[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 11, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H503-H508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A WISE CONSISTENCY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Beauprez). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, a wise consistency is the foundation of a free
society, yet everyone knows or thinks they know that consistency is the
hobgoblin of little minds.
How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson been quoted to belittle a
consistent philosophy defending freedom? Even on this floor I have been
rebuked by a colleague with this quote for pointing out the
shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and precisely following
the oath to uphold the Constitution.
The need to discredit consistency is endemic. It is considered
beneficial to be flexible and pragmatic while rejecting consistency.
Otherwise, the self-criticism would be more than most Members could
take.
The comfort level of most politicians in D.C. requires an attitude
that consistency not only is unnecessary, but detrimental. For this
reason, Emerson's views are conveniently cited to justify pragmatism
and arbitrary intervention in all our legislative endeavors.
Communism was dependent on firm, consistent, and evil beliefs.
Authoritarian rule was required to enforce these rules, however.
Allowing alternative views to exist, as they always do, guarantees
philosophic competition.
For instance, the views in Hong Kong eventually won out over the old
communism of the Chinese mainland, but it can work in the other
direction. If the ideas of socialism within the context of our free
society are permitted to raise their ugly head, it may well replace
what we have if we do not consistently and forcefully defend the free
market and personal liberty.
It is quite a distortion of Emerson's views to use them as
justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out of
Washington today. But the political benefits of not needing to be
consistent are so overwhelming that there is no interest in being
philosophically consistent in one's votes.
It is a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best
for the moment, the congressional district or one's political party.
Therefore, it is quite advantageous to cling to the notion that
consistency is a hobgoblin. For this reason, statesmanship in D.C. has
come to mean one's willingness to give up one's own personal beliefs in
order to serve ``the greater good,'' whatever that is.
But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual
liberty if our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise,
something will replace our Republic that was so carefully designed by
the founders. That something is not known, but we can be certain it
will be less desirable than what we have.
As for Emerson, he was not even talking about consistency in
defending political views that were deemed worthy and correct. Emerson
clearly explained the consistency he was criticizing. He was most
annoyed by a foolish consistency. He attacked bull-headedness,
believing that intellectuals should be more open-minded and tolerant of
new ideas and discoveries.
His attack targeted the Flat Earth Society types in the world of
ideas. New information, he claimed, should always lead to reassessment
of our previous conclusions. To Emerson, being unwilling to admit an
error and consistently defending a mistaken idea, regardless of facts,
was indeed a foolish consistency. His reference was to a character
trait, not sound, logical thinking.
Since it is proven that centralized control over education and
medicine has done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing
these programs, more money is thrown into the same centralized
planning, this is much closer to Emerson's foolish consistency than
defending liberty and private property in a consistent and forceful
manner while strictly obeying the Constitution.
Emerson's greatest concern was the consistency of conformity.
Nonconformity and tolerance of others obviously are much more respected
in a free society than in a rigidly planned authoritarian society. The
truth is that Emerson must be misquoted in order to use him against
those who rigidly and consistently defend a free society, cherish and
promote diverse opinions, and encourage nonconformity.
A wise and consistent defense of liberty is more desperately needed
today than at any time in our history. Our foolish and inconsistent
policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a critical juncture,
with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish
inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon. Let me mention a few.
One: conservatives who spend. Conservatives for years have preached
fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge, they have
rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of
government, while supporting a new-found religion that preaches
deficits do not matter. According to Paul O'Neill, the Vice President
lectured him that Reagan proved deficits do not matter.
Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less
government should not be called conservatives. Some now are called neo-
conservatives. The conservative label merely deceives the many
Americans who continuously hope the day of fiscal restraint will come.
Yet if this deception is not pointed out, success in curtailing
government growth is impossible.
Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by over
$600 billion per year? Even today, the only expression of concern for
the deficit seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us
something about how far astray we have gone.
Number two: free trade fraud, neomercantilism. Virtually all
economists are for free trade. Even politicians express such support.
However, many quickly add, yes, but it should be fair. That is, free
trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone. Then a little
protectionism is warranted, for fairness' sake. Others who claim
allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own
currencies, which harms a different group of citizens, like importers
and savers in competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a
competitive edge.
Many so-called free trade proponents are champions of international
agreements that undermine national sovereignty and do little more than
create an international bureaucracy to manage tariffs and sanctions.
Organizations like NAFTA and WTO and the coming FTAA are more likely to
benefit the powerful special interests than to enhance true free trade.
Nothing is said, however, about how a universal commodity monetary
standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how unilaterally
lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are
ignored when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote
dangerous internationalism.
Trade as an issue of personal liberty is totally ignored; but simply
put, one ought to have the right to spend one's own money any way one
wants. Buying cheap foreign products can have a great economic benefit
for our citizens and serve as an incentive to improve production here
at home. It also puts pressure on us to reassess the onerous
regulations and tax burdens placed on our business community.
[[Page H504]]
Monopoly wages that force wage rates above the market also are
challenged when true free trade is permitted; and this, of course, is
the reason free trade is rejected. Labor likes higher-than-market
wages, and business likes less competition.
In the end, consumers, all of us, suffer. Ironically, the free
traders in Congress were the most outspoken opponents of drug
reimportation, with the convoluted argument claiming that the free
trade position should prohibit the reimportation of pharmaceuticals. So
much for a wise consistency.
Number three: following the Constitution, arbitrarily, of course.
Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and
conservatives, at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and
most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution at one time or another
to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used
periodically to embarrass one's opponents when convenient requires that
no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record.
Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a
philosophic hobgoblin, gives many Members welcome reassurance. This
allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size
and scope of government while ignoring the deficit. Liberals who also
preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil
liberties and militarism have no problems with a flexible, pragmatic
approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result
is that the oath of office to abide by all constitutional restraints on
government power is rarely followed.
Number four: paper money, inflation and economic pain. Paper money
and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor have
they enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives
with a financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as
a consequence.
No matter how serious the problems that come from central bank
monetary inflations, the depressions and inflations, unemployment,
social chaos and war, the only answer has been to inflate even more.
Except for the Austrians, free market economists, the consensus is that
the Great Depression was prolonged and exacerbated by the lack of
monetary inflation. This view is held by Alan Greenspan and is
reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock market slump and
slower economy, namely, a record monetary stimulus and historically low
interest rates.
The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal Reserve's
previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater
problems for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though
there is adequate information to understand the real cause of the
business cycle, the truth and proper policy are not available.
Closing down the engine of inflation at any point does cause short-
term problems that are politically unacceptable, but the alternative is
worse in the long run.
It is not unlike a drug addict demanding and getting a fix in order
to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not getting rid of the addiction is a
deadly mistake. While resorting to continued monetary stimulus through
credit creation delays the pain and suffering, it inevitably makes the
problems much worse. Debt continues to build in all areas, personal,
business and government; inflated stock prices are propped up, waiting
for another collapse; malinvestment and overcapacity fail to correct;
insolvency proliferates without liquidation.
These same errors have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14
years, with billions of dollars of non-performing loans still on the
books. Failure to admit and recognize that fiat money, paper money,
mismanaged by central banks gives us most of our economic problems,
along with a greater likelihood for war, means we never learn from our
mistakes.
{time} 2015
Our consistent response is to inflate faster and borrow more, which
each downturn requires to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a foolish
consistency. It is time for our leaders to admit the error of their
ways, consider the wise consistency of following the advice of our
founders, and reject paper money and central bank inflationary
policies.
Number five: Alcohol prohibition. For Our Own Protection.
Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a
decade, but we finally woke up to the harm done. In spite of
prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in the
underground was much more deadly, and related crimes ran rampant. The
facts stared us in the face and, with time, we had the intelligence to
repeal the whole experiment.
No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it did not prevent
us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the more
radical stages for the past 30 years.
No matter the amount of harm and cost involved, very few in public
life are willing to advise a new approach to drug addiction. Alcoholism
is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug addiction is seen as a
heinous crime. Our prisons overflow with the cost of enforcement, now
into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not reduced.
Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that
a tough stand against usage, with very strict laws and mandatory
sentences, sometimes life sentences for nonviolent offenses, is a
popular political stand. Facts do not count, and we cannot bend on
consistently throwing the book at any drug offender. Our prisons are
flooded with nonviolent drug users.
Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of all Federal prisoners are now nonviolent
drug users, but no serious reassessment is considered.
Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many
patients' needs for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are
very often compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and
terminally ill by overzealous law enforcement.
Throughout most of our history, drugs were legal and, at times, were
abused but, during that time, there was no history of the social and
legal chaos associated with drug use that we suffer today. One hundred
years ago a pharmacist openly advertised, ``Heroin clears the
complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the
bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.'' Obviously, this
is overstated as a medical panacea, but it describes what it was like
not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our Constitution and waste
billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose.
This country needs to wake up. We should have more confidence in
citizens making their own decisions and decide, once again, to repeal
Federal prohibition, while permitting regulations by the States alone.
Six: The FDA and legal drugs. For Our Own Protection.
Our laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful.
The FDA supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This
conclusion is based on the assumption that consumers are idiots and all
physicians and drug manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also
assumes that bureaucrats and politicians, motivated by good intentions,
can efficiently bring drugs onto the market in a timely manner and at a
reasonable cost. These same naive dreamers are the ones who say that in
order to protect the people from themselves we must prohibit them from
being allowed to reimport drugs from Canada or Mexico at great savings.
The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come on line slower and
cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal expenses
and do not get the friendly treatment that politically connected big
drug companies receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially
for a life-threatening disease, why is it not available with full
disclosure to anyone who wants to try it? No, our protectors say that
no one gets to use it or make their own decisions until the FDA
guarantees that each drug has been proven safe and effective. And,
believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes, even after
years of testing.
It seems criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional
offices begging and pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call
this a
[[Page H505]]
free society. For those who cannot get a potentially helpful drug, but
might receive a little comfort from some marijuana raised in their own
backyard legally in their home State, the heavy hand of the DEA comes
down hard, actually arresting and imprisoning ill patients. Federal
drug laws blatantly preempt State laws, adding insult to injury.
Few remember that the first Federal laws regulating marijuana were
written as recently as 1938, which means just a few decades ago our
country had much greater respect for individual choices and State
regulations in all health manners.
The nanny state is relatively new but well entrenched. Sadly, we
foolishly and consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and
government control of new medications, never questioning the wisdom of
these laws.
The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was
recently demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an
abortion can be made available over the counter. However, Ephedra, used
by millions for various reasons and found in nature, was made illegal
as a result of one death after being misused. Individuals no longer can
make their own decisions at an affordable price to use Ephedra. Now it
will probably require a prescription and cost many times more. It can
never be known, but weight loss by thousands using Ephedra may well
have saved many lives, but the real issue is personal choice and
responsibility, not the medicinal effects of these drugs. This reflects
our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and
responsibility.
Number seven: Foreign Policy of Interventionism.
Our foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of
Emerson's foolish inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our
entanglements become, our leaders rarely question the wisdom of trying
to police the world. Most of the time, our failures prompt even greater
intervention, rather than less. Never yielding to the hard, cold facts
of our failures, our drive to meddle in nation-building around the
world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blow-back from our
meddling, a term used by our own CIA, prompts us to spend endlessly,
while jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
Refusing to even consider the failure of our own policies is
outrageous. Only in the context of commercial benefits to the special
interests and the military industrial complex, molded with patriotic
jingoism, can one understand why we pursue such a foolish policy. Some
of these ulterior motives are understandable, but the fact that average
Americans rarely question our commitment to these dangerous and
expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped-up war
propaganda too often overrules the logic that should prevail.
Certainly, the wise consistency of following the Constitution has
little appeal.
One would think the painful consequences of our militarism over the
last 100 years would have made us more reluctant to assume the role of
world policeman in a world that hates us more each day.
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting with the
Spanish-American war up to our current conflict in the Middle East,
could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World
War I to satisfy Wilson's ego led to disastrous peace at Versailles,
practically guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role
in the Persian Gulf War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq
and Afghanistan, which may become a worldwide conflict before it ends.
Our foolish antics over the years have prompted our support for many
thugs throughout the 20th century, Stalin, Somoza, Batista, the Shah of
Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and many others, only to
regret it once the unintended consequences became known. Many of those
we supported turned on us or our interference generated a much worse
replacement, such as the Ayatollah in Iran.
If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early
presidents, we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face
today and, if we had, we literally would have prevented hundreds of
thousands of needless deaths over the last century. The odds are slim
to none that our current failure in Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt
our administration to change its policies of intervention.
Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed policy, a foolish
consistency as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past 100 years
unfortunately will prevail, despite its failure and huge costs.
This hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows
for gross errors in policymaking. Most Americans believed, and still
do, that we went to war against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us
with weapons of mass destruction and his regime was connected to the al
Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein not only did not have weapons of
mass destruction but essentially had no military force at all seems to
be of little concern to those who took us to war.
It was argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that
a unilateral approach without the United Nations was proper under our
notion of national sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President
authority to go to war cited the United Nations 21 times, forgetting
the U.S. Constitution that allows only Congress to declare war. A
correct declaration of war was rejected out of hand.
Now, with events going badly, the administration is practically
begging the U.N. to take over the transition, except, of course, for
the Iraqi Development Fund that controls the oil and all of the seized
financial assets. The contradictions and distortions surrounding the
Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count. Those who wanted to
institutionalize the doctrine of preemptive war were not concerned
about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy and, for
this, the American people and world peace will suffer.
Number eight: Promoting Democracy. An Obsession Whose Time Has
Passed.
Promoting democracy is now our Nation's highest ideal. Wilson started
it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I.
His Utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead,
his naivete and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back
tragedies of World War I and World War II. It is hard to imagine the
rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles, but
this has not prevented every President since Wilson from promoting
U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.
Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in
Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring
democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are
demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United States,
but our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free
elections. The truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring
individuals to power that the administration does not want. Democratic
elections will have to wait.
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on
others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear
serious discussions about changing our policy of meddling and empire-
building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and
financial costs for all of the wars fought over the past 100 years, few
question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism.
Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict,
concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the
interests of the military industrial complex generates the false
patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements.
Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from
Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives
and damaged health of thousands of our other casualties of this war
would help the American people to put this war in proper perspective.
{time} 2030
Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does
a good peace result.
Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing
countries, according to the L.A. Times, without a single successful
example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion, ``American engagement
abroad has not led to
[[Page H506]]
more freedom or more democracy in countries where we have become
involved.''
So far the peace in Iraq, that is, the period following the declared
end of hostilities, has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn,
Western-created, artificial state. A U.S.-imposed national government
unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our
allies deserted us in this misadventure, dumping the responsibility on
the U.N., while retaining control of the spoils of war as a policy of
folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will
only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western
occupiers.
The Halliburton scandals and other military industrial connections to
the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies and,
hopefully, a growing number of American taxpayers.
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish
policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson's utopianism of making
the world safe for democracy, let us try a new approach.
First, the internal affairs and the needs for nation-building in Iraq
are none of our business. Our goal in international affairs ought to be
to promote liberty and private property, free market order through
persuasion and example and never by force of arms, clandestine changes
or preemptive war.
We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves
and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as
destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single
Saddam Hussein-like tyrant.
Does anyone really believe that the Shiite majority can possibly rule
fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?
A representative republic loosely held together with autonomy for
each state or province is the only hope in a situation like this. But
since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in
the United States, we cannot possibly be the ones who will impose the
system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away, no matter
how many bombs we drop or people we kill.
This type of change can only come with a change in philosophy and an
understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual
adventure, not a military crusade.
If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we can no
longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It is a
Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our
financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually
will rebel and demand that all job and social programs begin here at
home before we waste billions more in Iraq and Afghanistan and many
other forlorn lands around the world.
The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive
branch so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration.
It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our
political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of
law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-
advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman.
We have been told that our efforts in Iraq has been worth the 500-
plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree. With great
sadness for the families who have lost so much and with so little hope
for a good peace, I can only say I disagree and I hope I am wrong.
Number nine: Fighting terrorism with big government, a convenience or
necessity?
Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is
understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our
enemies, but striking out against the liberties of all Americans with
the Patriot Act, the FBI, or the Guantanamo-type justice will hardly
address the problem.
Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty. It is never
necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It is tempting to
sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too
often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true.
History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually
results in less of both. But that does not mean that we should ignore
the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might
unleash.
First, fighting terrorism is a cliche. Terrorism is a technique or
process, and if not properly defined the solutions will be hard to
find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerilla
warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot
match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition
of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty,
being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a
terrorist-planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and
recognizing why some become enemies is crucial.
Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is
vital.
We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our
freedom and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief
prevails. When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy
pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives who want to bring
about various regime changes for other reasons conveniently latch onto
these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our
expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian
Sea region.
This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already
plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our
occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to
Korea. Whether it is invading Iraq, threatening North Korea or bullying
Venezuela or even Russia, it is now popular to play the terrorist card.
Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel
and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want. This is a very
dangerous attitude.
One would think that with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation
becoming more obvious every day more Americans would question our
flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building.
The American people were frightened into supporting this war because
they were told that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of
botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas;
significant quantities of refined uranium and special aluminum tubes
used in developing nuclear weapons.
The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found and the
fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying
none will be found does not pacify the instigators of this policy of
folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye
their list of potential targets, and they argue with conviction that
the 500-plus lives lost were worth it.
Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress
against it and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help
eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an
Arab Muslim leader, even a bad one, incites more hatred towards us,
certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the
invasion was in error.
It is safe to say that in time we will come to realize that our
invasion has made us less safe and has served as a grand recruiting
tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their
countries, including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Afghanistan and the entire Middle East.
Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching
Saddam Hussein or even killing Osama bin Laden are almost irrelevant.
They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even
greater hatred toward us.
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war
to end. The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims see us
as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way from
home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it is to
spread our goodness.
Whether or not some supporters of this policy of intervention are
sincere in bringing democracy and justice to the region, it just does
not matter. No one over there believes us.
This war started a long time before 9/11. That attack was just the
most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought Western
crusaders
[[Page H507]]
for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the European Crusades
centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on to some degree since
World War II but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the Persian
Gulf War invasion and with the collapse of the Soviet system.
Placing U.S. troops on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi
Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of this already existing hatred.
We belatedly realized this and have removed these troops.
If these facts are ignored, there is no chance that the United
States-led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed.
Seventy percent of the world's oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian
Sea regions. Without a better understanding of the history of the
region, it is not even possible to define the enemy, know why they
fight or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks and
vague sinister forces of terrorism.
The pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what
the CIA calls blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign
policy is a great roadblock to ever ending the war.
Number ten: Judicial review.
Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in
Washington. It is so low it is virtually non-existent. This causes much
foolish inconsistency in our Federal courts. The Constitution, we have
been told, is a living, evolving document; and it is no longer
necessary to change it in the proper manner. That method is too slow
and cumbersome, it is claimed.
While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the Federal
drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote by the U.S. Congress.
Wars are not declared by Congress but pursued by executive orders to
enforce U.N. resolution.
The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterwards, usually
following the war's failure, in the political arena rather than before
with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are
routinely written by unelected bureaucrats with themselves becoming the
judicial enforcement authority.
Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that
creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the
nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy.
For decades executive orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to
circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best
described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged, ``Stroke of the
pen, law of the land, kinda cool.''
This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional
restraint on government power.
The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches
in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the Federal monolith.
Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern
that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the
courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of
Congress.
This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor
during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said, we
know it is bad, but we will let the courts clean it up. And look what
happened. The courts did not save us from ourselves.
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever-
growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to
rule favorably when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we
must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing
laws rubber-stamping bad legislation or overruling State laws.
Hopefully, in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of
its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the
Constitution.
There is something Congress by majority vote can do to empower the
States to deal with their first amendment issues. It is clear that
Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of
speech, religion or assembly. This obviously means that Federal courts
have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is
for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all first amendment
controversies from all Federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols
or clothing or songs, even the issue of abortion are properly left as a
prerogative of the States. A giant step in this direction could be
achieved with the passage of my proposed legislation, We The People
Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Emerson's real attack was on intellectual
conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly
acquired facts. This is what he referred to as a ``foolish
inconsistency.''
The greatest open-minded idea I am aware of is to know that one does
not know what is best for others, whether it is in the economic, social
or moral policy or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows
what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed
mind. Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge.
Governments are no more capable of running the economy made fair for
everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for their
spiritual salvation.
{time} 2045
There are a thousand things in between that the busybody politicians,
bureaucrats, and judges believe they know and yet do not. Sadly, our
citizens have become dependent on government for nearly everything from
cradle to grave and look to government for all guidance and security.
Continuously ignoring Emerson's advice on self-reliance is indeed a
foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in charge of the
militant nanny state follow, and it is an armed state, domestic as well
as foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what is best for them, while
the armed bureaucrats at home harass our own people into submission and
obedience to every law and regulation, most of which are
incomprehensible to the average citizen.
Ask three IRS agents for an interpretation of the Tax Code and you
will get three different answers. Ask three experts in the Justice
Department to interpret the anti-trust laws and you will get three
different answers. First, they will tell you it is illegal to sell too
low. Then they will tell you it is illegal to sell too high, and it is
certainly illegal if everybody sold products at the same price. All
three positions can get you into plenty of trouble and blamed for,
first, undermining competition; second, for having too much control and
gouging the public; and, third, for engaging in collusion. The people
cannot win.
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society
that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise is
generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of
grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and respect
for others.
Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not
mean anarchy, chaos or libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society
can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic rules must be followed and
can be enforced by government, most suitably by local and small
government entities. Honoring all voluntary contractual arrangements,
social and economic, protection of all life, and established standards
for private property ownership are the three principles required for a
free society to remain civilized. Depending on the culture, the
government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or State
entity.
The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are not
omnipotent but also the confidence that true liberty generates the most
practical solution to all our problems, whether they are economic,
domestic security, or national defense. Short of this, any other system
generates authoritarianism that grows with each policy failure and
eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this end, not our
military budget, which brought the Soviets to their knees.
A system of liberty allows for the individual to be creative,
productive, or spiritual on one's own terms, and encourages excellence
and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at the expense of
liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to strive for these very
same goals. To understand the difference is crucial to the survival of
a free society.
[[Page H508]]
____________________