Keep the Inauguration!
(Just Rid of the Presidency)
by
Anthony Gregory
by Anthony Gregory
Liberal
Democrats and other opponents of the Bush administration have found,
in the inauguration this week, a new target for their disdain and
protest. Specifically, the lavishness of the ceremony and accompanying
festivities, and their sheer cost, seem inappropriate to many liberals,
in these times of ours marked by economic troubles and a quagmire
in Iraq. Bush’s detractors seem to think that the $40 million price
tag – although privately provided – would do more good if sent to
Iraq in the form of body protection or armored vehicles, items that
even Rumsfeld admits are inadequately funded, at least insofar as
the U.S. war aims are concerned. More compellingly, anti-Bush partisans
argue that the $100 million or so in taxpayer money, earmarked to
fund security, is a heavy cost for what seems to be a mere celebration
of gloating and triumphant nose-thumbing on the part of the Republican
establishment. On a more general note, opponents of the inauguration
claim that Bush already had his moment in the sun in January of
2001, and he hardly needs another festival of hysterical praise
and glory, especially considering the divisiveness of the modern
polity and the controversial nature of his policies, particularly
the war.
Of
course, the conservative defenders of all things Bush have a solid
point on the $40 million: this is private money, and however it
is spent is hardly anyone’s business. On this, at least, libertarians
might have some sympathies for Bush’s supporters. Another point
made by the Republicans – that, after all, Clinton got his big parties
too, and liberals did not complain then – has some validity as it
relates to liberal partisan hypocrisy, though I’ve personally never
been won over by the "Clinton did it, so why can’t we?"
line of reasoning, which we so often hear from conservatives these
days.
On
the other hand, the anti-inauguration folks make some good points
to which libertarians can be somewhat sympathetic. This week features
the most naked glorification of the presidency in the public sphere
since the election last November, and the formal elevation of Ronald
Reagan to the status of an official U.S. deity before that. It is
hard for any true lover of liberty to sit through the coverage of
such a spectacle – the virtual coronation of a man to the position
of Leader of the Free World and Defender of All That Is American
and Holy. Making this particular inauguration that much more difficult
to withstand are the particularly low quality of Mr. Bush as any
sort of defender of the Constitution and American liberty, and the
fact that, since this is Bush’s second term, we don’t even get the
silver lining of seeing one tyrant thrown out of office, even if
only to be replaced by another.
However,
aside from the glorification of the presidency – and a president
who, admittedly, might very well prove in the next four years to
be the worst since Harry Truman – the most principled argument against
this ritual is its cost to the taxpayer. But $100 million, or any
similar figure, as much as it is in real terms, is no more than
the amount the federal government spends every twenty or so minutes.
Furthermore, the money spent "securing" the integrity
of the inauguration – and, presumably, keeping protesters out of
camera shot – while being spent on what can only be considered a
tradition of state worship and imperial vainglory, has no realistic
chance of being spent by the federal government on anything of
greater benefit to liberty or the general welfare of the American
people. To the libertarian, the desperate plea that the money should
instead go to feed the poor or employ the jobless is without much
merit, considering the failings and destructiveness of public-sector
economic planning; and the cynical argument that "we"
would do better to send the cash to Iraq is likewise unattractive,
considering the aggressive nature of the war that we do not want
to see funded in the first place.
This
is not to say that the institution of inauguration, in all its current
implications, costs, and meaning, is something libertarians should
defend. Certainly, one hundred million dollars is one hundred million
dollars, and, despite its infinitesimal size in relation to the
federal budget, it is still unclear why anyone deserves such
a subsidy from the central state for a fiesta in his honor. Moreover,
as indicated before, Bush is a particularly bad president; a man
who has inflated the welfare-warfare state more than has been done
since the Great Society and the Vietnam War; a man who has expanded
bureaucracy, pork and deficit-spending as if there were no tomorrow;
a man who has gutted the Bill of Rights and ignored conventions
of civilized warfare in ways that are truly staggering to contemplate.
Many libertarians who found themselves queasy and distressed at
the state of the country to witness the 1997 re-inauguration of
President Clinton will likely have even more trouble holding back
the nausea at the sights of President Bush dishonestly swearing,
for the second time on international television, to uphold and defend
the Constitution as if he had any respect whatever for the limits
on his power spelled out in that document.
And
this, of course, is the real problem. While the inauguration reminds
many of us – including the partisan liberals who resent seeing the
media fawn and the red-staters bow before the political supremacy
of the Republican Party personified – of how much we do not like
George W. Bush and how much we resent seeing even 35˘ of our personal
wealth (on average) go to an extraneous and sickening display of
the unmatched power and influence held by this man over all us mere
peons, it is the power itself, and not the lavishness of a party
for a man we do not like, that truly makes this inauguration controversy
any subject of disagreement at all. The modern presidency comprises
and commands more power and potential for manmade destruction than
have ever been consolidated elsewhere in the domain of one government,
much less the hands of one man, in world history. Bush, like those
presidents immediately before him, commands the most powerful and
expansive military empire ever developed on Planet Earth, and has,
at his disposal, the more subtle mechanisms of tyranny within the
domestic leviathan state. Like those before him, Bush as President
claims and generally maintains the capacity to spy on anyone in
America, seize anyone’s bank account, tax anyone into poverty, invade
and attempt to conquer virtually any country, and, indeed, if he
ultimately feels so inclined, detonate demonic nuclear weapons and
destroy entire civilizations all around the globe. While we might
fret at the $100 million wasted on his parade, we cannot ignore
the $2.5 trillion – about a third of which he has added himself
since taking office – that composes the budget of the coercive state
he heads, a massive state which, unfortunately, is thought to be
held by him legitimately, or at least is thought to exist legitimately,
by most partisan opponents of the comparatively meager, however
symbolically Caesarian, $100 million inauguration party.
The
American political process, which every four years endows such unspeakable
power to a man that the vast majority of the people never chose
to lead them and at least a sizable minority of whom do not find
particularly trustworthy or likeable, inevitably results in grave
division in our culture, the inauguration and the controversy surrounding
it being mere symptoms of this disease. To be sure, the conservatives
who defend Bush’s costly celebration are right that liberals, by
and large, did not protest the same way when the man of the hour
was Bill Clinton. But did these conservatives feel as compelled
to defend the tradition of inauguration, and the imperial presidency
it signifies, when the subject to be honored was Slick Willy? And
will they be as quick to speak of the importance of this tradition
and the necessity for national unity on the next significant January
20th, whether four, eight or twelve years from now, when
the man (or woman) being celebrated so enthusiastically by the press
and political punditry happens to be a Democrat?
I
do believe that many people who take a stand on this inauguration
controversy are missing the rainforest for the trees. They understand,
on a subliminal level at least, the importance of this ceremony,
but they fail to grasp the ungodly power it represents. They also
fail to understand the bipartisan nature of most policy questions.
Whether a Republican or Democrat runs the show, the show itself
is nearly identical: war, graft, corruption, pork, central-planning
disasters, lies, propaganda and assaults on our civil liberties
all occur under both R and D – albeit, perhaps, with differing public-relations
flavoring and cosmetic and rhetorical dressing, and maybe even with
some slight differences in priorities on whom gets most abused by
the state and who most stands to benefit.
Indeed,
most liberal protesters probably do not have much to win or lose
from Republican vs. Democratic rule; and the same is probably true
for many defenders of Bush’s honor. And if this controversy is every
bit as superficial and detached from the real issues at hand as
the pristine inauguration is detached from the evils of the presidency
itself, perhaps we can come up with a compromise.
Let’s
eliminate the modern presidency, as far as the power it wields,
and leave in place only a shell of the presidency. Every four years
we will have a popularity contest, some time in November, the winner
of which gets a four-year post in a magnificent, beautiful office
in a white mansion in Washington, DC. The job will pay $400,000
a year, and will come with an elegant jet, butler, driver, and many
other such luxuries. Food and clothing will be paid for. Upon coming
into office, the new man or woman, who presides ceremoniously over
those who wish to revel in his or her influence and honorary prestige,
will be asked to put his or her hand on the Bible and swear or confirm
a promise not to cause too much trouble in the next four years,
and to try not to make too much of a mess at his or her new home.
The
federal government and its empire will be disbanded, and so the
office will only be symbolic. The office of the new presidency will
probably cost, at most, $10 million to maintain annually, which
can easily be funded from advertising revenue and selling tickets
to State of the Union addresses. In all likelihood, the most popular
person in America will be chosen mostly because of how engaging,
inspiring, and funny his or her speeches are – which is how the
president is largely chosen today – but there would be no façade
that the presidency has any real substance beyond that. The arguments
over style, rhetoric and esthetics, which already dominate political
debate if you listen closely, will finally suit the power of the
new presidency, which will amount to zero.
The
team spirit and childish mentality of Red vs. Blue, Republican vs.
Democrat, and conservative vs. liberal, may remain. Since most people
who actively cheer on one party or the other, regardless of what
they might believe are their political principles, seem to be far
more interested in party loyalty than they are concerned with, or
even aware of, the actual, minute policy differences between the
two parties, these partisans of partisanship can keep their battle
over the presidential office in all its historic symbolism, but
without the danger that anyone will actually get hurt by the actions
of the winner.
Many
of those who today prefer the Democrats or Republicans merely as
the least bad of two alternatives will likely feel even better having
the destructive presidency gone from their lives altogether.
And
the inauguration can remain – and it would be a wonderful event,
much like the Superbowl or World Series. It would likely become
a benefit to the economy, rather than a drain, as it would make
for good entertainment and healthy competitive spirit, with winners
but far fewer sore losers, and certainly without any victims of
taxation, war or central planning. If the absence of these state-caused
horrors does in fact mean that the glory of the presidency would
decline and so no one would be interested in donating to the inauguration,
so be it. We can then detect whether or not the inauguration budget
is truly "private," as today’s conservatives defend it
as being, once the presidency itself, and not only the inauguration
and celebrations associated with it, becomes entirely privatized,
including in its funding.
To
top it all off, every new president, stripped completely of all
actual power, would no longer require $100 million in tax-financed
security, and the controversy over the inauguration would likely
disappear along with all the other stupid political controversies
of our time.
 January
20, 2005
Anthony
Gregory [send him mail]
is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California.
He is a research assistant at the Independent
Institute. See
his webpage for more
articles and personal information.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Anthony
Gregory Archives
|
