George W. Bush has set this nation on a course toward fascism. If any of the Republican candidates (save perhaps Ron Paul) win the election in 2008, there is little doubt in my mind that the transformation from democracy to fascism will be complete and irreversible.
The only thing that scares me more than the prospect of another Republican presidency is the prospect that a Democratic president will do the same things that Bush has done. Unlike Bush, however, the Democratic president would do these things for all the right reasons.
Bush and friends claim that they need to detain so-called terrorists without charge and without trial in order to safeguard the country. We clamor against this, ostensibly because it is unconstitutional, but also because we know that our own dissent is dangerously close to Bush's definition of terrorism. Detention in Guantanamo Bay is wrong, and we can feel that it's wrong because we know it only takes a short leap of logic for one of us to end up there.
But what if Hillary Clinton claimed that she needed to indefinitely detain certain members of certain hate groups in order to prevent them from carrying out racial violence against minorities? What if these hate group members hadn't yet broken any law, and couldn't be charged with a crime, yet it was abundantly clear that they needed to be detained in order to save lives and prevent racial violence?
Would President Hillary Clinton do that? I fear that she might. Would Democrats support her unconstitutional actions? I fear that they would, because we Democrats don't tend to be racists and so we wouldn't be the ones who had to fear detention.
Bush and friends claim that they need to tap our phones, read our e-mail and monitor our web browsing without a warrant in order to monitor terrorist plots and safeguard the nation. We clamor against this, ostensibly because it is unconstitutional, but also because we know that this very site is probably one that is being monitored. In Bush's world, it's a very short hop from "dissent" to "terroristic plotting," and we know that could come back to bite us later.
But what if Barack Obama claimed that he needed to engage in warrantless surveillance in order to root out pedophiles and protect the nation's children? What if these pedophiles hadn't yet done anything that would allow a search warrant to be issued, yet it was abundantly clear that they needed to be watched in order to save children and prevent sexual abuse?
Would President Barack Obama do that? I fear that he might. Would Democrats support his unconstitutional actions? I fear that they would, because we Democrats don't tend to be pedophiles and so we wouldn't be the ones who had to fear that the contents of our phone calls and e-mails would be used against us.
Bush and friends claim that they need to search private homes without a warrant and without notifying the owner that a search took place. Those are the infamous black-bag searches that were created by the Patriot Act. We clamor against this, ostensibly because it is unconstitutional, but also because we know that our homes are probably the ones that are high on the list of black-bag targets. We know that Bush doesn't consider us to be with him, so that means we must be with the terrorists.
But what if John Edwards claimed that he needed to engage in black-bag searches in order to enforce a nationwide ban on semi-automatic firearms? What if the courts wouldn't issue a warrant to search a home of a person who clearly owned semi-automatic weapons? And what about the terrible danger to the law enforcement officers if they were required to perform the search while the owner of the home was present? He's a gun nut, after all.
Would President John Edwards do that? I fear that he might. Would Democrats support his unconstitutional actions? I fear that they would, because we Democrats don't tend to own semi-automatic firearms and so we wouldn't be the ones who had to fear that the contents of our homes would be searched without a warrant and without our knowledge.
I want to believe that a Democratic president will respect the Constitution and will roll back Bush's abuses of power. But I fear that a Democratic president will do the same things that Bush is doing now, only this time these things will be done for the "right" reasons against the "right" people.
Please tell me that I'm wrong.