Many Shades of Big Government

Republicans and conservative Americans fight “Big Government” in its welfare state form. But they are comfortable with, and have no objection to, the militarized/police state form of Big Government.

Political officials of both parties are content for Big Government to war without a declaration of war (or even Congress’ consent) or to murder citizens with drones in countries with which Washington is not at war.  They do not mind that police and “security” agencies spy on American citizens without warrants, record every email, Internet sites visited, Facebook postings, cell phone calls and credit card purchases. Congress voted to fund the technologically-advanced structure in Utah where this information is stored.

Conservatives accuse liberals of the “institutionalization of compassion.” They will not concede that European democracy, liberty, welfare, rich people and national health services coexist for hundreds of years within entire societies, but that somehow American democracy and liberty is so fragile that it can be overturned by a limited health and social security program only available to the elderly.

A harsh, but obvious commentary is that the institutionalization of tyranny seems an acceptable budget and philosophical alternative for compassion as the 21st century begins. This is a decisive break from the American Great Society of the 20th century. The Bush Republicans dismantled many constitutional protections of liberty erected by the Founding Fathers.  The Obama Democrats codified Bush’s dismantlings and removed the protection afforded to citizens from being murdered by the government without due process. One decade was time enough for two presidents to make Americans the least free from any time in our recent past.

It is difficult to listen to conservatives bemoan the destruction of liberty by compassion while they institutionalize torture, indefinite detention in violation of habeas corpus, murder of citizens on suspicion and unproven accusation, violate privacy, interfere with the right to travel by unaccountable “no-fly” lists or highway checkpoints, intimidate or incarcerate those exercising their right to protest and narrow the bounds of free speech by prosecuting critics.

Evidence against defendants becomes classified in the name of national security.  Federal prosecutors conduct trials with that evidence but withhold it from defendant attorneys. Conservatives accept this as an acceptable solution to “Muslim terrorism” without acknowledging that it is also acceptable internal government terrorism and tyranny.

Consider, for example, the case of Bradley Manning.  He is accused of leaking confidential information that reveals U.S. government war crimes despite that it is the responsibility of every soldier to reveal war crimes. 

He has been tortured. His right to a speedy trial was violated by nearly three years of pre-trial custody and repeated trial delays by government prosecutors in an effort to coerce Manning into admitting false charges and implicating WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. The judge, Col. Denise Lind, ruled that Manning cannot use as evidence the government reports that cite that the leaked information did not harm national security.

Lind also ruled that Manning’s motive for leaking information about U.S. war crimes cannot be presented as evidence in his trial and prevents Manning from showing that his motive was to do his duty under the military code and reveal evidence of war crimes.  This allows prosecutors to turn a dutiful act into the crime of aiding the enemy by revealing classified information.

Obama Democrats are no more disturbed than conservative Republicans that a dutiful American soldier is being prosecuted because he has a moral conscience. The government definition of jurisprudence is not related to justice. Big Government may be out of control in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans but not in the way either group champions.