Affluent Slaves

With the commencement of the 2004 Republican National Convention, the Houston Chronicle announced today that "after four years of keeping conservatives content," George W. Bush and the national leadership of the Republican Party shall henceforth be distancing themselves from "conservatives" in an effort to woo the votes of "moderates" and "independents."

The Chronicle (and untold other media outlets), while invoking these tired and ambiguous labels, takes care to sidestep the truth about the Bush administration -- and its record vis-á-vis the U.S. Constitution -- just as adroitly as the administration itself has done.

The so-called "conservatives" with whose contentment Bush is credited apparently favor ever-increasing federal spending, deficits, and national debt. They prefer that their medication choices (and others') be controlled by a socialist bureaucracy, instead of any free market alternatives.

These "conservatives" are so fed up with the Constitution's protection of their right to free speech -- and so enamored with the gang of political opportunists whose heels are presently dug in on Capital Hill -- that they're refreshingly pleased to be muzzled by their federal government for a full 60 days leading up to any federal election -- the truth about any incumbent's voting record or political agenda be damned.

And they so abhor the right to self defense guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment that they're quite "content" with a president who would happily renew the (entirely ineffective) Clinton "assault weapon" ban, were it to arrive at his desk for a signature.

Oh, and these same "conservatives" delight in the expenditure of untold billions of their children's and grandchildren's wealth on an endless string of imperialistic (albeit doomed to failure, every one of them) adventures abroad in "nation building" and "tyrant toppling," while at home, U.S. borders welcome all manner of criminal, "terrorist," and welfare aspirant among the "undocumented."

This, apparently, is what a "content conservative" is today, as defined by the Bush administration and the American Press.

Supposedly, if you don't like leftist (i.e., "liberal") socialist statism, your only alternative (so long as you remain paralyzed by your own misguided belief that the two-party system is all that matters) is "conservative" socialist statism. And now Bush apparently wants to bring into the Republican fold those who subscribe to some brand of "moderate" or "independent" socialist statism.

Has it really come to this? Do so very few actually care about real freedom any more that the very principles of liberty upon which this nation was once founded have vanished from the political radar screen?

Robert Higgs, of The Independent Institute, in the introduction of his recent book Against Leviathan, suggests rather lucidly that the chief reason why the U.S. government has become such a swollen collectivist monster is that "so few people in the United States today really give a damn about living as free men and women," having chosen to "label their servitude as freedom and to concentrate on enjoying the creature comforts that the government still permits them to possess. They may be slaves, but they are affluent slaves, and that condition is good enough for them."

Mr. Higgs appears to have hit the nail on the head. This ugly truth stands as a perpetual indictment of the historically and politically ignorant, spineless, self-serving character of the American People today, the price of whose "contentment" will ultimately be the slavery of us all and innumerable generations after us.

Shut up he explained

The collective, numbing, drone of the NeoCons notwithstanding, much is terribly amiss with contemporary American foreign policy.

NeoCon pundits everywhere hasten to slap disparaging labels on anyone who questions the wisdom of spending billions of dollars plundered from American taxpayers and their progeny to "liberate" a nation from its despotic leader.

Or was it to "preempt" an "attack" -- via a fabled cache of "weapons of mass destruction" -- from that unsavory despot?

Or is it an imperialistic expression of NeoCon frustration over Osama bin Laden's successful evasion, vented out on the nearest available substitute?

It seems that at any given moment, the purpose of this taxpayer-funded "nation-building" adventure depends on which one is least indicted by a lack of empirical corroboration in the speaker's recent memory.

But while cycling through their list of justifications, NeoCons persist in neglecting the U.S. Constitution, rejecting out-of-hand any objections raised on the basis of the rule of law, the absence of which has rendered that document a relic of a bygone republic. They aim to silence such objections, burying them under a heap of patriotic-sounding slogans.

What's more, these same NeoCons have the nerve to presume that their brand of unabashed, unequivocal collectivist statism alone is patriotic, and anyone who differs (say, by suggesting that the present administration's conduct is well beyond the lawful limits of the Constitution) is ipso facto branded "anti-American."

NeoCons would do well to recognize that a patriot loves his country -- not the government. Their belief system -- not unlike any other -- merits a healthy dose of objective critical analysis, lest they find themselves unwittingly marching down the same unfortunate road as many a self-styled "conservative" or "patriot" of past generations (and nations).

In the absence of such introspection now, we (and our progeny) are doomed to a needlessly unhappy repetition.

Calling in "The Boss"

A friend recently complained (justifiably so) that some members of Congress were appealing to foreign officials, asking for their "supervision" of U.S. elections.

The law does not permit such action to be taken on elections, which I pointed out to my friend: Article II, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, supplemented by the 12th Amendment, in a straightforward, commonsense reading, tells us that it is not the business or jurisdiction of any national-level politician, official, judge, agency, or president to interfere with the election process, which by and large is defined and executed at state and local levels.

My friend's intended angry response to these congressional scofflaws was to appeal to the president, asking him to "rescind that invitation" because "he is the boss and he can do it."

This attitude (which is common among contemporary Americans) reflects how poorly many of us understand such concepts as rule-of-law and the very principles on which our (legal) system of government is based. Americans have become far too accustomed to clamoring for legislation, presidential decree (executive order), or judicial activism to solve problems (merely perceived or otherwise), when the Constitution already serves as a basis for resolving them.

We see the president, not as the executive administrator of the national government, as prescribed by law (i.e., the Constitution), but (thanks in part to Lincoln and his party) as "the boss." We want him -- and Congress -- to so arrange the laws and policies of the entire nation as to give us what we want, regardless of whether it is consitutionally lawful or at whose expense it must be procured.

I encouraged my friend to write the president, but not as "the boss." Instead, I said he should ask that the president censure those representatives who have gone beyond what the law permits, giving him (and them) an explanation of their error. A similar request could be made of the officers of the chambers of Congress to the same effect. And personal letters of censure could be sent to each of the representatives behind the invitation, advising them of their error.

By addressing our elected officials in the above manner, we put them on notice that we are familiar with the U.S. Constitution (which has not been repealed, contrary to popular opinion), and that we expect them to abide by it and the limitations it imposes.

And if it should happen to be the case that we are not familiar with the U.S. Constitution (or at least endeavoring to become so), then shame on us -- and we'd best get started!