Posted by caleb on May 15, 2009 in
Presidential Politics If you were alive at the time, I will wager a bet that you can remember exactly what you were doing, wearing, and thinking at the moment you heard the United States had been attacked on September the 11, 2001. It was a horrifying and terrible moment. Rogue airliners, hijacked by Muslim extremists, had come hurtling into three of our proudest buildings and a fourth, apparently on its way to the White House, crashed into a Pennsylvania field after a group of brave Americans regained control of the jet. In the days and months that followed, one question was on every American’s mind: How do we prevent this from happening again? It was at that moment in our nation’s history we found ourselves confronted with the very human dilemma between our well being and our independence. We had a choice to make; which was more important? Then-President Bush made decisions to protect the American people and our homeland. Some would argue his safety measures destroyed our freedoms and liberties. I disagree, but the lines in the sand had been drawn: how far is too far? When does the battle for a well-defended nation become the usurpation of the liberties of the plebiscite? In the United States, we believe in a system of personal freedoms and liberties; while we must protect our homeland, it cannot be at the expense of the rights of the American citizen.
In the 2002 film directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report, a new system based on the thoughts and visions of so-called “PreCognitives” is implemented as a way to reduce crime, especially murder, in Washington, D.C. From the onset, the everyday population viewed this method of arresting would-be criminals before the crime was committed with mostly admiration and thankfulness. However, as PreCrime detained more and more individuals, it faced an unhappy contingent: the innocent civilians it had erroneously locked up. In a similar manner, the Patriot Act and related laws passed in the years that followed the attack on New York are intended “to protect and defend” our nation from the ever-growing threat of terrorist violence. Many times, they work. From its passage in October of 2001 (“Search Results”) until the debate for its renewal in 2005, the Patriot Act helped convict more than 200 terrorists (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). Former President Bush remarked in a speech that year, “For the state of our national security, Congress must not rebuild a wall between law enforcement and intelligence” (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). The Patriot Act was a swift and hard response to the brutal slayings of nearly 3,000 Americans, and it has done much to keep the United States safe. As noted by Kishkunas in his 2003 opinion piece, the Patriot Act, while granting the government a few new law enforcement powers, most combined previously available tools and applied them to terrorists instead of groups such as the Mafia or drug lords. Now, the persons responsible for murdering thousands could be prosecuted in a way that fit their dastardly crime.
However, it is always a dangerous decision to cede more power to any government, especially the federal government, and a strange alliance of far left groups and civil libertarians formed shortly after the bill’s signing by the President (“Patriot Act Works, Bush Claims”). They published and continue to publish stories of alleged abuses of power by both local and federal authorities. In April of 2009, another such case came to light, with a widowed mother being awoken in the dead of night by more than a dozen FBI agents bursting through her door, brandishing guns. After grabbing her tenth grade, sixteen-year-old homeschooled son from his bedroom, they served her a search warrant and led him away in handcuffs (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”). Also shown in the newscast by Raleigh, NC CBS affiliate WRAL is the mother telling of how the federal agents also took numerous electronics from his bedroom, including his personal computer, Xbox game console, the router device that connected the household to the Internet. Says the distraught mother, “I was terrified. There were guns, and I don’t allow guns around my children. I don’t believe in guns.” She says her son has done nothing wrong and is being held on charges of domestic terrorism under the USA Patriot Act. Authorities claim her son made numerous bomb threat calls, a charge Ms. Lundeby vehemently denies. After the arrest, sheclaims she has been provided extremely limited access to her son and has little to no solid information about the evidence surrounding the charges being brought against her son.
As usual, there are two sides to this chilling story. Two weeks after the WRAL broadcast, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Indiana, near where the teenage boy, Ashton Lundeby, is being held contacted the media and claimed the sixteen-year-old is not being held under the USA Patriot Act (Lamb). “This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act,” claimed U.S. Attorney David Capp (Lamb). Of course, the mother disputes this claim (Lamb), and the case continues. But what if the mother is correct, and the federal government is holding him under the Patriot Act, a law that gives them the ability to strip away certain Constitutional provisions from alleged enemy combatants (“USA using Patriot Act against its own citizens”)? Those that subscribe to this theory believe we may be headed for a 1984-style protectionist regime, in which everyday citizens are treated as the enemy. In response to this story, “Southpaw” from the Balitmore Sun talk forums said, “Maybe it’s not “1984″ but it sure feels like it is heading there.” Truthfully, that is a disturbing prospect. The Federal Government maintains that no American citizen has been unjustly prosecuted by this far-reaching law (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”), but that has done little to quell the voices on the far reaches of the political spectrum.
Most people agree we need to work to protect and preserve American lives and our way of life. Is the Patriot Act the end-all answer? In 2005, in a bi-partisan move, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and former Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Act needs to be tempered with more protections for the average American citizen (“Patriot Act Works, Claims Bush”). Providing more civil protections to citizens of the United States, not foreign nationals, is an idea, if followed through correctly, on which most Americans could agree. It only makes sense to continually improve our laws, even those that are already working, and since our government is made up of and works for the American citizen, it is their duty. How should we improve? First, provide more information to the accused person and his or her representatives. Do not hide the entire process under an apparent veil of secrecy. The Constitution provides that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, not the defendant. They should not have to prove their own innocence. Secondly, admit the USA Patriot Act and related terror laws work and have on numerous occasions fulfilled their promise of preventing further terror attacks in the United States, including a major “second wave” attack that would have decimated the city of Los Angeles (Jeffery). Thirdly, educate the public to the extent it is safely possible regarding the Act’s abilities against American citizens, but not its tools to combat foreigners. While no patriotic American wants the government to show all of its cards to the enemy, if the Patriot Act is to persist, we deserve to know the extent of its powers and how they can be used against us in an arrest or a court of law, just like any other statute.
Every society must deal with the issue of enemies from within and without. It is the responsibility of the citizenry in a republic to demand protection from their government against these forces. However, it is also their job to defend their rights and civil liberties against a power-hungry and ever-growing government. They are the ultimate check and balance. Indeed, it is in them in which the power of government is vested from an active and engaged population cannot be usurped. While the current administration has done away with phrases such as “War on Terror” for “less offensive” substitutes such as “Man-caused Disasters,” (Kessler) the threat of a terrorism on our home soil is as real as ever, and we must not let down our guard. The battle waged between ultimate protectionism and anarchy will continue, but the balance lies somewhere in between. The sweet spot is at the point where citizens lead their own lives, taking risks and working for themselves and the borders are secure, the military strong, and the government following the will of the people.
Tags: 9/11, freedom, government, Patriot Act, security
[This is an essay I wrote earlier this week. I've republished it here.]
Stereotypes are cop-outs. Each of them is just a way for us to pre-judge someone before we actually become acquainted with them on a personal level. They are tools we use to lock each other into specific, predetermined groups and behavior patterns. We use these mind tricks to exert control over other people, to gain traction in a difficult situation. Instead of facing the challenge of exposing ourselves to another individual, we take the easy way out and brush them aside with the passing thought, I’ve seen their kind before. What if, however, we took the time to give the benefit of the doubt, even to only one person? A few more minutes out of our busy schedules would not be missed. We spend that much time daily dialing the telephone or ordering coffee in the Drive-thru. Why not put those minutes to better use? If we did, we would discover that a person is more than the sum total of his or her parts, labels, and appearance. Appearances are deceiving, for we are each more than our stereotypes or labels alone allow for us to be.
As an eighteen-year-old sophomore at a small state university, my life is full of interesting topics and paradoxes, puzzles and quirks. My life is based on suggestion, on stereotype, on societal expectations, but my habits are geared against the grain. I do what is thought impossible and am seen for whom I am not. People expect me to be a certain way, but I surprise them by being even better. I believe in forging my own path and setting my own agenda, but rebellion is not what I seek: I fight apathy, and work to make my positive mark on the world. It is what this time of my life is supposed to be about. As a college student I have some of the biggest and hardest-to-shake stereotypes placed upon me, that I believe in an “anything goes” world, or that I fought to see Barack Obama elected. But after busting through these grandiose façades, I drop the biggest bombshell of all: I am a young conservative. I believe in personal responsibility, limited government, and the rule of law. I work for lower taxes and less government intervention and involvement. I want to live my life the way I see fit, by taking responsibility for the consequences, and not by following a ten-step plan developed by a bureaucrat. I believe in making money, in capitalism, in success for the individual, and in freedom for us all. Of course, being politically conservative and educationally an undergraduate leads to some interesting encounters. Many of my peers do not understand why I believe what I do, and many older adults approach me in disbelief as well. It seems most think youth should be a time of frivolity and a more carefree lifestyle; I do not necessarily disagree, but I look to my future as well. I am not a boring old codger while still a teenager, but I dream of one day being a successful, financially secure professional, and that dream cannot be fulfilled by following the plans and ideas of the other side of the political spectrum.
If liberalism on campus is such an accepted belief and lifestyle, why I am so different? Why does my belief system differ from the supposed norm? To fully investigate this issue, it is necessary to investigate my past, my experiences, and my goals for the future. Understanding one’s lifestyle choices is not an easy task. My political affinities come from several different places. To begin, since both of my parents are Republicans and very conservative, it would be easy to discount my ideals as something handed down and accepted without challenge. It is true that as far back as I can remember knowing what a political party was, I have identified myself with the GOP. However, neither of my parents has ever forced their political belief system on me. They’ve presented their views, but always left my choices in the matter up to me. Saying that my party affiliation and governmental philosophy stem solely from my mother and father is a vast misstatement. Perhaps my parents led me in the right direction, but it was by my own free will I came to believe we should as strictly as possible follow the plans laid out for us by the Founding Fathers in our nation’s seminal documents. How did I arrive at this conclusion? Even as young as I am, I have had enough life experiences to realize how important it is to keep and follow those democratic ideals. Right now, as a young adult, I am watching as the grand era of prosperity of my early teenage years dries up and our nation sinks into a deep recession. The most treacherous example is of the recent government bailouts. Instead of allowing companies who made bad business decisions and granted sub-prime mortgages to go bankrupt and restructure themselves, our government is using billions upon billions of our money and money borrowed from unfriendly foreign lands to artificially prolong the lives of those failed ventures. To me, that idea is unfair and, at the least, not in line with the spirit of our Constitution. Why are we who made good decisions being forced to help those who did not? I believe in helping others in need, but it must be my choice, not the government’s. Life experiences such as these catalyze my beliefs. They make me look toward the future and realize that as this spending continues, my dreams become a little farther off, a little less attainable. If success is punished and failure is rewarded, why will any company try to succeed? Where is the motivation to hire the best and brightest talent and sell the best products if the federal government is only going to tax their profits into losses and save them if they fail? How will I, or my children, for that matter, ever ascend to the peak of our abilities?
That hope for the future and worry that my dreams will not come to pass is what most strongly motivates me. America is a great nation, and I cannot bear to see her flounder. I want America to achieve her epitome of greatness with the restoration of our Constitutional values. As for myself, I want to someday work for a multinational computer electronics company. I want to be able to provide for my family, and I want my future children to have even better opportunities than I had. Neither one of these dreams is easily possible with the current onward march of liberal policies and socialism, at least not according to some of the greatest political minds. Many have equated our recent lapse to that of Western Europe after World War II. It is a commonly held belief in the United States that Europe is very similar to our country, but in truth, it has many problems we have never had to deal with, including strangled access to healthcare. Here, generally speaking, if one is insured he or she can schedule an appointment with a doctor and have met with him or her within a week or so. In other nations where socialized medicine exists, everyone has access to healthcare, but many people’s health suffers because of long lead times for life-saving surgeries and routine checkups. Also, the citizenry is taxed beyond belief, to the point where the tax rate reaches atrocious and unbelievable amounts. At what point do we say enough is enough? The idea of healthcare for all is valiant, but the execution is wrong. Providing healthcare is not government’s job. Many argue that private companies cannot and should not be in charge of providing medical assistance, that they wield too much power of people’s lives. However, the evidence points to the contrary. Even with their problems, private companies tend to provide a much better service, due to competition in the market. All the government needs to do is encourage that competition by lowering taxes, and thereby fostering growth, and repealing senseless regulations. Look how much government has regulated education in America. Does it sound exciting to be required to take a standardized test to verify your lifestyle choices before doing a urine analysis? Do you want to have to write your Senator just to have an emergency appendectomy? I have experienced such a surgery, and I can assure you that sitting up is murder, let alone handling a keyboard.
My conservative beliefs do detach me from my peer group of young college students, at least from the majority. This aspect of my being cannot be separated from me as a whole; it makes up an integral part of my being, of who I am as a person. They do not fit the expected mold, but I accept that and embrace it. I will not change who I am simply to force myself into such an idea. We can never fully escape stereotypes, because generalization is part of who we are as human beings. However, we can rewrite them to include more facets of other individuals. Once we have broadened those horizons, we must do all we can to transform stereotypes from the crystalline stones they are today to the malleable clay they must be tomorrow, changing and updating them with each new person we meet, as we learn to connect more deeply.
Tags: bailouts, barack obama, college, college students, Conservatism, conservative, government, liberalism, Senator, sub-prime mortgages, universal healthcare
Posted by caleb on Sep 9, 2008 in
Uncategorized I believe in limited government.
I believe in lower taxes.
I believe in a strong military.
I believe every vote counts.
I believe we should be environmentally smart without going overboard.
I believe in free markets.
I believe in a future of hope for our nation.
I believe in the necessity of Christian leaders.
I believe in the First and Second Amendments.
I believe in the static nature of the Constitution.
I believe in the value of privatization.
I believe in individual freedoms.
I believe in personal property.
I believe in the ability of Americans to be anything they set their minds on.
What are your conservative beliefs? How should McCain and Palin lead our nation to victory?
Tags: conservative, government
