The traditional principles of the Republican Party have
in the past several years been subordinated to a
more intrusive domestic policy and an imperialistic
foreign policy. Whereas a policy of less federal
government intrusion into domestic personal affairs
once held together most party adherents, now the
party machinery has more recently been redirected
to a more pragmatic policy of winning and keeping
political control, attendant to philosophic principles
only insofar as practical politics demands
it. Similarly, what historically was once
considered a more reserved, sometimes near-isolationist,
stance in foreign affairs has been replaced by a
foreign policy that is overtly interventionist.
This transformation of party and governmental policy is
in no way accidental and is only marginally related to
the appalling terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
That calamity only provided additional stimulus
for the visionary, planned takeover or hijacking of the
immense power attendant to the presidency of the United
States. The neoconservative movement had been
looking for just such an opportunity for several years,
and has used the Republican Party as its vehicle of
transformation only in relatively recent years, beginning
when the Reagan administration adopted a more energetic
and militaristic approach to international affairs.
The neoconservative movement, now implemented by people
who hold disproportionate power in the administration of
President George W. Bush, first took shape in the United
States in the 1960s and 1970s. The movement has always
consisted of only a relative handful of extraordinarily
influential people who formerly were more aligned with
collectivist, or Trotskyite, ideals. Leaders of the
movement recognized that the more-militaristic policies
of President Reagan in the 1980s lent more advantage to
achieving their goals, so many of them became supporters
of Republican policies and therefore became, to their
friends, new conservatives or
neoconservatives. The
neoconservatives, acting from a self-righteous and
virtuous conviction that America possesses a special
moral status, believe that the United States should
exercise its moral imperative to enforce world peace and
extend the benefits of liberty and prosperity through the
spread of American values. Their immediate, continuing,
and primary goal has been to stabilize the Middle East
and, not incidentally, to buttress the security of
Israel. Another description for such a vision is that of
an American hegemony.
The president and the neoconservatives surrounding him
believe that it is the mission of the United States to
redraw the map of the Middle East by force, if necessary,
as part of their vision for an American empire. Such a
policy translates, of course, into a belief that using
the armed services of the United States to force American
ideals and values on others is acceptable, and that the
American military should not be limited to the direct
defense of our country. Nothing in the Constitution of
the United States delegates such power to the president.
The neoconservatives further believe that a powerful and
encompassing federal government is a benefit to domestic
society as well, and that governmental policies should be
determined by strong and forceful executive, not
legislative, decisions. This attitude goes hand in hand
with their belief that infringements on civil liberties,
such as some of those in the USA PATRIOT Act, are
necessary and desirable. If the PATRIOT Act had been
promoted by President Clinton and Attorney General Janet
Reno, most Republicans would have been more than
dismayed.
During the current administration, nondefense spending
has increased more than 18 percent, and not a single
spending bill from a compliant Congress has been vetoed.
The bloated farm bill was extravagant beyond recklessness.
The education bill increases, not decreases, federal
intervention and control of K12 education. Policies
such as these enlarge the scope and power of the federal
government and are not conservative at all, but tend
toward increased federal control of the citizenry.
Both the new domestic and foreign policies have swept
along with them most of the approximately one-third of
the population who think of themselves as Republican. The
traditional conservative vision of less
government, free and open international trade, a more
truly humble foreign policy, and expanding civil
liberties is dramatically receding. It is to be hoped
that more Republicans soon will recognize the trend and
attempt to change it, realizing that centralized,
intrusive domestic policies and risky, adventurous
foreign policies do not conform with their traditional
conservative Republican values.
James Muhm is a freelance writer residing in Denver, Colorado.
|
Send to a friend
Printer Friendly PDF Format
Subscribe to FFF Email Update
Subscribe to Freedom Daily
|
|
|
|