The Presidency and the Future

Dennis Behreandt
JBS
Sunday November 18, 2007

The conventional wisdom holds that the candidates who most closely represent the presidential status quo, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, are the current frontrunners and are most likely to face each other down the stretch in the race for the White House in 2008. So what does it mean to the struggle for freedom if either of them is elected?

Follow this link to the original source: "Clinton, Giuliani running away"

Nearly twenty years have gone by since the election of the first President Bush in 1988. Since that time the White House has been occupied continuously by a member of either the Bush or Clinton families. They have been so successful at monopolizing the executive branch it is possible to begin referring to a Bush-Clinton ruling dynasty.

The perception of a dynasty has been reinforced by the fact that the policies emanating from the White House have been remarkably consistent no matter which family happens to be in power. This is particularly true with regard to Bush-Clintonian beliefs about the preeminence of the Presidency. Whether under George Bush I, Bill Clinton, or George Bush II, the nation's ruling house of Clinton-Bush has used every opportunity to expand the power of the federal apparatus in general and the executive branch in particular.

(Article continues below)

This trend reached a pinnacle under the current President Bush who, asserting himself under the dubious doctrine of the "unitary executive," has sought to place himself above the law. If that sounds like a wild statement, consider the words of recently confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Asked during his confirmation hearings by Senator Patrick Leahy if the president can operate outside laws passed by Congress, Mukasey replied: "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country." In other words, according to our new attorney general, it would seem that if the president says he is defending the country, then he is above the law -- a position that dovetails nicely with the President’s actual behavior while in office.

Now, after 20 years under the house of Clinton-Bush, we have reached a moment in America that could prove historically decisive. Will voters stick with the status quo and select a candidate -- Hillary Clinton being the most obvious -- who will continue to carry the torch of expansive government for another four years or more (if subsequently reelected)? Or will voters attempt to force a break with the past by electing one of the vanishingly few contenders who may be inclined to chart a course back toward limited government and respect for both the rule of law and the separation of powers?

The stakes, it seems, couldn’t be higher. Among the Republican contenders, most have indicated a willingness to continue the foreign policy direction of military preemption, intervention, and nation building that the first President Bush inaugurated, Bill Clinton perpetuated (think Bosnia), and the current President Bush "perfected" with the invasion of Iraq and the presidential determination that the War on Terror would be an unprecedented "long war." Of course, "war is the health of the state" as Randolph Bourne famously observed, so under most of the Republicans, the continued growth of federal and executive power is assured.

It is much the same with regard to many of the Democrats. The top contender, Hillary Clinton, as some of her Democratic rivals including John Edwards and Barack Obama, have pointed out, has not been overly eager to denounce the ongoing intervention in Iraq. No one should be surprised at this. Her husband carried out similar interventions while in office and it seems unlikely that Mrs. Clinton would turn from that tendency in favor of non-intervention should she be elected.

On other issues, if a Democrat takes the White House, we’re likely to see a further expansion of the welfare state and a strong move toward some form of national health care. Just like with the Republicans, under most of the Democrats the continued growth of federal and executive power is assured.

Of course, there is always the possibility that voters will choose to dump the big government candidates and elect someone with limited government and free market tendencies. But what if that doesn’t happen? Would the election of a "frontrunner" like Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani be the death knell for liberty in America? There’s certainly no reason to be hopeful that they would be friends of liberty. In the opinion of columnist Andrew Sullivan, if Giuliani wins, "any crisis or attack would lead to his eager suspension of the civil liberties we have left." Hillary, meanwhile, voted in favor of the Patriot Act and in 2003 told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News: "I'm a strong believer in executive authority." She reiterated that point to Michael Crowley of The New Republic saying: "I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority."

We can certainly hope that traditional values and concerns for the natural rights and liberties of all Americans prove to be deciding factors in the 2008 presidential election. But if the welfare-warfare state carries the day, all is not lost, as some have suggested. Instead, victory in the fight for freedom can still be won under such circumstances by focusing activist efforts on Congress. That, after all, is the branch of government that both wields the lawmaking power and is closest to the electorate. No matter what happens in the presidential election, the old saying remains true: if we hold Congress’ feet to the fire, ultimately freedom can prevail.

Click here to discuss this story in our forum Yahoo! MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Print Email This Page to: