Untitled Document
Yes, because perpetual war means dictatorship at home
In the question and answer session following a
speech given at the American Enterprise Institute,
Karl Rove blurted out the truth. Although
no doubt inadvertent, this unusual incident of truth-telling is nevertheless
shocking to those of us who have grown used to an administration that lies
as a first resort. In front of an audience of politicians, policy wonks, and
journalists, the president's grand strategist admitted that, while Americans
are content with their economic lot, they are in a "sour" mood because
of the Iraq war: "I think the war looms over everything," Rove
said:
"There's no doubt about it. Being in the middle of a war where people
turn on their television sets and see brave men and women dying is not something
that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat."
While it is no doubt true
that Americans are disturbed and saddened by the sight of their soldiers falling
in combat, it isn't the fact of war per se that has soured them on
this
administration, and, more broadly, the
GOP. If television cameras had been present to chronicle, say, the
War of 1812, one can hardly imagine that the sight
of Washington burning would have lessened their zeal to keep up the fight. To
take a more recent example, Americans would not have caviled and turned against
Franklin Roosevelt even
as they watched the battle
of Bataan and the fall
of Corregidor broadcast live: the reaction might even have increased support
for the Roosevelt administration as the public rallied around their commander
in chief and determined to fight the "Japs"
– as the newspapers of the day routinely referred to the enemy –
with renewed fury.
During World War II, Americans knew – or thought
they knew – why they were fighting, and had to fight. No such certainty
is present in their minds as they watch the
tragedy of Iraq unfold on the
nightly news.
As Hitler's armies occupied
the Eurasian landmass, in the early years of WWII, and Japan gobbled
up the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and threatened Hawaii, Americans believed
they were in a fight for their very survival. They believe no such thing when
it comes to the war in Iraq. Most Americans are skeptical
of this administration's announced war aims:
they correctly perceive
the
invasion and conquest
of Iraq as a futile
crusade to "democratize"
a region that has never
known anything but the rule of thugs. They see their sons
and daughters dying, not to protect the
homeland or even to defend capital-D Democracy,
but to ensure the survival of an Iraqi government made up of authoritarian
mullahs and their armed
gangs.
Americans do not fear adversity, nor do they quail at the
sight of brave men and women dying – as long as it's in a good cause.
The only causes one can discern in the current conflict, however – a lust
for oil, and the seductive
power of America's pro-Israel
lobby – are hardly enough to inspire a crowd much bigger than the
editorial staff of the Weekly Standard.
Rove is right when he says the war looms over everything. As the cost of our Iraq
campaign approaches the trillion-dollar
mark, the entire Republican agenda of less government and lower taxes has been
fatally undermined by the Napoleonic
foreign policy championed by this White House. And we aren't
even winning! If this is the price of defeat, one has to wonder what victory would
cost us. While the astronomical cost in dollars and cents has an immediate and
readily apparent
impact, the price we are paying in other ways – in damage to our core
values and institutions
– is even dearer. The Bush administration may be losing
the war against the Iraqi insurgency, but they are doing much better with their
war on the American people – reading
our e-mails, gathering
up our phone records, and instituting a hi-tech
spy system such as no Russian commissar ever dreamt of. The news that the
feds are tracking phone calls made by and to major
news organizations, including ABC News, the Washington Post, and
the New York Times – ostensibly to find evidence of "security
leaks" – is just the latest in a series of outrages against civil liberties
and common decency.
The price of perpetual war
is a police
state, one in which a permanent
state of "emergency" – the threat of a terrorist attack –
is utilized to break
down institutional safeguards,
the system of constitutional checks
and balances, that protect us from dictatorship.
A foreign policy driven by the imperial
impulse is bound to have grave domestic
consequences, none of them conducive to the American form
of government. The Founders
envisioned a
republic, not an empire: they set up a system designed to govern the 13
former colonies, not the world. Foreign policy was a matter of avoiding reabsorption
by the British and quashing
the ambitions of the other European empires in their quest for North American
colonies. Domestic policy was the main concern of every major American political
figure and political party, right up until World War II. With the advent of
the Cold War,
however, and the rise
of the national security state, the focus was increasingly on foreign policy.
Garet Garrett,
the Old
Right author and editor, saw the dawn of the new day and was quick to discern
its meaning. In his 1951 philippic "Rise
of Empire" [.pdf file], Garrett described what he called the "marks
of empire," the signs that say the republic is no more and "Hail Caesar!"
There were, I recall, five or six of them: the first was the ascendancy of presidential
power over the other two branches of the federal government. We see this, today,
in the neoconservative theory of the "unitary
executive," which puts special emphasis on the president's role
as commander in chief of the armed forces. Militarism goes hand in hand with
this Bonapartist impulse, quite naturally, and this, in Garrett's words, gives
rise to:
"A second mark by which you may unmistakably distinguish Empire is:
Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy.
"That happened to Rome. It has happened to every Empire. The consequences
of its having happened to the British Empire are tragically appearing. The
fact now to be faced is that it has happened also to us. The voice of government
is saying that if our foreign policy fails we are ruined. It is all or nothing.
Our survival as a free nation is at hazard.
"That makes it simple, for in that case there is no domestic policy
that may not have to be sacrificed to the necessities of foreign policy –
even freedom."
That was written just
as the first frosts of the Cold War blew arctic gusts across
Europe, and the freezing wind of witch-hunts
and loyalty oaths
deadened the political atmosphere in America. Yet it could easily have been
written today, as America gets ready to launch a new
global struggle – the president calls it his "global
democratic revolution" – against a new enemy. We are in a war,
the president and his allies tell us, that will last for at
least a generation. Small wonder, then, that the current administration
is launching a large-scale assault on civil liberties of a kind not seen since
the passage of the
Alien and Sedition Acts, spying on and trying
to intimidate journalists, trampling on what remains of the Founders' libertarian
legacy.
There are many reasons to oppose war,
both moral
and practical.
Aside from abhorrence of mass
murder, however, libertarians such as myself dedicate so much of their energies
to this issue because the price of interventionism is liberty
itself. With each war, the power of government increases,
until, at some point, it spills over the dike of the
Constitution, washes away the
Bill of Rights, and drowns us all in a flood tide of tyranny.
As recent events have shown, the danger is not theoretical or postponed to
some future time: we are not speaking here of some dark dystopia as a kind of
"what if" experiment. The danger is imminent: the dystopia is here
and now. The only question is: will the American people stand for it?