The Republican Paradox

In the Times last week, there was an article concerning the House of Representative’s refusal to vote on the renewal of the Intelligence Surveillance Act. In response to the move to postpone the vote, thereby allowing the act to expire, Bush has accused House Democrats of preventing security personnel from protecting the American people from terrorists.

Now, the topic of domestic surveillance and wiretapping has been beaten to death, but it is important to remind ourselves from time to time, why we need new leadership come next year. Again, the president has chosen to use the politics of fear in the most blatant and obvious manner. The unsubstantiated connection he draws between the Surveillance Act and terrorism hardly holds up under the most basic reasoning.

It is not through illegal and warrant-less wiretapping that terrorists are found and plots are prevented. It is through the work of law enforcement, both federal and local, cooperating at efficient levels, which leads to success. Yet how can these entities ever really come to protect Americans if they are so under-funded, and if cooperation, which hinges on communication, is inhibited by an overall lack of communication—the same deficiency that characterized the slow response on September 11th?

Leaders during wartime have consistently used the politics of fear to their advantage in creating new legislation and expanding the power of the executive branch. Even some of those who we would call “great” have suspended certain rights clearly delineated to the people, but we should be learning from these past mistakes.

The “terrorists” (and I hate categorizing for simplicity) gain from our disunity. They find success in the loss of our rights. If they are so freedom-hating as our government tells us they are, then why does Bush feel the need to respond with removing more of our freedoms? “Giving in to the terrorists” seems to describe his actions much more accurately than those of the Democrats, John McCain, and Ron Paul who fight against water boarding and the Patriot Act.

Finally, I’d like to point out the Republican paradox here. Not only does the Surveillance go against the whole idea of smaller government, but can someone explain why the second amendment is never violated despite the terrible atrocities committed with guns everyday, but the 4th can be infringed whenever the president feels it's necessary?