1/29/2005
It Can’t Happen Here
December 20, 2004, Ron Paul
In 2002 I asked my House colleagues a rhetorical question with regard to the onslaught of government growth in the post-September 11th era: Is America becoming a police state?
The question is no longer rhetorical. We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer- always at the expense of our liberty. But security and liberty go hand-in-hand. Members of Congress, like too many Americans, don’t understand that a society with no constraints on its government cannot be secure. History proves that societies crumble when their governments become more powerful than the people and private institutions.
Unfortunately, the new intelligence bill passed by Congress two weeks ago moves us closer to an encroaching police state by imposing the precursor to a full-fledged national ID card. Within two years, every American will need a “conforming” ID to deal with any federal agency– including TSA at the airport.
Undoubtedly many Americans and members of Congress don’t believe America is becoming a police state, which is reasonable enough. They associate the phrase with highly visible symbols of authoritarianism like military patrols, martial law, and summary executions. But we ought to be concerned that we have laid the foundation for tyranny by making the public more docile, more accustomed to government bullying, and more accepting of arbitrary authority- all in the name of security. Our love for liberty above all has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacy that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. We tolerate inconveniences and infringements upon our liberties in a manner that reflects poorly on our great national character of rugged individualism. American history, at least in part, is a history of people who don’t like being told what to do. Yet we are increasingly empowering the federal government and its agents to run our lives.
Terror, fear, and crises like 9-11 are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The loss of liberty, we are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary. Many citizens believe that once the war on terror is over, restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. But this war is undeclared and open-ended, with no precise enemy and no expressly stated final goal. Terrorism will never be eradicated completely; does this mean future presidents will assert extraordinary war powers indefinitely?
Washington DC provides a vivid illustration of what our future might look like. Visitors to Capitol Hill encounter police barricades, metal detectors, paramilitary officers carrying fully automatic rifles, police dogs, ID checks, and vehicle stops. The people are totally disarmed; only the police and criminals have guns. Surveillance cameras are everywhere, monitoring street activity, subway travel, parks, and federal buildings. There’s not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain– anything goes if it’s for government-provided safety and security.
After all, proponents argue, the government is doing all this to catch the bad guys. If you don’t have anything to hide, they ask, what are you so afraid of? The answer is that I’m afraid of losing the last vestiges of privacy that a free society should hold dear. I’m afraid of creating a society where the burden is on citizens to prove their innocence, rather than on government to prove wrongdoing. Most of all, I’m afraid of living in a society where a subservient populace surrenders its liberties to an all-powerful government.
It may be true that average Americans do not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. Americans remain tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing total government supervision is necessary and helpful, and because they still enjoy a high level of material comfort. That tolerance may wane, however, as our standard of living falls due to spiraling debt, endless deficit spending at home and abroad, a declining fiat dollar, inflation, higher interest rates, and failing entitlement programs. At that point attitudes toward omnipotent government may change, but the trend toward authoritarianism will be difficult to reverse.
Those who believe a police state can’t happen here are poor students of history. Every government, democratic or not, is capable of tyranny. We must understand this if we hope to remain a free people.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
January 29th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Is America becoming a police state? Well, the jury is still out. What scares me are the people who purport to have all the answers and let you know that God is on THEIR SIDE and only their side! .
January 29th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
I don’t know quite how to answer that or even discuss it because I’m not sure exactly what you’re talking about, Paul.
What scares me is the people who strenuously object to American Imperialism but don’t have any answers about what they’d replace it with, but talking anarchy and “revolution” and have no concept of God whatsoever.
January 29th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
First off. Ron Paul is a dingleberry with the intelligence of a toaster. He was, I believe, voted the dumbest member of Congress a couple of times back in the 1980’s. The reason is obvious; he occasionally goes off the deep end of the wading pool…head first. To take anything this guy says seriously is a mistake.
That being said…of course a police state could happen here. But to use what’s happened since 9/11 as evidence that we’re headed in that direction is absurd.
Most of the constitutional protections we enjoy as they relate to the federal government have come about since the 1950’s. The Warren Court and then The Burger Court both dramatically expanded government’s role in “protecting rights” under the “provide for the common good” clause of the preamble to the Constitution. First, the necessary coercion of the states to make racial equality a reality expanded not only protections for minorities, but allowed the government unprecedented access into areas of American society where it had never been before. The workplace, where we play, even where we live (save the mythical “Mrs. Murphy’s Boarding House) all potentially came under review by the government.
Then the Burger court greatly expanded government protections of those arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes. It’s these protections, for the most part, that have been modified by the Patriot Act. The fact that there are proper safeguards in place to prevent WIDESPREAD and INJURIOUS abuse of the act doesn’t seem to enter Mr. Paul’s calculus.
As far as intelligence reform leading to a more centralized tracking system for American citizens…well that’s just plain absurd. This idea that one doesn’t need any identification to live and work in America in this day and age is extraordinarily dangerous. And we don’t need a National ID card to take care of it and no one-at least no responsible lawmaker-has suggeseted we create one. Recent court cases brought by people stopped by the police who refused to idenify themselves have gone against the defendent for one reason; the courts have ruled that showing ID is the LEAST intrusive way to protect society. I have a feeling that would change if a National ID card were required.
Getting back to Paul…he’s a bona fide libertarian…the only one in Congress that I know of. He ran as a Republican only because he couldn’t stomach big government Democrats. I’ve lost track of him over the years…but he still seems to be a bit of an airhead.
January 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
I’ve been posting stuff by Ron Paul quite frequently and don’t consider him an airhead. I quote him quite often, and he may be considered a “dingleberry” by some, but he has a working knowledge of the founding documents and I respect that. I wish more people had that understanding, particularly those in elected office. (He’s a medical doctor whose pieces on the medicated nanny state and about frivolous lawsuits like John Edwards’ really tell it like it is! Forcing Kids into a Mental Health Ghetto and Mental Health Screening for Kids Part II are cases in point.)
People in Congress take an oath–to protect the Constitution. My own Congressman, Henry Hyde, said “we don’t do that anymore!”
If you compare the voting records of Congressmen as compared to the founding documents, Ron Paul’s voting record 100% on. If that makes him an airhead, then I’m one, too.
I use Trimonline to track how my elected representatives vote, and just for kicks, I ran Ron Paul’s voting record. He’s the only one that measures up 100%. Every single other representative who is considered “conservative” is not voting according to our founding documents. (probably because they’ve never even bothered to read them!) Trim online is a non partisan reporting system, based on what’s written in the Constitution.
Maybe I should identify myself as a disenfranchised Republican, if this is how your’e going to define it. I have said repeatedly that I am for smaller limited government, as seen through the eyes of the Founding Fathers and I will keep saying it. He was elected as a Republican, Superhawk, not a Libertarian. There are those of us who still think of ourselves as Republicans, even though we stick to the founding documents and believe in limited government. When you get to candidates like the Constitution Party (that the nazis at Stormfront support), or the actual Libertarian party ticket, libertarians are often socialists and that is not what I am.
Ron Paul stands in the same place as me (except on the war, which I’m still trying to figure out). He’s one of the few guys left who have even READ the founding documents and understands not only what they mean, but how to vote in order to protect the spirit of what the founders laid down.
Here’s more on Ron Paul.
I do get lost, however, on his stand on the War because I support the war. But that’s about the only place where his views are different than mine…at least that I’ve been able to ascertain. He stands against the United Nations, wants to end Gun Control, and he has a weekly column that I read religiously.
This piece: Ignoring Reality in Iraq - is something I keep reading and re-reading.
Non-interventionism was the foreign policy ideal of the Founding Fathers, an ideal that is ignored by both political parties today. Those who support political and military intervention in Iraq and elsewhere should have the integrity to admit that their views conflict with the principles of our nation’s founding. It’s easy to repeat the tired cliché that “times have changed since the Constitution was written”- in fact, that’s an argument the left has used for decades to justify an unconstitutional welfare state. Yet if we accept this argument, what other principles from the founding era should we discard? Should we reject federalism? Habeas corpus? How about the Second Amendment? The principle of limited government enshrined in the Constitution- limited government in both domestic and foreign affairs- has not changed over time. What has changed is our willingness to ignore that principle.
January 29th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Like it or not, Bush’s administration is advancing Big Government and intrusive laws into our daily lives. I do not support that, even under the guise of opposing terrorism.
I do support locking the combatants up, they’re not in uniform representing a country, so there’s a definite problem there in terms of the Geneva Convention, but there are many other initiatives the Bush Administration is advancing such as NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, (and because of those intiatives the border issues has not been addressed) and so on, and even supporting WTO and making the Un more relevant, which I don’t support, either.
So I think it’s fair to say that on the most important issue, fighting terrorism, I am in support of the Bush Administration but searching a 75 year old grandma in a wheelchair at the airport for nail clippers isn’t my idea of freedom and I think it’s something that will be impossible to reverse.
You notice I blog against Hillary, but I am not a blogger for Bush? There are reasons for that, and you’re finding it out here, I guess, for the first time.
I don’t think we ever 100% agree with everything our elected representatives do, but as long as we’re in agreement on the important issues, we can work through the others.
I thought we were on the same side, Hawk, I’m disappointed to discover I’m wrong.