• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

Conclusion

Why is it dangerous to be right when the government is wrong? While I have been writing this book, the United States experienced a bitter and divisive congressional election, an unchecked assault on privacy and bodily integrity at the Security areas of major airports, and the death of Osama bin Laden.

The congressional elections resulted generally in numerical victories for Republicans. In the House of Representatives, control shifted from Big Government Democrats to Big Government Republicans. In the Senate, the Republicans acquired enough seats to enable them to filibuster virtually any proposal put forward by the White House or by congressional Democrats.

262

During the campaign in the fall of 2010, Republican candidates for federal office ran, almost to a person, vowing to shrink the government, slow federal spending, impede the march toward socialism, and restore individual liberty. These would be many of the same Republicans who, when they ran the Congress and took direction from President George W. Bush just a few years ago, authorized unlawful and unconstitutional wars, directly assaulted personal freedoms via the so-called Patriot Act (the most offensive legislative attack on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms since the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798), federalized education, bailed out banks they liked and rejected the entreaties of those they disliked, and ran up trillions in debt. I have argued, however, that divided government can lead to transparency, debate, and exposure. We shall see. The same folks who have endured the government administered pornographic photographs and sexual groping at our airports spasmodically rejoiced at the killing of Osama bin Laden. While the emotional and patriotic sides of me rejoice that this monster is dead, the moral and legal sides of me are compelled to warn that this business of the President deciding to kill people is very dangerous. Put aside that governmental assassination is a violation of the Constitution, that all killing except in self-defense is immoral, the President cannot order any killing absent a declaration of war from Congress. If the President can kill a popularly perceived monster, can he kill one not yet known or feared? When will the killing stop?

During my writing of this book, we have also seen the advent of the Tea Party—a grassroots movement reminiscent of the Goldwater movement in the early 1960s—which heralds sound money, personal freedom, reduced taxes, and a general return to respect for the Constitution. It is, of course, easier for Republicans to advance these ideas when a liberal Democrat—or even a socialist—occupies the White House, than it is when one of their own does. It remains to be seen if we shall experience an enhancement of human freedom via a reduction in the behavior of government.

263

Do we have a two-party system in America today? I think not. We have one Big Government Party. It has a Republican wing that prefers war, deficits, assaults on civil liberties, and corporate welfare; and a Democratic wing that prefers war, taxes, assaults on commercial liberties, and individual welfare. Neither wing is devoted to the Constitution, and members of both wings openly mock it. Will the Tea Party Republicans be devoured by the Big Government Republicans? I hope not; but I fear so.

My fear is based on the truism that in America, people go into government in order to utilize its powers to tell others how to live their lives. Very few persons—Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rand Paul are the exceptions here—go into government in order to shrink and to restrain the government.

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong because government in America today is not logic or reason, it is not fidelity to the Constitution, and it is not compliance with the Rule of Law: Rather, it is force. Government today steals liberty and property in the name of safety. It restricts your ability to express yourself, to defend yourself, to be yourself; and it uses fear