Many Ame
ricans feel like they have a miserable choice of presidential candidates this year. But the same pattern goes back at least to the end of the Reagan era.
For decades, presidents have had far more power than they can be trusted with. Here are election season pieces I wrote on this theme in 1988 and 2000 for the Washington Times, Detroit News, and Knight Ridder Syndicate.
The Washington Times
November 07, 2000, Tuesday,
HEADLINE: Asking the wrong questions
BYLINE: James Bovard
BODY:
Once again, Americans are struggling to decide which candidate is least unfit to be president. Once again, the choice is between two major party candidates – neither of whom scores of millions of Americans believe is mentally or morally equal to the job.
We are asking the wrong question. The issue is not who should be trusted with all the power of the presidency. Instead, we must ask how much power any candidate can be trusted with.
Would you choose George W. Bush or Al Gore to have the power to read your e-mail – without a court-authorized search warrant -thanks to the FBI’s
Carnivore wiretap software and the National Security Agency’s Echelon system? Since the Federal Communications Commission has ordered that new cell phones be homing devices for law enforcement, which candidate would you prefer knowing your location at all times?
Would you choose either Mr. Gore or Mr. Bush to dictate the safety standards that might save your life – or kill you (such as federally mandated airbags that smite children and petite ladies)?
How many new regulations and restrictions should either candidate be able to impose on you? Since 1993, federal agencies have issued more than 25,000 new
regulations – criminalizing everything from reliable toilets to snuff advertisements on race cars. The federal regulatory juggernaut is practically on automatic pilot, sure to continue advancing regardless of who wins today’s vote.
How many pretexts should the winning candidate receive to have you thrown you in prison? There are now more than 3,000 federal criminal offenses on the book – 30 times more criminal laws than existed in 1900 and 1,000 times more than existed at the birth of the Republic. The proliferation of vague laws are very convenient for federal agents and politically minded prosecutors who target certain citizens for ruin.
Which candidate should have jurisdiction over federal agents who can seize your property – without any criminal charges filed against you – based on
hearsay evidence that you may have violated one of more than 200 federal laws that authorize asset forfeiture? Which candidate should have sway over the
Justice Department lawyers who fight tooth-and-nail to deny due process to forfeiture victims?
How much would you voluntarily give either candidate to spend largely at his discretion? The average two-income median income household pays $17,762 in
federal taxes per year, according to the Tax Foundation. Would you write out a check for that amount even though you knew presidents routinely spend tax
dollars for their own political aggrandizement? Would you write out a check even after realizing some of your tax dollars will be spent to deceive and lull
you into thinking you have nothing to fear from your rulers – and thus no need to stand up for your rights and liberties?
The federal government mangles the marketplace far more than most Americans realize. Which candidate should have the right to continue doubling the price
of the sugar and peanut butter you buy? Which candidate should be entitled to levy a 25 percent surcharge on Japanese-made trucks or a 40 percent surcharge on Brazilian orange juice, as the U.S. tariff code now decrees? Does any president deserve a license to skewer consumers to reward campaign donors?
How much power would you vest in either candidate to forcibly protect you against yourself – vetoing your choices of lifestyle, food and recreation?
Is there any prominent politician from either party who could run your life better than you yourself? Is there any politician who is so superior to you in character and intellect that you should effectively sign your life over to his hands? Though few people would concede that any politician is so much their better, the current regime classifies citizens as, by definition, far inferior to their rulers.
We have a paternalistic system with pervasive contempt for the paternalist in chief. We have created a huge engine of government -even though there is no one even vaguely capable of intelligently driving it.
A certain amount of government power is necessary to preserve the peace and deter foreign aggression. But the government passed that point decades ago.
Albert Einstein warned in 1945 that, with the invention of the atomic bomb, mankind had far more destructive power than people were capable of responsibly
controlling. It is the same now with political power: Government has amassed far more coercive power than politicians are capable of intelligently wielding.
Even if the wisest, most virtuous citizen was elected president, our Leviathan would still be a public nuisance. There is no magic wand that even the best president could wave over the entire federal government. The only sure way to improve government is to radically reduce its size and power. This is also the best bet to make presidential elections something more than the triumph of hope over experience.
James Bovard is the author of “Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion & Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years” (St. Martin’s Press).
XXXXXX
Knight Ridder/Tribune, October 24, 2000 [syndicated nationwide]
HEADLINE: No matter who’s elected, it’s time to curb the autocratic of power of the presidency
By James Bovard
WASHINGTON _ Once again, Americans are struggling to decide which candidate is least unfit to be president. Once again, the choice is between two major-party candidates _ neither of whom seems, at least to scores of millions of Americans, to be either mentally or morally equal to the job.
We are asking the wrong question. The issue is not who should be trusted with all the power of the presidency. Instead, we must ask how much any power either candidate should be trusted with.
Would you choose Bush or Gore to have the power to read your e-mail _ without a court-authorized search warrant _ thanks to the FBI’s Carnivore wiretap
software and the National Security Agency’s Echelon system?
Since the Federal Communications Commission has ordered that new cell phones be homing devices for law enforcement, which candidate would you prefer knowing your location at all times?
Which candidate should have jurisdiction over federal agents who can seize your property _ without any criminal charges filed against you _ based on
hearsay evidence that you may have violated one of over 200 federal laws that authorize asset forfeiture?
Would you choose either Gore or Bush to dictate the safety standards that might save your life _ or kill you, such as federally mandated airbags that killed children?
How many pretexts should the winning candidate possess to have you thrown you in prison? There are now more than 3,000 federal criminal offenses on the book _ 30 times more criminal offense laws than existed in 1900 and a thousand times more than existed at the birth of the Republic.
The proliferation of vague laws gives federal agents and politically minded prosecutors far more leeway to decide which citizens’ lives to ruin.
How many new regulations and restrictions should either candidate be able to impose on you? Since 1993, federal agencies have issued more than 25,000 new
regulations _ criminalizing everything from reliable toilets to snuff advertisements on race cars. The federal regulatory juggernaut is practically on automatic pilot, sure to continue advancing regardless of who wins in November.
How much would you voluntarily give either candidate to spend largely at their discretion? The average two-income median income household pays $17,762 in
federal taxes per year, according to the Tax Foundation. Would you write out a check for that amount even though you knew that past presidents routinely spent federal revenue for their own and their own party’s political aggrandizement?
Would you choose either Gore or Bush to manage your retirement account? Politicians are not bound by the same laws and liabilities as private investment advisers and managers.
Politicians have perennially made false statements about Social Security: Do you trust the next president to be more honest than almost any of his
predecessors on this subject?
The federal government intervenes in a maze of ways that few Americans perceive. Which candidate should have the right to double the price of the sugar
and peanut butter you buy?
Which candidate should have the right to levy a 25 percent surcharge on Japanese-made trucks or a 40 percent surcharge on Brazilian orange juice?
Does the fact that our political system needs a president mean that the winner should have a blank check to impose surcharges on all American consumers?
How much power would you vest in either candidate to forcibly protect you against yourself _ vetoing your choices of lifestyle, food and recreation? A
certain amount of government power is necessary to preserve the peace and prevent people from injuring one another. But the federal government passed that
point decades ago.
Is there any prominent politician from either party who could run your life better than you yourself? Is there any politician who is so superior to you in
character and intellect that you should effectively sign your life over to his hands?
We have a paternalistic system in which the much of the public has contempt for the paternalist-in-chief. We have created a huge engine of government _ even though there is no one even vaguely capable of intelligently driving it.
Einstein warned in 1945 that, with the invention of the atomic bomb, mankind had far more destructive power than people were capable of responsibly
controlling. It is the same now with political power: Government has now amassed far more coercive power than politicians are capable of responsibly and
intelligently wielding.
No man can intelligently oversee the spending of almost $2 trillion a year, the activities of hundreds of federal agencies and commissions, and the tens of
thousands of pages of new decrees that pour our each year.
The only sure way to improve government is to sharply reduce its size and power. This is also the best bet to make presidential elections something more than the triumph of hope over experience.
ABOUT THE WRITER
James Bovard is the author of the just-published “Feeling Your Pain: The
Explosion & Abuse of Government Power During the Clinton-Gore Years” (St.
Martin’s Press). This essay is available to Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service subscribers.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Detroit News, 1988
COMPETENCE IS THE REAL 1988 ISSUE
by James Bovard
From the editorial pages to the neighborhood bars, Americans are complaining that no one has stepped forward sufficiently wise and honorable enough to wield the Presidency’s scepter. There is a touch of sadness across the land because voters will be forced to choose between two evils.
Every four years, the absurdity of our current system becomes vivid. We have created a huge engine of government – even though there is no one even vaguely capable of intelligently driving it. We have built a Leviathan – and then bewail that only pygmies are available to man the controls. We have a paternalistic system where almost everyone has contempt for the paternalists.
Is there any prominent politician from either party who could run your life better than you yourself? Is there any politician who is so superior to you in character and intellect that you should effectively sign your life over to his hands?
Which politician can best oversee the Agriculture Department’s decrees on how many California oranges Americans may buy, or on how many hundredths of an acre of land a tobacco farmer may plant? Which politician should determine how many young workers are sacrificed so that Social Security can allow more old people to enjoy winter in Miami? Which politician would you choose to set the price you pay for gasoline or the interest rate on your loans? Which politician should have the power to imprison you or effectively sentence you to death by decreeing which chemical compounds or medicines you are allowed to ingest? Which politician’s coercion would you like to rely on in lieu of your own voluntary agreements?
People trust their savings accounts and jobs to men whom they would never buy a used car from. People surrender their destiny to people they would barely trust for the time of day. People sneer at Big Government – and then surrender more of their freedom and paychecks to politicians and pray for favors from Washington.
Since government allows people a token voice every four years in choosing who will seize their property and decimate their liberty, Americans are supposedly still free men and women. This is a bit like saying that the prisoner who gets to choose his own executioner doesn’t really die.
As Hungarian economist Janos Kornai observes, “The greater the bureaucratic intervention, the more each intervention weakens the effects of the other.” Federal policies are a morass of contradictions: from farm programs that pay farmers both to increase and to decrease production, to labor programs that provide (miserable) quality training for low-income youth versus wage laws that destroy training opportunities for the unskilled, to housing subsidies to build more apartments and rent control laws that condemn whole cities to decay. Almost weekly, new boondoggles occur – yet, politicians continue to create new programs even faster than the old programs become national disgraces.
Governor Dukakis is attempting to secure office by portraying competence as an abstract phenomenon, which he has a pocketful of and which he will deftly apply to solve the problems of bureaucracy, policy, and destiny. George Bush acts as if loving his wife and children is sufficient proof of his ability to judiciously dispose of almost $5,000 a year in tax dollars from the average family. Both candidates recognize that the key to acquiring power to run other people’s lives is to be sufficiently vague on how one plans to use that power.
Reform is the opiate of the welfare state. Nineteenth century reformers built their utopias on an imminent change in human nature. Twentieth century reformers have built Leviathans and then awaited a change in politicians’ nature. Faith in changing the masses has been replaced by faith in changing their rulers. Almost every expansion of government power is premised on the hope that politicians will not act in the future as they have acted in the past. Elections become largely the triumph of hope over experience.
Einstein warned in 1945 that, with the invention of the atomic bomb, mankind now had far more destructive power than people were capable of responsibly controlling. It is the same now with government power: government has now amassed far more economic and social power than politicians are capable of responsibly and intelligently wielding.
Government is the only business in which failure guarantees future growth. Yet, the media and the public focus their hopes on finding the Great Man who will somehow make two plus two equal five – who will say the magic words that will make government serve the people.
Our society is already divided between those who work for a living and those who vote for a living. We are heading for a situation where it is a question of steal or be stolen from via government. The obsession with finding a Leader allows people to neglect the inherent corrupting and debilitating effects of the political plunder system that masquerades as a welfare state.
Dukakis is right: competence is the real issue in this election. No man or troika or committee can intelligently oversee the spending of over a trillion dollars a year, the activities of hundreds of federal agencies and commissions, and the tens of thousands of pages of annual new decrees. The only sure way to improve government is to radically reduce its size.
Comments are closed.