John Whitehead's Commentary
A Congressman's Courageous Stand
There were few legislators still lingering in the House of Representatives on June 27, 2002, when Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tx.) took the floor and asked, "Are we doomed to be a police state?" He then proceeded to give one of the most intelligent speeches on the state of our nation and our freedoms that I've come across in modern times.
In his lengthy monologue--text version available online at www.house.gov/paul--Rep. Paul painted a grim picture of a democratic nation quietly slipping into totalitarianism under the watchful glare of the public, the media and politicians. In such a society, declared Paul, it is unnecessary to control the masses through overt military actions when the government can do so peacefully. "The principal tool for sustaining a police state," stated Paul, "even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment."
He continued:
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.
The events of the past year support Rep. Paul's fears. Many have knowingly incarcerated themselves in a prison of their own making, trading freedom for security and in the process allowing the government to conveniently keep tabs on all of us--whether at work or at play.
Worse, as the Bush Administration has sought to implement far-reaching schemes for empowering big government and limiting individual freedom, few legislators have raised their voices in opposition. A prime example is the USA Patriot Act, a mammoth document. One of the worst things that has ever happened to freedom in the United States, it was passed by nearly unanimous consent.
Fortunately, not everyone meekly accepted this erosion of our liberties. While most of the Congressmen and Senators barely skimmed the USA Patriot Act before giving it the green light, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), understanding the ramifications of granting too much power to the Executive Branch, voted his conscience against it. Unfortunately, he was the only Senator to do so.
In the same way, when the Bush Administration tried to launch Operation TIPS, a civilian spy program, House majority leader Dick Armey (R-Tx.) led the charge against it, inserting language to prohibit it in his Homeland Defense Bill. Armey also went on record to voice his concerns over the Bush Administration's repeated threats to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
When you have leaders like these--Paul, Feingold and Armey--individuals who voice their discontent, even when it means going against their own party and the political establishment, it shows that the democratic process still works. More than that, it demonstrates that there are people willing to take their discontent one step further and do something about it. That is the difference between a politician and a statesman: while a politician may strive to advance his own interests, a statesman strives for the good of the people he represents.
Yet we cannot lay the responsibility for vigilantly defending our freedoms and our way of life on a handful of political leaders, no matter how willing they are to take up the fight. This duty belongs to each and every American.
In this age of voter polls and political spinning, statesmen such as Reps. Paul and Armey and Sen. Feingold, who not only speak but act out the dictates of their consciences, offer a glimmer of hope that our democracy will continue to stand--and that the American people love their freedom enough to not let it silently slip away.
I can only hope this is so because the alternative would be to admit defeat. In the same way, to stop fighting for our freedoms, every day, in hundreds of ways large and small, would be to let the forces of tyranny and despotism claim victory.
For the sake of our children and our children's children, let us pray it will be said that, when faced with the most difficult of choices, we Americans loved freedom more than security, safety or wealth--and that, in the end, freedom is what made the difference.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
In his lengthy monologue--text version available online at www.house.gov/paul--Rep. Paul painted a grim picture of a democratic nation quietly slipping into totalitarianism under the watchful glare of the public, the media and politicians. In such a society, declared Paul, it is unnecessary to control the masses through overt military actions when the government can do so peacefully. "The principal tool for sustaining a police state," stated Paul, "even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment."
He continued:
America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.
The events of the past year support Rep. Paul's fears. Many have knowingly incarcerated themselves in a prison of their own making, trading freedom for security and in the process allowing the government to conveniently keep tabs on all of us--whether at work or at play.
Worse, as the Bush Administration has sought to implement far-reaching schemes for empowering big government and limiting individual freedom, few legislators have raised their voices in opposition. A prime example is the USA Patriot Act, a mammoth document. One of the worst things that has ever happened to freedom in the United States, it was passed by nearly unanimous consent.
Fortunately, not everyone meekly accepted this erosion of our liberties. While most of the Congressmen and Senators barely skimmed the USA Patriot Act before giving it the green light, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), understanding the ramifications of granting too much power to the Executive Branch, voted his conscience against it. Unfortunately, he was the only Senator to do so.
In the same way, when the Bush Administration tried to launch Operation TIPS, a civilian spy program, House majority leader Dick Armey (R-Tx.) led the charge against it, inserting language to prohibit it in his Homeland Defense Bill. Armey also went on record to voice his concerns over the Bush Administration's repeated threats to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
When you have leaders like these--Paul, Feingold and Armey--individuals who voice their discontent, even when it means going against their own party and the political establishment, it shows that the democratic process still works. More than that, it demonstrates that there are people willing to take their discontent one step further and do something about it. That is the difference between a politician and a statesman: while a politician may strive to advance his own interests, a statesman strives for the good of the people he represents.
Yet we cannot lay the responsibility for vigilantly defending our freedoms and our way of life on a handful of political leaders, no matter how willing they are to take up the fight. This duty belongs to each and every American.
In this age of voter polls and political spinning, statesmen such as Reps. Paul and Armey and Sen. Feingold, who not only speak but act out the dictates of their consciences, offer a glimmer of hope that our democracy will continue to stand--and that the American people love their freedom enough to not let it silently slip away.
I can only hope this is so because the alternative would be to admit defeat. In the same way, to stop fighting for our freedoms, every day, in hundreds of ways large and small, would be to let the forces of tyranny and despotism claim victory.
For the sake of our children and our children's children, let us pray it will be said that, when faced with the most difficult of choices, we Americans loved freedom more than security, safety or wealth--and that, in the end, freedom is what made the difference.
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
