- Text smaller
- Text bigger
WorldNetDaily Publisher Joseph Farah received a lot of flak from readers
when he suggested that the Bush presidency may be considerably less than
what you dream of.
The theme of the flak was, “Shut up and give George Bush a chance.”
But this overlooks the record. What the Bush backers should have said was,
“Shut up and give Bush another chance.” He’s already had a chance. In
fact, he’s had two of them — and he failed in both cases.
The big-government governor
The first chance was his reign as governor of Texas. He had almost six
years to work for smaller government. Is the Texas government less
expensive, less intrusive, less oppressive than it was six years ago?
Hardly. The Texas Eagle Forum says government in Texas grew by over a
third between 1995 and 1999. New gun-control laws were enacted. No state
agencies or departments were eliminated.
So he flunked his first chance. And that’s in a state that’s supposedly
conservative. Do you expect him to be more libertarian now that he has
to please a whole nation of special-interest groups?
The big-government candidate
George Bush’s second chance came during the recent campaign. He was
running against a politician who was on the side of bigger government on
Bush had a golden opportunity to gain major support by calling attention
to the expense, futility and danger of Al Gore’s big-government schemes.
Instead, Bush offered his own version of each of these obscenities. Running
against an obvious petty dictator, he barely squeaked out a victory because
he never offered a true contrast.
Oh yes, when speaking in generalities, he was for limited government,
“strict construction of the Constitution,” and the like. But whenever he was
specific, it was always for bigger and bigger government that violated
Take health care. We once had the best health-care system in history:
personal service from doctors, low-cost hospitals, free clinics, charity
hospitals and health insurance accessible to virtually everyone. Then the
politicians created Medicare and turned our health-care system into a
nightmare. So what cure did George Bush offer? He proposed a new government
boondoggle for prescription drugs. Four years from now, I hope you aren’t in
dire need of a life-saving medicine.
He presented big-government schemes for education, welfare, campaign
finance, and any other area that was an election issue. And what government
programs did he promise to get rid of — or even reduce?
None. He flunked his second chance.
The big-government president
George Bush is already failing his third chance. He’s staffing his
administration with out-of-work liberal politicians and retreads from
previous Republican presidencies.
There’s one appointee who fits neither of those categories, but is even
worse. That’s John Ashcroft, who will be attorney general. Here’s a man who
has no more respect for the Constitution or your liberty than Janet Reno
does. He’s apparently never met an invasion of your freedom that he didn’t
think was necessary to fight crime or drugs.
This demonstrates once again that there’s really very little difference
between the left and the right. Left-wing politicians take away your liberty
in the name of children and of fighting poverty, while right-wing
politicians do it in the name of family values and fighting drugs. Either
way, government gets bigger and you become less free.
Thanks to George Bush and John Ashcroft, four years from now it will be
easier for the government to tap your phone, read your email, snoop in your
bank account, raid your home by mistake, and regiment your life. It doesn’t
matter whether you have an interest in guns or drugs or crime, because
every American citizen will lose another chunk of his remaining
What do you expect?
Government spending, government snooping, government gun control — all
will expand in a Bush administration. This isn’t conjecture or ill-wishing.
It is simply obvious.
Part of the reason is that the conservative organizations that would
raise a stink if Bill Clinton proposed to steal your freedom will go into
hibernation now that “one of our own” is safely in the White House.
Do you really think George Bush is going to stop the federal government
from snooping in your bank account and your e-mail? Do you really think he’s
going to stop the deterioration of health care and education by getting the
federal government out of those areas? Do you really think he’s going to
stop risking your life by antagonizing foreign countries?
If you believe any of those things, I have just two words for you: Grow
What do you want?
If what you want in a President is someone — anyone — who isn’t
Bill Clinton or Al Gore, then George Bush will suffice very well.
But if what you want is someone who will make the government less
expensive, less intrusive, less oppressive — someone who recognizes that
the Constitution prohibits the government from meddling in your life —
you’re moving in the opposite direction with George Bush.
In that case, instead of sitting around waiting to give Mr. Bush a chance
to prove himself, shouldn’t you get busy trying to assure that you’ll never
again have to choose between two big-government presidential candidates?
Shouldn’t you be looking for a political party that actually wants to get
government out of your life? A party like — for example (in fact, the only
example) — the Libertarians?
It all comes back to what you want. Do you just want to beat Clinton and
Gore at the polls? If so, you’ve got what you want.
Or do you want to get your freedom back? If so, you lost this last