"This morning, freedom itself was attacked," President Bush announced on September 11, shortly after several commandeered commercial aircraft facilitated the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans. Actually, it was the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that were attacked on September 11. The latest assault on American freedom is only now getting underway, courtesy of the U.S. federal government.
Most everyone has heard the old aphorism from Benjamin Franklin that people who give up liberty for security wind up with neither. Nevertheless, 66 percent of respondents in a Washington Post poll say they are prepared to sacrifice some freedoms to fight terrorism. Until last week, I thought that self-professed conservatives and libertarians, at least, understood Franklin's warning, even if many of our countrymen did not. Sadly, this has turned out not to be the case. People who have for years cogently and earnestly argued for a much-needed rollback of state power have suddenly cast their lot in with Leviathan.
Overnight, New York-based National Review Online became rife with talk of massive state empowerment. "Maybe now, in the wake of this terrible act of war, we can break our great taboo and at least consider a revival of the draft," wrote contributing editor Stanley Kurtz less than 24 hours after the attack. "The military's budget should be Washington's first priority, not its last," insisted another writer, Mark Levin. "Bush should demand broad warmaking authority," cried Washington editors John Miller and Ramesh Ponnuru.
What's going on? My libertarian friends, who were always suspicious of conservatives' commitment to limited government, would normally snort and ask, "Well, what can you expect from those statists?" Normally, that is, except that many of those libertarians now are talking in much the same way as the folks at National Review.
And Washington is ready to oblige this majority sentiment. The House of Representatives voted to shovel at least $20 billion more into a nebulous "war on terrorism" that already employs a thousand government snoopers. That isn't the half of it. The Federal Reserve stands ready to increase the hidden tax of inflation by printing billions more in greenbacks. Air travel, already larded with many nonsensical security regulations that failed to prevent last week's catastrophe, will be subject to even greater restrictions. Increased government meddling in people's financial records, personal communications, and business affairs cannot be far behind.
Certainly, the pundits are right that last Tuesday's events change everything. Never again can Americans assume they are safe in their own cities, in their homes, or in their jobs. Never again can we believe we are insulated from the actions of our government overseas, actions that needlessly make enemies for us in countries around the globe. And we can be assured that it will become increasingly difficult for ordinary citzens to opt out of the state's latest "war," a war which is sure to provoke even more attacks on Americans.
Which brings me to my main point, a point that most people, understandably ready for military retribution, will not want to hear: War is still the health of the state. And this new "war against terrorism" is even worse than the state-enhancing wars of previous eras. A war against whom? For what purpose? The conflict is ill-defined and open-ended, meaning there is, and can be, no discernible end to the calls for "sacrifice" and "emergency measures" that aggrandize government at the expense of the average person's freedom and ability to lead his life.
There are those who might call an attitude of continued skepticism toward the state during this time selfish, callous, unpatriotic, cowardly, or even worse. But war is nothing if not the biggest, ugliest, costliest, and most violent government program there is. Why should anyone expect that the same government that can't properly deliver mail is suddenly capable of "eradicating terrorism from the planet"?
There is, of course, an even larger reason to doubt the U.S. government's efficacy in prosecuting a "war against terrorism." That reason lies in the nature of what we're calling "terrorism." Is it really true, as National Review and other media outlets insist, that "The United States is a target because we are powerful, rich, and good"? Or is it more likely, as columnist Sam Francis has it, that "the terrorists attacked us because they were paying us back for what we started" in Iraq, Sudan, and other Muslim countries? If the U.S. government doesn't even understand the motives of its enemies, what hope does it have of outwitting and defeating them?
Mass murder is not something that one swallows easily with his morning coffee. Nevertheless, we must remain committed to a free society and press for a long-term solution that involves not more government, but less, both domestically and abroad. No more meddling in other nations' affairs. No more attacking people who have not done us any harm. And no more letting the state carry out its belligerent plans in our name, with the kind of dire consequences we are now seeing.
These are truly the times that try men's souls. In this present crisis, let us acquit ourselves with aplomb and affirm the enduring American values of peace and liberty that generations of our brethren have fought and died for – and that tens of thousands of innocents perished September 11 for want of.
September 18, 2001
