[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 101 (Thursday, July 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6595-H6600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           LIMITED GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the modern-day limited government movement has 
been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink 
the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a 
conservative revolution in Washington. Party control of the Federal 
Government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope 
of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited 
government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were 
never seriously considered as part of this revolution.
  Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a 
difference, who is really in charge? If the particular party in power 
makes little difference, whose policy is it that permits expanded 
government programs, increased spending, huge deficits, nation-
building, and the pervasive invasion of our privacy with fewer fourth 
amendment protections than ever before?
  Someone is responsible, and it is important for those of us who love 
liberty and resent Big Brother government to identify the philosophic 
supporters who have the most to say about the direction our country is 
going. If they are wrong, and I believe they are, we need to show it, 
alert the American people, and offer a more positive approach to 
government.
  However, this depends on whether the American people desire to live 
in a free society and reject the dangerous notion that we need a strong 
central government to take care of us from cradle to grave. Do the 
American people really believe it is the government's responsibility to 
make us morally better and economically equal? Do we have a 
responsibility to police the world while imposing our vision of good 
government on everyone else in the world with some form of utopian 
nation-building?
  If not, and the contemporary enemies of liberty are exposed and 
rejected, then it behooves us to present an alternative philosophy that 
is morally superior and economically sound and provides a guide to 
world affairs, to enhance peace and commerce. One thing is certain, 
conservatives who worked and voted for less government in the Reagan 
years and welcomed the takeover of the U.S. Congress and the Presidency 
in the 1990s and early 2000s were deceived. Soon they will realize that 
the goal of limited government has been dashed and that their views no 
longer matter.
  The so-called conservative revolution of the past 2 decades has given 
us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. 
Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater 
than a half trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down, even if we 
vote to lower them. They cannot, as long as spending is increased, 
since all spending must be paid for one way or another.
  Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes 
directly. With this administration so far, direct taxes have been 
reduced, and they certainly should have been. But it means little if 
spending increases and deficits rise. When taxes are not raised to 
accommodate higher spending, the bills

[[Page H6596]]

must be paid for by either borrowing or printing new money. This is one 
reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who 
is willing to accommodate the Congress with borrowing and inflating the 
taxes delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for 
those paying the tax to identify it.
  Like future generations and those on fixed incomes who suffer from 
rising prices, and those who lose jobs, they certainly feel the 
consequence of economic dislocation this process causes. Government 
spending is always a tax burden on the American people and is never 
equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low middle-income workers 
always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and 
borrowing. Many present-day conservatives who generally argue for less 
government and supported the Reagan-Gingrich-Bush takeover of the 
Federal Government are now justifiably disillusioned. Although not a 
monolithic group, they wanted to shrink the size of government.
  Early in our history, the advocates of limited constitutional 
government recognized two important principles: the rule of law was 
crucial, and a constitutional government must derive just powers from 
the consent of the governed. It was understood that an explicit 
transfer of power to government could only occur with power rightfully 
and naturally endowed to each individual as a God-given right. 
Therefore, the powers that could be transferred would be limited to the 
purpose of protecting liberty.
  Unfortunately, in the last 100 years, the defense of liberty has been 
fragmented and shared by various groups with some protecting civil 
liberties, others economic freedom, and a small diverse group arguing 
for a foreign policy of nonintervention. The philosophy of freedom has 
had a tough go of it, and it was hoped that the renewed interest in 
limited government of the past 2 decades would revive an interest in 
reconstituting the freedom philosophy into something more consistent.
  Those who worked for the goal of limited government power believed 
the rhetoric of politicians who promised smaller government. Sometimes 
it was just plain sloppy thinking on their part, but at other times 
they fell victim to a deliberate distortion of a concise limited 
government philosophy by politicians who misled many into believing 
that we would see a rollback on government intrusiveness.
  Yes, there was always a remnant who longed for truly limited 
government and maintained a belief in the rule of law combined with a 
deep conviction that free people and a government bound by a 
constitution were the most advantageous form of government.

                              {time}  2030

  They recognized it as the only practical way for prosperity to be 
spread to the maximum number of people while promoting peace and 
security.
  That remnant, imperfect as it may have been, was heard from in the 
elections of 1980, 1994, and then achieved major victories in 2000 and 
2002 when professed limited government proponents took over the 
administration, Senate and the House. However the true believers of 
limited government are now shunned and laughed at. At the very least, 
they are ignored except when they are used by the new leaders of the 
right, the new conservatives now in charge of the U.S. Government.
  The remnant's instincts were correct, and the politicians placated 
them with talk of free markets, limited government, and a humble non-
nation-building foreign policy. However, little concern for civil 
liberties was expressed in this recent quest for less government. Yet 
for an ultimate victory of achieving freedom, this must change. 
Interest in personal privacy and choices has generally remained outside 
the concern of many conservatives, especially with the great harm done 
by their long-time support of the drug war.
  Even though some confusion has emerged over our foreign policy since 
the breakdown of the Soviet Union, it has been a net benefit in getting 
some conservatives back on track with a less militaristic 
interventionist foreign policy. Unfortunately, though, after 9/11 the 
cause of liberty suffered a setback. As a result, millions of Americans 
voted for the less than perfect conservative revolution because they 
believed in the promises of the politicians. Now there is mounting 
evidence to indicate exactly what happened to the revolution. 
Government is bigger than ever, and future commitments are 
overwhelming. Millions will soon become disenchanted with the new 
status quo delivered to the American people by the advocates of limited 
government and will find it to be just more of the old status quo.
  Victories for limited government have turned out to be hollow indeed. 
Since the national debt is increasing at a rate greater than a half 
trillion per year, the debt limit was recently increased by an 
astounding $984 billion. Total U.S. Government obligations are $43 
billion, while total net worth of all U.S. households is just over $44 
trillion. The country is broke, but no one in Washington seems to 
notice or care. The philosophic and political commitment for both guns 
and butter, and especially the expanding American empire, must be 
challenged. This is crucial for our survival.
  In spite of the floundering economy, the Congress and the 
administration continues to take on new commitments in foreign aid, 
education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation-building and 
preemptive wars around the world. Already we are entrenched in Iraq and 
Afghanistan with plans to add new trophies to our conquests. War talk 
abounds as to when Syria, Iran, and North Korea may be attacked.
  How did this all transpire? Why did the government do it? Why have 
the people not objected? How long will it go on before something is 
done? Does anyone care? Will the euphoria of grand military victories 
against nonenemies ever be mellowed?
  Someday we as a legislative body must face the reality about the dire 
situation in which we have allowed ourselves to become enmeshed. 
Hopefully it will be soon. We got here because ideas do have 
consequences. Bad ideas have bad consequences. Even the best of 
intentions have unintended consequences. We need to know exactly what 
the philosophic ideas were that drove us to this point; then hopefully 
reject them and decide on another set of intellectual parameters.
  There is abundant evidence exposing those who drive our foreign 
policy justifying preemptive war. Those who scheme are proud of their 
achievements in usurping control over foreign policy. These are the 
neoconservatives of recent fame. Granted, they are talented and 
achieved a political victory that all policymakers must admire, but can 
freedom and the Republic survive this takeover? That question should 
concern us.
  Neoconservatives are obviously in positions of influence and are well 
placed throughout our government and the media. An apathetic Congress 
put up little resistance and abdicated its responsibility over foreign 
affairs. The electorate was easily influenced to join in the patriotic 
fervor supporting the military adventurism advocated by the 
neoconservatives.
  The numbers of those who still hope for truly limited government 
diminished and had their concerns ignored during these past 22 months 
during the aftermath of 9/11. Members of Congress were easily 
influenced to publicly support any domestic policy or foreign military 
venture that was supposed to help reduce the threat of a terrorist 
attack. Believers in limited government were harder to find. Political 
money, as usual, played a role in pressing Congress into supporting 
almost any proposal suggested by the neoconservatives. This process, 
where campaign dollars and lobbying efforts affect policy, is hardly 
the domain of any single party; and, unfortunately, is the way of life 
in Washington.
  There are many reasons why government continues to grow. It would be 
naive for anyone to expect otherwise. Since 9/11, protection of 
privacy, whether medical, personal or financial, has vanished. Free 
speech and the fourth amendment have been under constant attack. Higher 
welfare expenditures are endorsed by the leadership of both parties. 
Policing the world and nation-building issues are popular campaign 
targets, yet they are now standard operating procedures here in 
Washington. There is no sign that these programs will be slowed or 
reversed until either we are stopped by force overseas, which will not 
be soon, or we go broke and can no longer afford

[[Page H6597]]

these grandiose plans for a world empire, which will probably come 
sooner than later.
  None of this happened by accident or coincidence. Precise philosophic 
ideas prompted certain individuals to gain influence to implement these 
plans. The neoconservatives, a name they gave themselves, diligently 
worked their way into positions of power and influence. They documented 
their goals, strategy and moral justification for all they hoped to 
accomplish. Above all else, they were not and are not conservatives 
dedicated to limited constitutional government.

  Neoconservatism has been around for decades and strangely has 
connections to past generations as far back as Machiavelli. Modern-day 
neoconservatism was introduced to us in the 1960s. It entails both a 
detailed strategy as well as a philosophy of government. The ideas of 
Teddy Roosevelt and certainly Woodrow Wilson were quite similar to many 
of the views of the present-day neocons. Neocon spokesman Max Boot 
brags that what he advocates is ``hard Wilsonianism.'' In many ways 
there is nothing neo about their views, and certainly nothing is 
conservative. Yet they have been able to co-opt the conservative 
movement by advertising themselves as a new or modern form of 
conservatism.
  More recently, the modern-day neocons have come from the far left, a 
group historically identified as former Trotskyists. Liberal 
Christopher Hitchins has just recently joined the neocons. It has been 
reported that he has already been to the White House as an ad hoc 
consultant.
  Many neocons now in position of influence in Washington can trace 
their status back to Professor Leo Strauss of the University of 
Chicago. One of Strauss' books was ``Thoughts on Machiavelli.'' This 
book was not a condemnation of Machiavelli's philosophy. Paul Wolfowitz 
got his Ph.D. under Strauss. Others closely associated with these views 
are Richard Perle, Eliot Abrams, Robert Kagan, and William Kristol. All 
are key players in designing our new strategy of preemptive war. Others 
include Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, former CIA 
Director James Woolsey, Bill Bennett of ``Book of Virtue'' fame, Frank 
Gaffney, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. There are just too many to 
mention who are philosophically or politically connected to the neocon 
philosophy in some varying degree.
  The godfather of modern-day neoconservatism is considered to be 
Irving Kristol, father of Bill Kristol, who set the stage in 1983 with 
his publication ``Reflections of a Neoconservative.'' In this book 
Kristol also defends the traditional liberal position on welfare.
  More important than the names of people affiliated with 
neoconservative are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary 
of the general understanding of what neocons believe. They agree with 
Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual. They 
are for redrawing the map of the Middle East, and are willing to use 
force to do it. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends. 
They accept the notion that the ends justify the means, that hard-ball 
politics is a moral necessity. They express no opposition to the 
welfare state. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead, 
they strongly endorse it. They believe lying is necessary for the state 
to survive. They believe a powerful Federal Government is a benefit. 
They believe pertinent facts of how a society should be run should be 
held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage 
to deal with it. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill-
advised. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem. They believe 
imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.
  Using American might to force American ideas on others is acceptable, 
force should not be limited to the defense of our country, and 9/11 
resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many. 
They dislike and despise libertarians. Therefore, the same applies to 
all strict Constitutionalists. They endorse a tax on civil liberties 
such as those found in the PATRIOT Act as being necessary. They 
unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud 
Party.
  Various organizations and publications of the past 30 years have 
played a significant role in the rise to power of the neoconservatives. 
It took plenty of money and commitment to produce the intellectual 
arguments needed to convince the many participants in the movement of 
its respectability.
  It is no secret, especially after the rash of research and articles 
written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraq, how they gained 
influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. 
Although for decades they agitated for their beliefs through 
publications like The National Review, Weekly Standard, The Public 
Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary and The New York Post, 
their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first 
Persian Gulf War, which still has not ended. They became convinced that 
a much more militant approach to resolving all of the conflicts of the 
Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to 
implement that policy.
  In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were 
created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, 
the American Enterprise Institute led the neocon charge, but the real 
push for war came from the project for a New American Century, another 
organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 
and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged 
early on for war against the Iraq, but were disappointed with the 
Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic 
bombings. Obviously, those bombings were motivated more by Clinton's 
personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
  The election of 2000 changed all that. The Defense Policy Board, 
chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the 
various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us to war 
against Iraq. It was not too long before the dream of empire was 
brought closer to reality by the election of 2000, with Paul Wolfowitz, 
Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this 
accomplishment. The plan to promote an American greatness imperialistic 
foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great 
opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a 
consequence of the 9/11 disaster.

                              {time}  2045

  The money and views of Rupert Murdock also played a key role in 
promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general 
population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, 
the New York Post and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential 
media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi 
invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney 
policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have 
been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the 
restraints of Colin Powell's State Department without the successful 
agitation of the Rupert Murdock empire. Max Boot was satisfied as he 
explained: ``Neoconservatives believe in using American might to 
promote American ideals abroad.'' This attitude is a far cry from the 
advice of the Founders who advocated no entangling alliances and 
neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.
  Let there be no doubt. Those in the neocon camp had been anxious to 
go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to 
accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone 
doubts this assertion, they need only read of their strategy in ``A 
Clean Break: a New Strategy For Securing the Realm.'' Although they 
felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew 
that public support was important and justification had to be given to 
pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the 
people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of 
Americans became convinced of this threat, which in actuality never 
really existed.
  Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass 
destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending 
necessary? How long will this nation-building and dying go on? When 
will we become more concerned about the needs of our

[[Page H6598]]

own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who 
knows where we will go next? Iran, Syria, North Korea.
  At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a 
rearrangement of the world was occurring in that our superior economic 
and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the 
process of remaking the Middle East.
  It was recognized that a new era was upon us and the neocons welcomed 
Frances Fukuyama's ``end of history'' declaration. To them the debate 
was over. The West won; the Soviets lost. Old-fashioned communism was 
dead. Long live the new era of neoconservatism. The struggle may not be 
over, but the West won the intellectual fight, they reasoned. The only 
problem is that the neocons decided to define the philosophy of the 
victors. They had been amazingly successful in their efforts to control 
the debate over what Western values are and by what methods they will 
be spread throughout the world.
  Communism surely lost a lot with the breakup of the Soviet Empire, 
but this can hardly be declared a victory for American liberty as the 
Founders understood it. neoconservatism is not the philosophy of free 
markets and a wise foreign policy. Instead, it represents big-
government welfare at home and a program of using our military might to 
spread their version of American values throughout the world. Since 
neoconservatives dominate the way the U.S. Government now operates, it 
behooves us all to understand their beliefs and goals. The breakup of 
the Soviet system may well have been an epic event, but to say that the 
views of the neocons are the unchallenged victors in that all we need 
do is to wait for their implementation is a capitulation to the 
controlling of the forces of history that many Americans are not yet 
ready to concede. There is surely no need to do so.
  There is now a recognized philosophic connection between modern-day 
neoconservatives and Irving Kristol, Leo Strauss and Machiavelli. This 
is important in understanding that today's policies and the subsequent 
problems will be with us for years to come if these policies are not 
reversed.
  Not only did Leo Strauss write favorably of Machiavelli, Michael 
Ledeen, a current leader of the neoconservative movement, did the same 
in 1999 in his book with the title ``Machiavelli on Modern Leadership, 
Why Machiavelli's iron rules are as timely and important today as five 
centuries ago.'' Ledeen is indeed an influential neocon theorist whose 
views get a lot of attention today in Washington. His book on 
Machiavelli, interestingly enough, was passed out to Members of 
Congress attending a political strategy meeting shortly after its 
publication and at just about the same time ``A Clean Break'' was 
issued.
  In Ledeen's most recent publication, ``The War Against the Terror 
Masters,'' he reiterates his beliefs he outlined in 1999. He 
specifically praises: ``Creative destruction . . . both within our own 
society and abroad . . . (foreigners) seeing America undo traditional 
societies may fear us, for they do not wish to be undone.'' Amazingly, 
Ledeen continues: ``They must attack us in order to survive, just as we 
must destroy them to advance our historic mission.''
  If those words do not scare us, nothing will. If they are not a clear 
warning, I do not know what could be. It sounds like both sides of each 
disagreement in the world will be following the principles of 
preemptive war. The world is certainly a less safe place for it.
  In ``Machiavelli on Modern Leadership,'' Ledeen praises a business 
leader for correctly understanding Machiavelli: ``There are no absolute 
solutions. It all depends. What is right and what is wrong depends on 
what needs to be done and how.'' This is a clear endorsement of 
situation ethics and is not coming from the traditional left. It 
reminds me of ``it depends on what the definition of the word `is' 
is.''
  Ledeen quotes Machiavelli approvingly on what makes a great leader: 
``A prince must have no other objectives or other thoughts or take 
anything for his craft except war.'' To Ledeen this meant ``. . . the 
virtues of the warriors are those of great leaders of any successful 
organization.'' It is obvious that war is not coincidental to neocon 
philosophy but an integral part. The intellectuals justify it and the 
politicians carry it out. There is a precise reason to argue for war 
over peace according to Ledeen, for ``. . . peace increases our peril 
by making discipline less urgent, encouraging some of our worst 
instincts, in depriving us of some of our best leaders.'' Peace, he 
claims, is a dream and not even a pleasant one for it would cause 
indolence and would undermine the power of the state.
  Although I concede the history of the world is a history of frequent 
war, to capitulate and give up even striving for peace, believing peace 
is not a benefit to mankind, is a frightening thought that condemns the 
world to perpetual war and justifies it as a benefit and necessity. 
These are dangerous ideas from which no good can come.
  The conflict of the ages has been between the state and the 
individual: central power versus liberty. The more restrained the state 
and the more emphasis on individual liberty, the greater has been the 
advancement of civilization and general prosperity. Just as man's 
condition was not locked in place by the times and wars of old and 
improved with liberty and free markets, there is no reason to believe a 
new stage for man might not be achieved by believing and working for 
conditions of peace. The inevitability and so-called need for 
preemptive war should never be intellectually justified as being a 
benefit. Such an attitude guarantees the backsliding of civilization. 
Neocons, unfortunately, claim that war is in man's nature and that we 
cannot do much about it; so let us use it to our advantage by promoting 
our goodness around the world through force of arms. That view is 
anathema to the cause of liberty and the preservation of the 
Constitution. If it is not loudly refuted, our future will be dire, 
indeed.
  Ledeen believes man is basically evil and cannot be left to his own 
desires. Therefore, he must have proper and strong leadership, just as 
Machiavelli argued. Only then can man achieve good, as Ledeen explains: 
``In order to achieve the most noble accomplishment, the leader may 
have to `enter into evil.' '' This is the chilling insight that has 
made Machiavelli so feared, admired, and challenging. ``. . . we are 
rotten. It's true that we can achieve greatness if, and only if, we are 
properly led.'' In other words, man is so depraved that individuals are 
incapable of moral, ethical, and spiritual greatness, and achieving 
excellence and virtue can only come from a powerful authoritarian 
leader. What depraved ideas are these to now be influencing our leaders 
in Washington? The question Ledeen does not answer is: ``Why do 
the political leaders not suffer from the same shortcomings and where 
do they obtain their monopoly on wisdom?''

  Once this trust is placed in the hands of a powerful leader, this 
neocon argues that certain tools are permissible to use. For instance, 
this is what Ledeen says: ``Lying is central to the survival of nations 
and to success of great enterprises because if our enemies can count on 
the reliability of everything you say, your vulnerability is enormously 
increased.'' What about the effects of lying on one's own people? Who 
cares if a leader can fool the enemy? Does calling it ``strategic 
deception'' make lying morally justifiable? Ledeen and Machiavelli 
argue that it does, as long as the survivability of the state is at 
stake. Preserving the state is their goal, even if personal liberty of 
all individuals has to be suspended or canceled.
  Ledeen makes it clear that war is necessary to establish national 
boundaries because that is the way it has always been done. Who needs 
progress of the human race? He explains: ``Look at the map of the 
world: national boundaries have not been drawn by peaceful men leading 
lives of spiritual contemplation. National boundaries have been 
established by war, and national character has been shaped by struggle, 
most often bloody struggle.''
  Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to 
fight for? What about the borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own 
contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative 
truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly 
be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle 
man's disputes. How can one call this progress?

[[Page H6599]]

  Machiavelli, Ledeen, and the neocons recognize a need to generate a 
religious zeal for promoting the state. This, he claims, is especially 
necessary when force is used to promote an agenda. It has been true 
throughout history and remains true today, each side of major conflicts 
invokes God's approval. Our side refers to a ``crusade,'' theirs to a 
``holy Jihad.'' Too many wars boil down to their God versus our God. It 
seems this principle is more a cynical effort to gain approval from the 
masses, especially those most likely to be killed for the sake of the 
war promoters on both sides who have power, prestige, and wealth at 
stake.
  Ledeen explains why God must always be on the side of the advocates 
of war: ``Without fear of God, no state can last long, for the dread of 
eternal damnation keeps men in line, causes them to honor their 
promises, and inspires them to risk their lives for the common good.'' 
It seems dying for the common good has gained a higher moral status 
than eternal salvation of one's soul. He goes on to say: ``Without fear 
of punishment, men will not obey laws that force them to act contrary 
to their passions. Without fear of arms, the state cannot enforce the 
laws . . . to this end, Machiavelli wants leaders to make the state 
spectacular.''
  It is of interest to note that some large Christian denominations 
have joined the neoconservatives in promoting preemptive war, while 
completely ignoring the Christian doctrine of a Just War. The neocons 
sought and openly welcomed their support.
  I would like someone to glean anything from what the Founders said or 
placed in the Constitution that agrees with this now-professed doctrine 
of a ``spectacular'' state promoted by those who now have so much 
influence on our policies here at home and abroad. Ledeen argues that 
this religious element, this fear of God is needed for discipline of 
those who may be hesitant to sacrifice their lives for the good of the 
``spectacular state.''
  He explains in eerie terms: ``Dying for one's country doesn't come 
naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, 
motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to the military 
enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe 
they will be rewarded forever after for serving their country.'' This 
is an admonition that might just as well been given by Osama bin Laden 
in rallying his troops to sacrifice their lives to kill the invading 
infidels, as by our intellectuals at AEI, who greatly influence our 
foreign policy.

                              {time}  2100

  Neocons, anxious for the U.S. to use force to realign the boundaries 
and change regimes in the Middle East, clearly understand the benefit 
of a galvanizing and emotional event to rally the people to their 
cause. Without a special event, they realize the difficulty in selling 
their policies of preemptive war where our own military personnel would 
be killed. Whether it was the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of 
Tonkin or the Maine, all served their purpose in promoting a war that 
was sought by our leaders.
  Ledeen writes of a fortuitous event. He wrote this in 1999. He says, 
``Of course, we can always get lucky. Stunning events from outside can 
providentially awaken the enterprise from its growing torpor and 
demonstrate the need for reversal, as the devastating Japanese attack 
on Pearl Harbor so effectively aroused the U.S. from its soothing 
dreams of permanent neutrality.''
  Amazingly, Ledeen is here calling Pearl Harbor a ``lucky'' event. The 
Project for a New American Century, as recently as September 2000, 
likewise foresaw the need for ``a Pearl Harbor event'' that would 
galvanize the American people to support their ambitious plans to 
ensure political and economic domination of the world while strangling 
any potential rival.
  Recognizing a need for a Pearl Harbor event and referring to Pearl 
Harbor as being lucky are not identical to support and knowledge of 
such an event, but this sympathy for a galvanizing event, as 9/11 
turned out to be, was used to promote an agenda that strict 
constitutionalists and devotees of the Founders of this Nation find 
appalling is indeed disturbing. After 9/11, Rumsfeld and others argued 
for an immediate attack on Iraq, even though it was not implicated in 
the 9/11 attacks.
  The fact that neoconservatives ridicule those who firmly believe that 
U.S. interests and world peace would be best served by a policy of 
neutrality and avoiding foreign entanglements should not go 
unchallenged. Not to do so is to condone their grandiose plans for an 
American world hegemony.
  The current attention given neocons is usually done in the context of 
foreign policy, but there is more to what is going on today than just 
the tremendous influence the neocons have on our new policy of 
preemptive war with a goal of empire. Our government is now being moved 
by several ideas that come together in what I call ``neoconism.'' The 
foreign policy is being openly debated, even if its implications are 
not fully understood by many who support it. Washington is now driven 
by old views brought together in a new package.
  We know those who lead us, both in the administration and in the 
Congress, show no appetite to challenge the tax or monetary systems 
that do so much damage to our economy. The IRS and the Federal Reserve 
are off limits for criticism or reform. There is no resistance to 
spending, either domestic or foreign. Debt is not seen as a problem. 
The supply-siders won on this issue, and now many conservatives readily 
endorse deficit spending.
  There is no serious opposition to expanding the welfare state, with 
rapid growth of the education, agriculture and medical care 
bureaucracies. Support for labor unions and protectionism are not 
uncommon. Civil liberties are easily sacrificed in the post-9/11 
atmosphere prevailing in Washington. Privacy issues are of little 
concern, except for a few Members of Congress. Foreign aid and 
internationalism, in spite of some healthy criticism of the U.N. and 
growing concerns for our national sovereignty, are championed on both 
sides of the aisle. Lip service is given to the free market and free 
trade, yet the entire economy is run by special interest legislation 
favoring big business, big labor and, especially, big money.
  Instead of the ``end of history,'' we are now experiencing the end of 
a vocal, limited-government movement in our Nation's capital. While 
most conservatives no longer defend balanced budgets and reduced 
spending, most liberals have grown lazy in defending civil liberties 
and are now approving wars that we initiate. The so-called ``third 
way'' has arrived, and, sadly, it has taken the worst of what the 
conservatives and the liberals have to offer. The people are less well 
off for it, while liberty languishes as a result.
  Neocons enthusiastically embrace the Department of Education and 
national testing. Both parties overwhelmingly support the huge 
commitment to a new prescription drug program. Their devotion to the 
new approach called ``compassionate conservatism'' has lured many 
conservatives into supporting programs for expanding the Federal role 
for welfare and church charities. The faith-based initiative is a 
neocon project, yet it only repackages and expands the liberal notion 
of welfare. The intellectuals who promoted these initiatives were 
neocons, but there is nothing conservative about expanding the Federal 
Government's role in welfare.
  The supply-siders' policy of low marginal tax rates has been 
incorporated into neoconism, as well as their support for easy money 
and generous monetary inflation. Neoconservatives are disinterested in 
the gold standard and even ignore the supply-siders' argument for a 
phoney gold standard. Is it any wonder that Federal Government spending 
is growing at a rate faster than in any time in the past 35 years?
  Power, politics and privilege prevail over the rule of law, liberty, 
justice and peace, but it does not need to be that way. Neoconism has 
brought together many old ideas about how government should rule the 
people. It may have modernized its appeal in packaging, but 
authoritarian rule is authoritarian rule, regardless of the 
humanitarian overtones. A solution can only come after the current 
ideology driving our government and policies is replaced with a more 
positive one.
  In a historical context, liberty is a modern idea and must once again 
regain the high moral ground for civilization to advance. Restating the 
old justifications for war, people control and a benevolent state 
cannot suffice. It

[[Page H6600]]

cannot eliminate the shortcomings that always occur when the state 
assumes authority over others and when the will of one nation is forced 
on another, whether or not it is done with good intentions.
  I realize that all conservatives are not neoconservatives, and all 
neocons do not necessarily agree on all points, which means that in 
spite of their tremendous influence, most Members of Congress and those 
in the administration do not necessarily take their marching orders 
from the AEI or Richard Perle. But to use this as a reason to ignore 
what neoconservative leaders believe, write about and agitate for with 
amazing success, I might point out, would be at our own peril.
  This country still allows open discourse, though less every day, and 
we who disagree should push the discussion and expose those who drive 
our policies. It is getting more difficult to get fair and balanced 
discussion on the issues because it has become routine for the hegemons 
to label those who object to preemptive war and domestic surveillance 
as traitors, unpatriotic, and un-American. The uniformity of support 
for our current foreign policy by major and cable news networks should 
concern every American. We should all be thankful for C-SPAN and the 
Internet.
  Michael Ledeen and other neoconservatives are already lobbying for 
war against Iran. Ledeen is pretty nasty to those who call for a 
calmer, reasoned approach by calling those who are not ready for war 
cowards and appeasers of tyrants. Because some urge a less militaristic 
approach to dealing with Iran, he claims they are betraying America's 
best traditions.
  I wonder where he learned American history. It is obvious that Ledeen 
does not consider the Founders and the Constitution part of our best 
traditions. We were hardly encouraged by the American revolutionaries 
to pursue an American empire. We were, however, urged to keep the 
Republic that they so painstakingly designed.
  If the neoconservatives retain control of the conservative, limited-
growth movement in Washington, the ideas once championed by the 
conservatives of limiting the size and scope of government will be a 
long-forgotten dream.
  The believers in liberty ought not deceive themselves. Who should be 
satisfied? Certainly not conservatives, for there is no conservative 
movement left. How about liberals? Should they be satisfied? They are 
pleased with the centralization of education and medical programs in 
Washington and support many of the administration's proposals, but none 
of the liberals should be pleased with the steady attack on civil 
liberties of all American citizens and the now-accepted consensus that 
preemptive war for almost any reason is an acceptable policy for 
dealing with all the conflicts and problems of the world.
  In spite of the deteriorating conditions in Washington, with loss of 
personal liberty, a weak economy, exploding deficits and perpetual war, 
followed by nation-building, there are still quite a number of us who 
would relish the opportunity to improve things in one way or another. 
Certainly a growing number of frustrated Americans from both the right 
and the left are getting anxious to see this Congress do a better job. 
But first Congress must stop doing a bad job.
  We are at a point where we need a call to arms, both here in 
Washington and across the country. I am not talking about firearms. 
Those of us who care need to raise our arms and face our palms out and 
begin waving and shouting, ``Stop. Let us stop this. Enough is 
enough.'' It should include liberals, conservatives and independents. 
We are all getting a bum rap from the politicians who are pushed by the 
polls and controlled by special interest money.
  One thing is certain: No matter how morally justified programs and 
policies seem, the ability to finance all the guns and butter being 
promised is limited, and those limits are becoming more apparent every 
day. Spending, borrowing and printing money cannot be the road to 
prosperity. It has not worked in Japan, and it is not working here. As 
a matter of fact, it has never worked at the present time throughout 
history.
  A point is always reached where government planning, spending and 
inflation run out of steam. Instead of these old tools reviving an 
economy, as they do in the early stages of economic interventionism, 
they eventually become a problem. Both sides of the political spectrum 
must one day realize that limitless government intrusion in the 
economy, in our personal lives and the affairs of other nations cannot 
serve the best interests of America.
  This is not a conservative problem, nor is it a liberal problem, it 
is a government intrusion problem that comes from both groups, albeit 
for different reasons. The problems emanate from both camps who 
champion different programs for different reasons. The solution will 
come when both groups realize that is not merely a single-party 
problem, or just a liberal or just a conservative problem.
  Once enough of us decide we have had enough of all these so-called 
good things that the government is always promising, or, more likely, 
when the country is broke and the government is unable to fulfill its 
promises to its people, we can start a serious discussion on the proper 
role of government in a free society. Unfortunately, it will be some 
time before Congress gets this message that the people are demanding 
true reform. This requires that those responsible for today's problems 
are exposed and their philosophy of pervasive government intrusion is 
rejected.
  Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is 
realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and 
others will continue to do so, but too many, both in and out of 
government, close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and 
ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands 
cannot be sustained.
  True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. 
That can only be achieved in a free society.

                          ____________________