SUPPORTING MY VEIWS
i found this article which may help some of you understand some of my veiws against president bush
Is Bush a Conservative?
by Nels Stemm
In his essay "The Essence of Conservatism" Russell Kirk defines a conservative as "a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time." For most of us our best traditions and institutions are private voluntary institutions that have developed through the course of time; family, church, local community and government, the ties of honest commerce that create common interest. These are institutions that provide meaning and beauty in life but more than their benefits in themselves they serve as intermediary institutions, protecting our local liberties and community against encroachments by what Edmund Burke called the various "armed ideologies" of egalitarianism and militant socialism. Conservatism has set itself against innovation in government - big government - because its ultimate effect is to diminish these institutions, weakening the ultimate foundation of a free government; civil society.
You will notice the quote above calls out for conserving our institutions, that subtle distinction is a major component of conservatism. American conservatism is rooted in American culture and history and can not be separated from it; conservatism seeks to guard our institutions and our culture against its enemies. This is why the Wilsonian impulses of the Bush administration are so contrary to true American conservatism, they profess that our values are "universal" rather than particular to us. American mass democracy (not the founding intent of this country but that is another story) has a messianic mission, in the words of neoconservative theorist Michael Ledeen:
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence - our existence, not our politics - threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
This kind of hubris is inconceivable to a true conservative. The securing of liberty, what Lord Acton called the highest political good, is a development of the institutions of western civilization; only a fool believes they can be spread about the world with bombs and dollars. The fool’s errand of "democratizing" the Middle East will only accelerate the decline of our faltering institutions.
Any evaluation of the Bush administration and its supposedly conservative credentials must center on war; it is war that has defined it, and it is the drive to war that the supporters of Bush uphold as his most "conservative" attribute. But is there anything conservative about war? Absolutely nothing. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, understood this as almost no current American politician could:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .
This was written during the infancy of this republic but it is absolutely dead on in analyzing the Iraq War and the burgeoning American Empire. Our debts are piling high. Taxes have supposedly been decreased, only because of the outright cowardice of the administration to ask the American people to pay for these wars in an honest way, i.e.; not through inflation. A slave army to defend our far flung possessions doesn’t seem too unlikely in a second Bush administration. The executive branch is increasingly secretive and vindictive; the enemies of the managers of this empire will tolerate no challenge to their power. Congress is increasingly nothing but a debating society kept around to please the people, or to "consult" with the president rather than fulfill its role as a coequal branch of government. Most Congressman with the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas do not understand that their primary role in the American government is to jealously guard their powers and privileges against executive usurpation.
But what of the "degeneracy of manners and morals," this is most certainly the greatest indictment against this "Christian" President. The horrors of Abu Graib are not an anomaly or an isolated incident; it is a necessary component of an unholy, unnecessary and immoral war. These pictures must be recognized for what they are, very graphic and symbolic representations of the horrors that we have inflicted upon the Iraqi people, anyone who knows the damage that a 5,000 pound bomb causes in an urban area will recognize that far worse has been inflicted on the Iraqi people in the name of global democracy.
These pictures also represent the moral devolution that occurs from the militarazation of our society. These soldiers, separated from their families and unable to rely upon the institutions of our society which provide moral guidance stand alone against what conservatives recognize as the human tendency for moral corruption. We are told that these soldiers do not represent America, unfortunately these soldiers do represent America; they represent our pornographic culture, our contempt for foreign people and foreign cultures, and the sickening role of women in these foreign adventures. Our mothers and daughters are thousands of miles away from home committing unspeakable perversions under the instruction of mercenaries; these acts will follow them home. It is difficult to fathom the consequences this brutal war will have as these troops return home, our experience with the damaged Vietnam generation is our best guide.
The founding fathers knew of the horrible consequences of unnecessary wars, this is why the war power was placed in the hands of congress, the body most responsive to the public and the least likely to benefit from aggressive war. Madison again:
The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.
We have entered the era of executive wars and the executive state, congress is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Where was the declaration of war from our conservative president? Is the congressional war power as specified in our constitution not something worth conserving? The Bush administration would like to wrap itself in the flag and proclaim their actions as the best representation of American values. The truth is just the opposite; they appear to be totally ignorant of American history and willing to sacrifice Americans and our liberties at will to achieve their own ambitions. This administration has dragged this country into a radical foreign policy position unknown in American history that will damage this country severely if not corrected. Bush promised us in his campaign that his administration would be marked by a "more humble foreign policy." We have seen little humility. 9/11 changed everything you say? It hasn’t changed the fact that Americans are ill-suited to bear the burdens of empire, it is too contrary to our free institutions.
So this year we will be left with a choice between two men to act as the figurehead of this unruly empire, John Kerry and George Bush will fight it out for the right to wear the imperial purple. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that the emperor has no clothes. They certainly have the power to destroy, but little else. We gleefully watched the war on television, a sickening celebration of death and destruction. But our managers are unable to make any of the positive changes they lay claim to; democracy, liberty, free markets, self-determination, American values. These attributes of America are not gifts from government, they are achievements of our civil society and represent the checks on state power that our forefathers as far back as the Magna Charta fought and died to establish and preserve.
The truth is that war is not the real motive power of the world; peace, property and commerce are. We must withdraw our support from this government and rebuild what truly creates positive change in this world; family, community, commerce. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars but reserve the best that we have for our institutions.
George W. Bush claims the mantle of conservative. What is he conserving? Not my tax dollars. Not my liberty. Not the moral standards of my society. The only thing he seems to be conserving- rapidly expanding more like it- is the arbitrary power that the federal government holds over our lives.
June 18, 2004
Is Bush a Conservative?
by Nels Stemm
In his essay "The Essence of Conservatism" Russell Kirk defines a conservative as "a person who endeavors to conserve the best in our traditions and our institutions, reconciling that best with necessary reform from time to time." For most of us our best traditions and institutions are private voluntary institutions that have developed through the course of time; family, church, local community and government, the ties of honest commerce that create common interest. These are institutions that provide meaning and beauty in life but more than their benefits in themselves they serve as intermediary institutions, protecting our local liberties and community against encroachments by what Edmund Burke called the various "armed ideologies" of egalitarianism and militant socialism. Conservatism has set itself against innovation in government - big government - because its ultimate effect is to diminish these institutions, weakening the ultimate foundation of a free government; civil society.
You will notice the quote above calls out for conserving our institutions, that subtle distinction is a major component of conservatism. American conservatism is rooted in American culture and history and can not be separated from it; conservatism seeks to guard our institutions and our culture against its enemies. This is why the Wilsonian impulses of the Bush administration are so contrary to true American conservatism, they profess that our values are "universal" rather than particular to us. American mass democracy (not the founding intent of this country but that is another story) has a messianic mission, in the words of neoconservative theorist Michael Ledeen:
"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence - our existence, not our politics - threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."
This kind of hubris is inconceivable to a true conservative. The securing of liberty, what Lord Acton called the highest political good, is a development of the institutions of western civilization; only a fool believes they can be spread about the world with bombs and dollars. The fool’s errand of "democratizing" the Middle East will only accelerate the decline of our faltering institutions.
Any evaluation of the Bush administration and its supposedly conservative credentials must center on war; it is war that has defined it, and it is the drive to war that the supporters of Bush uphold as his most "conservative" attribute. But is there anything conservative about war? Absolutely nothing. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, understood this as almost no current American politician could:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and . . . degeneracy of manners and of morals. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . . .
This was written during the infancy of this republic but it is absolutely dead on in analyzing the Iraq War and the burgeoning American Empire. Our debts are piling high. Taxes have supposedly been decreased, only because of the outright cowardice of the administration to ask the American people to pay for these wars in an honest way, i.e.; not through inflation. A slave army to defend our far flung possessions doesn’t seem too unlikely in a second Bush administration. The executive branch is increasingly secretive and vindictive; the enemies of the managers of this empire will tolerate no challenge to their power. Congress is increasingly nothing but a debating society kept around to please the people, or to "consult" with the president rather than fulfill its role as a coequal branch of government. Most Congressman with the notable exception of Rep. Ron Paul of Texas do not understand that their primary role in the American government is to jealously guard their powers and privileges against executive usurpation.
But what of the "degeneracy of manners and morals," this is most certainly the greatest indictment against this "Christian" President. The horrors of Abu Graib are not an anomaly or an isolated incident; it is a necessary component of an unholy, unnecessary and immoral war. These pictures must be recognized for what they are, very graphic and symbolic representations of the horrors that we have inflicted upon the Iraqi people, anyone who knows the damage that a 5,000 pound bomb causes in an urban area will recognize that far worse has been inflicted on the Iraqi people in the name of global democracy.
These pictures also represent the moral devolution that occurs from the militarazation of our society. These soldiers, separated from their families and unable to rely upon the institutions of our society which provide moral guidance stand alone against what conservatives recognize as the human tendency for moral corruption. We are told that these soldiers do not represent America, unfortunately these soldiers do represent America; they represent our pornographic culture, our contempt for foreign people and foreign cultures, and the sickening role of women in these foreign adventures. Our mothers and daughters are thousands of miles away from home committing unspeakable perversions under the instruction of mercenaries; these acts will follow them home. It is difficult to fathom the consequences this brutal war will have as these troops return home, our experience with the damaged Vietnam generation is our best guide.
The founding fathers knew of the horrible consequences of unnecessary wars, this is why the war power was placed in the hands of congress, the body most responsive to the public and the least likely to benefit from aggressive war. Madison again:
The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war . . . the power of raising armies . . . A delegation of such powers [to the President] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.
We have entered the era of executive wars and the executive state, congress is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Where was the declaration of war from our conservative president? Is the congressional war power as specified in our constitution not something worth conserving? The Bush administration would like to wrap itself in the flag and proclaim their actions as the best representation of American values. The truth is just the opposite; they appear to be totally ignorant of American history and willing to sacrifice Americans and our liberties at will to achieve their own ambitions. This administration has dragged this country into a radical foreign policy position unknown in American history that will damage this country severely if not corrected. Bush promised us in his campaign that his administration would be marked by a "more humble foreign policy." We have seen little humility. 9/11 changed everything you say? It hasn’t changed the fact that Americans are ill-suited to bear the burdens of empire, it is too contrary to our free institutions.
So this year we will be left with a choice between two men to act as the figurehead of this unruly empire, John Kerry and George Bush will fight it out for the right to wear the imperial purple. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that the emperor has no clothes. They certainly have the power to destroy, but little else. We gleefully watched the war on television, a sickening celebration of death and destruction. But our managers are unable to make any of the positive changes they lay claim to; democracy, liberty, free markets, self-determination, American values. These attributes of America are not gifts from government, they are achievements of our civil society and represent the checks on state power that our forefathers as far back as the Magna Charta fought and died to establish and preserve.
The truth is that war is not the real motive power of the world; peace, property and commerce are. We must withdraw our support from this government and rebuild what truly creates positive change in this world; family, community, commerce. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars but reserve the best that we have for our institutions.
George W. Bush claims the mantle of conservative. What is he conserving? Not my tax dollars. Not my liberty. Not the moral standards of my society. The only thing he seems to be conserving- rapidly expanding more like it- is the arbitrary power that the federal government holds over our lives.
June 18, 2004