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige and wealth at stake.
Ledeen
explains why God must always be on the side of advocates of war: “Without fear
of God, no state can last long, for the dread of eternal damnation keeps men in
line, causes them to honor their promises, and inspires them to risk their lives
for the common good.” It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher
moral status than eternal salvation of one’s soul. Ledeen adds:
"Without
fear of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary to
their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the laws…to
this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular."
It’s
of interest to note that some large Christian denominations have joined the
neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while completely ignoring the
Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons sought and openly welcomed their
support.
I’d
like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or placed in the
Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine of a “spectacular”
state promoted by those who now have so much influence on our policies here at
home and abroad. Ledeen argues that this religious element, this fear of God, is
needed for discipline of those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for
the good of the “spectacular state.”
He
explains in eerie terms: “Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally.
Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated,
indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military enterprise, for men are more
likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after
for serving their country.” This is an admonition that might just as well have
been given by Osama bin Laden, in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives
to kill the invading infidels, as by our intellectuals at the AEI, who greatly
influence our foreign policy.
Neocons—anxious
for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries and change regimes in the
Middle East—clearly understand the benefit of a galvanizing and emotional
event to rally the people to their cause. Without a special event, they realized
the difficulty in selling their policy of preemptive war where our own military
personnel would be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf
of Tonkin, or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that was
sought by our leaders.
Ledeen
writes of a fortuitous event (1999):
…of
course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can providentially
awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor, and demonstrate the need for
reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 so
effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing dreams of permanent neutrality.
Amazingly, Ledeen
calls Pearl Harbor a “lucky” event. The
Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, likewise,
foresaw the need for “a Pearl Harbor event” that would galvanize the
American people to support their ambitious plans to ensure political and
economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential “rival.”
Recognizing
a “need” for a Pearl Harbor event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being
“lucky” are not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but
this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9-11 turned out to be, was used to
promote an agenda that strict constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of
this nation find appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9-11, Rumsfeld and others
argued for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in the
attacks.
The
fact that neo-conservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that U.S.
interests and world peace would best be served by a policy of neutrality and
avoiding foreign entanglements should not go unchallenged. Not to do so is to
condone their grandiose plans for American world hegemony.
The
current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of foreign
policy. But there’s more to what’s going on today than just the tremendous
influence the neocons have on our new policy of preemptive war with a goal of
empire. Our government is now being moved by several ideas that come together in
what I call “neoconism.” The foreign policy is being openly debated, even if
its implications are not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is
now driven by old views brought together in a new package.
We
know those who lead us—both in the administration and in Congress—show no
appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems that do so much damage to our
economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve are off limits for criticism or reform.
There’s no resistance to spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not
seen as a problem. The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many
conservatives readily endorse deficit spending.
There’s
no serious opposition to the expanding welfare state, with rapid growth of the
education, agriculture and medical-care bureaucracy. Support for labor unions
and protectionism are not uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the
post 9-11 atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little
concern, except for a few members of Congress. Foreign aid and
internationalism—in spite of some healthy criticism of the UN and growing
concerns for our national sovereignty—are
championed on both sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free
market and free trade, yet the entire economy is run by special-interest
legislation favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.
Instead
of the “end of history,” we are now experiencing the end of a vocal
limited-government movement in our nation’s capital. While most conservatives
no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced spending, most liberals have grown
lazy in defending civil liberties and now are approving wars that we initiate.
The so-called “third way” has arrived and, sadly, it has taken the worst of
what the conservatives and liberals have to offer. The people are less well off
for it, while liberty languishes as a result.
Neocons
enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and national testing. Both
parties overwhelmingly support the huge commitment to a new prescription drug
program. Their devotion to the new approach called “compassionate
conservatism” has lured many conservatives into supporting programs for
expanding the federal role in welfare and in church charities. The faith-based
initiative is a neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal
notion of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were neocons,
but there’s nothing conservative about expanding the federal government’s
role in welfare.
The
supply-siders’ policy of low-marginal tax rates has been incorporated into
neoconism, as well as their support for easy money and generous monetary
inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in the gold standard and even
ignore the supply-siders’ argument for a phony gold standard.
Is
it any wonder that federal government spending is growing at a rate faster than
in any time in the past 35 years?
Power,
politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, justice and peace.
But it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has brought together many old
ideas about how government should rule the people. It may have modernized its
appeal and packaging, but authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless
of the humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current
ideology driving our government policies is replaced with a more positive one.
In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again regain the
high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the old justifications
for war, people control and a benevolent state will not suffice. It cannot
eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state assumes authority
over others and when the will of one nation is forced on another—whether or
not it is done with good intentions.
I
realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all neocons don’t
necessarily agree on all points—which means that in spite of their tremendous
influence, most Members of Congress and those in the administration {conspiracy theory|do not
necessarily take their marching orders] from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use
this as a reason to ignore what neoconservative leaders believe, write about it
and agitate for—with amazing success I might point out—would be at our own
peril. This country still allows open discourse—though less everyday—and we
who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive our policies.
It is getting more difficult to get fair
and balanced discussion on the issues, because it has become routine for the
hegemons to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance
as traitors, unpatriotic and un-American. The uniformity of support for our
current foreign policy by major and cable-news networks should concern every
American. We should all be thankful for CSPAN and the internet.
Michael
Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for war against Iran.
Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a calmer, reasoned approach by
calling those who are not ready for war “cowards and appeasers of tyrants.”
Because some urge a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims
they are betraying America’s best “traditions.” I wonder where he learned
early American history! It’s obvious that Ledeen doesn’t consider the
Founders and the Constitution part of our best traditions. We were hardly
encouraged by the American revolutionaries to pursue an American empire. We
were, however, urged to keep the Republic they so painstakingly designed.
If
the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-government
movement in Washington, the ideas, once championed by conservatives, of limiting
the size and scope of government will be a long-forgotten dream.
The
believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be satisfied?
Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative movement left. How
could liberals be satisfied? They are pleased with the centralization of
education and medical programs in Washington and support many of the
administration’s proposals. But none should be pleased with the steady attack
on the civil liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus
that preemptive war—for almost any reason—is an acceptable policy for
dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.
In
spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington—with loss of personal
liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual war, followed by
nation building—there are still quite a number of us who would relish the
opportunity to improve things, in one way or another. Certainly, a growing
number of frustrated Americans, from both the right and the left, are getting
anxious to see this Congress do a better job. But first, Congress must stop
doing a bad job.
We’re
at the point where we need a call to arms, both here in Washington and across
the country. I’m not talking about firearms. Those of us who care need to
raise both arms and face our palms out and begin waving and shouting: Stop!
Enough is enough! It should include liberals, conservatives and independents.
We’re all getting a bum rap from politicians who are pushed by polls and
controlled by special-interest money.
One
thing is certain, no matter how morally justified the programs and policies
seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being promised is limited,
and those limits are becoming more apparent every day.
Spending,
borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to prosperity. It hasn’t
worked in Japan, and it isn’t working here either. As a matter of fact, it’s
never worked anytime throughout history. A point is always reached where
government planning, spending and inflation run out of steam. Instead of these
old tools reviving an economy, as they do in the early stages of economic
interventionism, they eventually become the problem. Both sides of the political
spectrum must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the
economy, in our personal lives and in the affairs of other nations cannot serve
the best interests of America. This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a
liberal problem—it’s a government intrusion problem that comes from both
groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps that
champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will come when
both groups realize that it’s not merely a single-party problem, or just a
liberal or just a conservative problem.
Once
enough of us decide we’ve had enough of all these so-called good things that
the government is always promising—or more likely, when the country is broke
and the government is unable to fulfill its promises to the people—we can
start a serious discussion on the proper role for government in a free society.
Unfortunately, it will be some time before Congress gets the message that the
people are demanding true reform. This requires that those responsible for
today’s problems are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government
intrusion is rejected.
Let
it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that
our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue
to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the
issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance
endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a
healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society.
From: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
As part of the Congressional Record, I believe it is unencumbered with IP restrictions.