- 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. Political 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, whoís 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 itís 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 theyíre wrongóand I believe they
areówe 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 itís
the governmentís 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 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 downóeven
if we vote to lower them. They canít, 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 reducedóand they certainly should
have beenóbut 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 ìprintingî 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 ìtaxî is delayed and distributed in a way
that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance,
future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices,
and those who lose jobs ñ they certainly feel the consequences of
economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is
always a ìtaxî 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 ìjust powers from the
consent of the governed.î 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 remnantóimperfect as it may have beenówas
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 administration, the Senate and the House. However, the true believers
in limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least,
they are ignoredóexcept when they are used by the new leaders of
the right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. government.
-
- The remnantís 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 conservativesóespecially 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, itís
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 thereís 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 total net worth of U.S. households is just over
$440 trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to
notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns
and butteróand especially for expanding the American empireómust
be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.
-
- In spite of the floundering economy, the 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 weíre 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 havenít the people objected? How long will it go on before
something is done? Does anyone care?
-
- Will the euphoria of grand military victoriesóagainst
non-enemiesóever 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 processówhere campaign dollars and
lobbying efforts affect policyóis 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 naÔve
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. Thereís no sign that these programs will
be slowed or reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas (which
wonít 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 neoconservativesóa name they gave themselvesódiligently
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 ìhard Wilsonianism.î In many ways, thereís nothing
ìneoî about their views, and certainly nothing conservative.
Yet they have been able to co-op 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 Trotskyists. Liberal
Christopher Hitchins, 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 Straussí books was Thoughts on Machiavelli.
This book was not a condemnation of Machiavelliís 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 Woolsy; 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: 1. They agree
with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing
to use force to do so. 3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve
desired ends. 4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the
meansóthat hard-ball politics is a moral necessity. 5. They
express no opposition to the welfare state. 6. They are not bashful
about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it. 7. They
believe lying is necessary for the state to survive. 8. They believe
a powerful federal government is a benefit. 9. 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. 10. They
believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-advised. 11. They hold Leo
Strauss in high esteem. 12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in
nature, is appropriate. 13. Using American might to force American ideals
on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of
our country. 14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements,
not from too many. 15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore,
the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.) 16. They endorse attacks
on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.
17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with
the Likud Party.
-
- 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 secretóespecially after the rash of research
and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraqóhow
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 Warówhich
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, 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. Early
on, they urged 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 Clintonís 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 wasnít 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 ìAmerican greatnessî 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 Murdock 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 Powellís
State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdock
empire. Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: ìNeoconservatives
believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad.î
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 ìA Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.î
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 weíll go nextóIran,
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 Fukuyamaís ìend of historyî
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 todayís 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, Ledeen titled his book, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,
and subtitled: Why Machiaveliís 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 Ledeenís most recent publication, The War Against
the Terror Masters, he reiterates his beliefs outlined in this 1999 Machaivelli
book. He specifically praises: ìCreative destructionÖboth
within our own society and abroadÖ(foreigners) seeing America undo
traditional societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.î
Amazingly, Ledeen concludes: ìThey must attack us in order to survive,
just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.î
-
- If those words donít scare you, nothing will.
If they are not a clear warning, I donít 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: ìThere
are no absolute solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is
wrong depends on what needs to be done and how.î This is a clear
endorsement of situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional
left. It reminds me of: ìIt depends on what the definition of the
word ëisí is.î
-
- Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a
great leader. ìA prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts
or take anything for his craft, except war.î To Ledeen, this meant:
ìÖthe virtue of the warrior are those of great leaders of any
successful organization.î Yet itís obvious that war is not
coincidental to neocon philosophy, but an integral part. The intellectuals
justify it, and the politicians carry it out. Thereís a precise
reason to argue for war over peace according to Ledeen, for ìÖpeace
increases our peril by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some
of our worst instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.î
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 peaceóbelieving peace is not a benefit
to mankindóis 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 manís
condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and improved
with liberty and free markets, thereís 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 manís nature and that we canít do much about
it, so letís 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: ìIn order to achieve the most noble accomplishments, the
leader may have to ëenter into evil.í This is the chilling
insight that has made Machiavelli so feared, admired and challengingÖwe
are rotten,î argues Ledeen. ìItís true that we can
achieve greatness if, and only if, we are properly led.î 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 doesnít
answer is: ìWhy do the political leaders not suffer from the same
shortcomings and where do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?î
-
- Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful
leader, this neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use.
For instance: ìlying 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.î
What about the effects of lying on oneís own people? Who cares
if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it ìstrategic deceptionî
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 boundariesóbecause thatís the way itís always
been done. Who needs progress of the human race! He explains: ìLook
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.î
-
- 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 manís
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. Itís
been true throughout history and remains true today, each side of major
conflicts invokes Godís approval. Our side refers to a ìcrusade;î
theirs to a ìholy Jihad.î 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: ìWithout 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.î
It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status than
eternal salvation of oneís soul. Ledeen adds: ìWithout 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 lawsÖto
this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state spectacular.î
-
- 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.
-
- Iíd like someone to glean anything from what the
Founders said or placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed
doctrine of a ìspectacularî 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
ìspectacular state.î
-
- He explains in eerie terms: ìDying for oneís
country doesnít 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.î
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 AEI, who greatly influence
our foreign policy.
-
- Neoconsóanxious for the U.S. to use force to realign
the boundaries and change regimes in the Middle Eastóclearly 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): ìÖof
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.î
-
- Amazingly, Ledeen calls Pearl Harbor a ìluckyî
event. The Project for a New American Century, as recently as September
2000, likewise, foresaw the need for ìa Pearl Harbor eventî
that would galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans
to ensure political and economic domination of the world, while strangling
any potential ìrival.î
-
- Recognizing a ìneedî for a Pearl Harbor
event, and referring to Pearl Harbor as being ìluckyî are
not identical to support and knowledge of such an event, but that 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 an American world
hegemony.
-
- The current attention given neocons usually comes in
the context of foreign policy. But thereís more to whatís
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 ìneoconism.î
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 usóboth in the administration
and in Congressóshow 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. Thereís 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.
-
- Thereís 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 internationalismóin spite of some
healthy criticism of the UN and growing concerns for our national sovereigntyóare
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 ìend of history,î we are
now experiencing the end of a vocal limited-government movement in our
nationís 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
ìthird wayî 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 ìcompassionate conservatismî 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 thereís nothing
conservative about expanding the federal governmentís role in welfare.
-
- The supply-sidersí 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-sidersí 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 anotherówhether
or not it is done with good intentions.
-
- I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives,
and all neocons donít necessarily agree on all pointsówhich
means that in spite of their tremendous influence, most members of Congress
and those in the administration do not necessarily take their marching
orders from AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore
what neoconservative leaders believe, write about and agitate forówith
amazing success I might point outówould be at our own peril. This
country still allows open discourseóthough less everydayóand
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 C-SPAN 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 ìcowards and appeasers of tyrants.î Because some urge
a less militaristic approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying
Americaís best ìtraditions.î I wonder where he learned
early American history! Itís obvious that Ledeen doesnít
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 administrationís 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 warófor
almost any reasonóis an acceptable policy for dealing with all the
conflicts and problems of the world.
-
- In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washingtonówith
loss of personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits, and perpetual
war, followed by nation buildingóthere 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.
-
- Weíre at the point where we need a call to arms,
both here in Washington and across the country. Iím 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. Weíre
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 hasnít worked in Japan, and it isnít
working here either. As a matter of fact, itís 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 problemóitís a government intrusion problem
that comes from both groups, albeit for different reasons. The problems
emanate from both camps who champion different programs for different reasons.
The solution will come when both groups realize that itís not merely
a single-party problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.
-
- Once enough of us decide weíve had enough of all
these so-called good things that the government is always promisingóor
more likely, when the country is broke and the government is unable to
fulfill its promises to the peopleówe 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 todayís
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 itís realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.
A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too manyóboth
in and out of governmentóclose 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.
-
-
- Privacy Statement © 2003 The Liberty Committee
-
- Congressman Ron Paul addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
|
