Friday, January 25, 2008 9:18 PM CST
COLUMN: Conservatives yield to 'Big Brother' in the name of security
By HARRY REYNOLDS, Editorial Page Editor hreynolds@jg-tc.com
I can’t decide if Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is an avid disciple of “Big Brother” government or merely oblivious to its dangers.
The Bush administration’s shucking of conservative principles in the name of security smacks of hypocrisy. But, it’s not alone in the farce. Democrats and Republicans in Congress have aided and abetted this assault on civil liberties.
I can understand liberal Democrats’ treading toward big government at the expense of state’s and individual rights. It’s sad to see conservatives in both parties sell the label so cheaply.
A piqued Chertoff lashed out last week at opponents of the government’s plan to create a de facto national identity card. Critics of the effort need to “grow up,” he snapped.
If “grow up” means giving up freedom and privacy, then we would all be better remaining children. Chertoff has chained his mind to the notion that life and security are the same thing.
They are not. Life requires mystery, uncertainty and risk. Most of all risk, I think. We take a chance every minute we walk the earth. The more secure we are, the less we are.
Chertoff’s reeks of arrogance, presumption and danger. He denigrates Americans who believe government’s powers should be subservient to the people’s right to unfettered lives.
Chertoff seeks to defend the end-run around the American people’s aversion to a national identity card by invoking 9/11. In his eyes and the eyes of those yet quivering in the wake of the attack, we should be quite content to shed our rights, our privacy in the attempt to prevent future attacks.
No matter what the government does, however, there will be another day of destruction. It may not come from the terrorist’s bombs, or on the wings of planes, but it will come.
We live in a world where nuclear weapons are increasingly at risk of being used. The dangers of nuclear catastrophe are every bit as great — probably, more so — than at the height of the Cold War.
Life is not safe, not in this world. Not while man’s passion lags his intellect. One need only regard the past, when civilizations rose and fell at the hands of the barbarian.
We are not immune to another dark age. Civilization survives at the age of a knife, depending on the desire of each human being to be free.
No government is capable of guaranteeing our safety. It can, however, provide a false sense of security. Which is acceptable to those eager to embrace a false god.
Chertoff’s admonition to those who oppose the so-called Real ID Act, incorporated in defense legislation in 2005, only managed to intensify the efforts of the governor of Montana to derail the law.
Brian Schweitzer, a conservative Democrat, called on governors of 17 rebellion-minded states, to work with him to force a showdown with the federal government. His defiance comes in the face of a federal threat to not accept the driver’s licenses of the residents of states that refuse to implement Real-ID.
Real-ID would standardize driver’s licenses in all 50 states and link them to central databases at the federal level. Under the law, those under the age of 50 holding driver’s licenses would be required to apply again.
Montana, in 2007 passed a law refusing to comply with Real-ID, citing states’ and privacy rights and fiscal issues. Implementation of Real-ID is expected to take a heavy toll on the financial resources of the individual states.
Following Chertoff’s “grow up” comment, Schweitzer shot back that he was offended by the Homeland Security secretary’s reprimand. Schweitz went on to say Chertoff’s remarks showed the Homeland Security’s “disrespect for the serious and legitimate concerns of our citizens.”
Montana residents are noted for independence and defiance when confronted by federal edict.
Schweitzer sent his letter to the governors of Illinois, Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Nevada, Nebraska, Missouri, Washington, North Dakota, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Arizona and Hawaii.
Schweitzer is pressing for congressional action to pass legislation that would stop Real ID. It would reestablish a commission that was working on driver’s license regulations prior to passage of Real ID.
It will be interesting to see if the rebelling states can stand up to the federal government on this issue. Opposition to Real ID goes far beyond simple defiance. Its roots are embedded in the principle the power of the federal government should be limited.
We’ve traveled many a mile on Big Brother’s road and we’re a paying a heavy price in terms of our freedoms.
The journey is taking us into a land where we’re video taped in private and on public avenues; a land where micro-chips will track our whereabouts; a land where bureaucrats like Chertoff fire ill-considered and chillingly arrogant reprimands at the citizens whose Constitution he is swore to uphold.
It is in a sense, the duty of all Americans to oppose tyranny in any form.
We’re far better off at risk, than bound in chains restricting our freedoms in the name of a security. A thing with an impossible guarantee.
Add your comments
Not already registered? Then click Here.
Comment policy:
JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.
In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.
We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.
No comment may contain:
* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.
If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.
|
|
|
The Question wrote on Jan 26, 2008 5:50 AM: