Waco
and the Corruption of Liberalism
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell,
Jr.
The
mainstream press is trying to ignore it, but the government’s role
in the fire at Waco seven years ago is finally on trial, thanks
to the wrongful-death lawsuit brought by the victims’ families.
At last, the possibility for establishing wrongdoing now presents
itself.
There
is no chance, however, for true justice. The men, women, and children
gassed and burned at government hands cannot be brought back to
life. There will be no jail terms for those responsible. At best,
the families may get some monetary compensation. And perhaps we
will see an end to the blaming of the victims and the jailing of
those who managed to survive.
How
telling that this trial takes place while Bill Clinton is busy trying
to buff up his image for the history books. Doesn’t he know that
after the smoke of the last eight years clears, the Waco massacre
will emerge as the most significant domestic event of his presidency?
He should have been forced out in the days following the incident.
Congress should have impeached him then instead of pretending that
his worst crime was fibbing about his White House sexual romps.
Waco
will be remembered forever because it sums up key features of the
political culture of the 1990s: the untrammeled power of the presidency,
the complicity of the media in covering up federal crimes, the bias
against religion among the power elite, and the disregard of individual
rights that is habitual in our time. How ironic, how telling, that
all these developments have taken place under the cloak of "liberalism,"
a word that once referred to the attempt to circumscribe the power
of the state.
Who
can forget the live pictures of the Davidian community in flames?
Clearly, the government was murdering those people. For weeks, they
had been fighting for life against a government that was terrorizing
them. This was no doomsday cult bent on suicide. For some strange
reason, and it’s never been entirely clear why, the government hated
those people.
After
the massacre, one hoped that even liberals would have sensed the
injustice. Surely the old lefties in the White House would recall
their past as crusaders against federal militarization, their shock
at Kent State, their sympathies with marginalized groups, and rise
up to denounce this federal oppression. Surely there would be shock
and outrage, even within the executive department. Resignations
would follow. Clinton would be discredited, and those responsible
for this outrage would be brought to justice.
It
was not to be so. Over the next few weeks, the media cooperated
with the Clinton administration in an amazing coverup of what was
plainly evident. Far from investigating the fire and the lies of
the White House, the media cabal demonized the Branch Davidians
and smeared anyone the "lunatic fringe"
sympathetic with their plight.
We
were told that they had probably committed suicide, or, if they
hadn’t, they merited no sympathy because of their crazy religion
and/or child abuse and/or gun stockpiling and/or drug use. Take
your pick of crimes; the Branch Davidians, most of them dead with
the survivors hauled off to prison, were not in a position to defend
themselves. Reno went on television to "take responsibility."
How courageous she is, the news weeklies told us.
The
meaning of the event had a further significance. It was the largest
display in the post-war period of what has become of American liberalism:
not a movement dedicated to protecting the liberties of minorities
or the rights of citizens, but to defending every manner of coercion
at the hands of the Leviathan state. It is for political reasons
that they turn a blind eye to the crimes of states they support.
This
same fanatical ideology denied that the Soviets had committed crimes
against humanity in the Ukraine and the Gulag. After all, these
crimes were committed in the name of progress, which to the leftist
mind means collectivization and the eradication of bourgeois prejudices.
This same cast of mind seeks to deny that the Clinton administration
did anything wrong in Waco. Even the government’s case boils down
to the claim that if the Davidians had only obeyed the government,
there would have been no deaths; hence, it is the fault of the Davidians.
In
1993, these American liberals, who had just finished cheering on
the destruction of Iraq and would later whoop it up as bombs fell
on Serbia, were willing to defend the use of military weapons against
American citizens who were minding their own business. For liberals,
it was enough that Janet Reno had decided to move against those
people. That alone was proof they deserved it. Liberalism, which
embraced statism in the Progressive Era, the planned economy in
the 30s, and outright redistributionism in the 1960s, has become
nothing more than state worship.
How
pathetic, too, to witness Congress’s attempts to investigate what
had happened at Waco. A committee summoned various lackeys from
the administration to testify. Lie after lie went unchallenged.
Witnesses with phony stories prattled on and Congressmen and their
staffs listened as if to the gospel. The committee disbanded with
the White House vindicated. But the issue wouldn’t go away, thanks
to public pressure and the hard work of a handful of political dissidents.
That
event also symbolized something about the present state of the Constitution:
instead of the balance of power, we live under a de facto executive
dictatorship. The White House never felt the need to ask permission
of the Congress before it undertook the raid, and the Congress never
raised a serious challenge to the White House’s assertion of complete
sovereignty. Our elected representatives provided the illusion of
participatory government, while Reno and various anonymous and unelected
underlings held the reins of government in reality.
In
the old days, the American system was supposed to exemplify the
ideals of democracy and self government. Not for us the system of
autocratic rule, where one man can dictate policy at the expense
of natural liberty. No indeed: we had a government of laws to which
even the rulers were subjected. But beginning decades ago and culminating
in the Clinton administration, we have tolerated regimes in love
with their own power. In the Clinton years, this has been exemplified
in the Executive Order, which Paul Begala, the glib Friend of Bill,
famously described this way: "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land.
Kinda cool."
Kinda
despotic, actually. And that kind of crack exhibits a totalitarian
mentality. But it perfectly captures the willingness of the present
regime to use any means to hold on to power. Thus is the state of
liberalism today. There are no ideals left. There is precious little
public support for their goals. There is only raw power, wielded
by courts that ignore the Constitution and unelected bureaucrats
who believe themselves to be a people set apart.
In
the former Soviet Union and its former East Bloc, in Latin America,
and in much of Europe, the term liberal refers to those who want
a society and economy free from the shackles of state control. Pascal
Salin of the University of Paris has just come out with a massive
volume with the title Liberalism, the purpose of which is
to recapture the full sense of the term as used by Ludwig
von Mises in his 1927 book of the same name.
In
this tradition, liberalism means individual rights, capitalism,
decentralism. The horrible reality is that in America, the term
liberalism refers to the exact opposite: the unquestioned power
of the executive to carry off state violence as in Waco, and to
do so with neither permission nor reprisal from any other branch
of government or the media.
Political
philosopher Paul Gottfried, author of After
Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State, has
recently noted the new vogue for the term "post-liberalism."
It refers to the theory that freedom is essentially dangerous because
it permits inequalities, discrimination, and secession from civic
culture. The modern state cannot tolerate this.
In
place of freedom, post-liberalism seeks a total state to reconstruct
people’s thinking, to coerce their every association, to manage
every business, and to prohibit the exercise of private ownership
and decision-making. Post-liberalism is also ruthless: it dreams
of eradicating its enemies by any means necessary.
This
is the basis of nearly every act of tyranny committed in present-day
America. This is the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision on prayer
at sports events. It is the basis of the Eeoc’s relentless attack
on business. It is what’s behind the federally imposed curriculum
in the public schools. It is what sustains the welfare-warfare state.
It is the genesis of the whole of the modern statist enterprise.
If
the court should rule that the Waco victims’ families deserve compensation,
or that those responsible for the invasion of property and the taking
of life should face some sort of reprisal, it would nicely symbolize
the coming turn of events: the end of the Clinton era and the possible
new dawn of a day when the state is no longer permitted absolute
power.
What
we need is not another post-liberal regime but a new appreciation
of classical liberalism in order to replace the frightening corruption
of the last eight years and before. When our communities are safe
from federal tanks, our property is our own, our associations are
private affairs, and our businesses are permitted to serve customers
and not the state, we will know that true liberalism has returned.
June
23, 2000
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. He
also edits a daily news site, LewRockwell.com.
|