The Enemy Within
On my way home from work last night I decided to go to the polls and exercise my rights as a citizen. As I made the turn toward the voting precinct I asked myself the question, “For whom will I vote?” To be honest with you, I did not even know that it was election day until I saw something on the news that morning.
It turns out that there were no contests in our unincorporated area of Walker County, so the polls were closed. Had there been a ballot, then my initial thought was to vote the party line. As I headed home I reconsidered that approach in light of the perceived polarization of American politics.
I use the word “perceived,” because some people believe that the extremism exists only in the rhetoric–the language of politics. In actual practice they think that the parties are close in terms of policy and leadership. The rhetoric masks what amounts to a similar approach to government by both Democrats and Republicans.
Considering the spending and policy decisions of the present administration on issues such as education, commerce and domestic security, I am convinced that this assessment is correct. It concerns me that conservatives are buying into the rhetoric, but ignoring the actions that follow. For example, the changes that have taken place after 9/11 are ominously similar to the pattern in F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (see it in cartoon form).
There was once a man in my Toastmasters club who had recently emmigrated from Africa. I often disagreed with him on his political views. One day we found common ground when he gave the inspiration at the beginning of the meeting. He recited an old African proverb: If there is no enemy within, then the enemy outside can do us no harm.
The rise of radical Islamic terrorism is something to be concerned about and we should dedicate every resource available to fighting it. However, this terrorism is not the biggest threat to our freedoms. When we sacrifice our liberties in the name of “The War on Terror,” then we are on our way down the road to serfdom. It is an issue on which I can find common ground with the Democratic Party and the ACLU. And I can agree with them because I believe, like my African aquaintance, that the most dangerous enemy is within.
I understand and agree. My Libertarian leanings grow stronger with each election cycle.
I have three words for you:
Voting Your Conscience
I like the idealism, but I shudder to utter the words “It is an issue on which I can find common ground with the Democratic Party and the ACLU.”
The problem is that while Hayek identifies the dangers of governmental control of economics, he doesn’t indict a rigorous rule of law. This is the key in the argument. Nazi Germany is always used as an example of democracy gone awry, giving up economic and military direction based on propaganda and pride. The ACLU et al want to use this pit to always remind us that under our very noses, we could allow our own government to erase all our rights. Working on this premise, all attempts to undercut perceived liberties must me treated as a direct assault on all freedom. I say perceived because I don’t believe that my web surfing habits at a publicly funded library are a “right” granted to me in the first place.
It’s not to say that we can be relaxed in regard to governmental intervention, but our response has to be reasoned based on the degree of intervention and the effect of giving up that ground.
The reason I’ll never call myself a libertarian is that they are forced to follow these protections to ends that are just plain silly, if not self detrimental as a society. I want citizens of this country to have due process, but I recognize a difference between citizens and enemy combatants. They are not the same, and I don’t believe that I’m giving up my freedoms (no matter what the ACLU and Dick Durbin tells me) when they are treated differently.
I had an acquaintance in college that was planning on going to law school and had a deep love and respect for the ACLU, argued for absolute individual freedom, and proudly called himself a libertarian (although the libertarian and ACLU in him were often in conflict). When arguing about the rule of law, he was forced by his dogma to take such radical views of freedom, that his arguments became asinine. For example, he was fond of saying, “I’d rather a thousand guilty men go free, than one innocent man falsely convicted.” Personally, I wouldn’t! The system isn’t perfect, but that doesn’t mean that we need to do away with the rule of law to ensure no liberty is ever unjustly taken.
Good topic though. And as a side note, I know it is in form to comment that the parties are no different, but if that’s so, why not vote for Kerry in the last election?
Oh yeah, and three words for you:
WASTING YOUR VOTE
A clean conscience doesn’t get pro-constitution justices appointed to the courts.
On a semi-related note, check this out… http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2005/11/politics_norm_a.html
B
[...] The midterm elections are tomorrow and the big question is whether or not the Democrats are going to regain control of Congress from the Republicans. I confess that I am somewhat ambivalent about which way the election swings. Like I said about this time last year, the polarized rhetoric in American politics “masks what amounts to a similar approach to government by both Democrats and Republicans.” Also, as a “Christian die hard conservative,” I have found myself increasingly at odds with the Republican Party over the last few years. They are no longer the party of “limited government,” let alone the “party of morals.” I will still cast a few votes their way, but for the first time most of my key votes will go to third party candidates. [...]