A Constitutional Conservative?
June 29th, 2011 Aaron Rainwater
With the 2012 presidential campaign season now well underway, the GOP has found a new potential frontrunner in the three-term Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. Her unofficial announcement of a presidential campaign, at the second Republican presidential debate on June 13th, 2011, grabbed the attention of viewers, just as gimmicks are meant to. It’s undeniable that Bachmann has garnered a significant following, especially among certain factions of the tea party, since her arrival to the national stage in 2006. But one simple question needs to be asked: why?
As someone who witnessed, first hand, the “Rand-slide” in Kentucky last fall, which was just one of many signals that voters wanted a drastic change on Capitol Hill, it is bewildering that voters would fall for such a “business as usual” candidate. At first glance, Bachmann’s voting record appears to carry many of the hallmarks of genuine conservatism. But the real test of her pro-freedom credentials, or lack there of, lies not in the quantity of votes she has cast, but in the quality or importance of the subjects her votes effect. As Ayn Rand said, “In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win.” Stated differently: you can drink a gallon of water, but if so much as a single drop of a powerful enough poison falls into your drink, you will still die no matter how harmless the pure water may have been.
On May 26, 2011, Congress failed to pass an amendment put forth by Rep. Justin Amash that would remove a section of the annual Defense Authorization Bill which, essentially, grants the President the power to unilaterally make-war against any enemy, whether they be on distant sands or right here at home, just such an act was committed by our current Commander in Chief when he chose to carry out unmistakable acts of war in Libya.
But what does this have to do with Bachmann? She voted against Amash’s amendment, and, in doing so, fully endorsed the view that presidential usurpation of powers clearly delegated to Congress by the Constitution is actually quite acceptable. That’s strike one.
On June 24, 2011, Bachmann was one of the 27 out of 59 Tea Party Caucus members in the House to vote against a bill put forth by Republicans that would cut a significant amount of federal funding from the NATO led military maneuver in Libya. That’s strike two. Although this particular “strike” is based on the motivation and explanation of her vote, not the vote itself. In regard to her vote against this bill, Bachmann said “There was an opportunity today to limit funding to a Libyan operation, but I could not support it because it does not go far enough. Funds must be fully cut off to the president’s involvement in Libya.” While any genuine constitutionalist would agree that all funding should be stripped from this effort, why would any such person vote against a bill that supposedly goes far towards that goal? Could it be that there is another reason she voted against the bill? Sure. But if that’s the case, why not cite such motivation? Perhaps the bill wasn’t really focused on cutting, so much as official authorization of illegal acts? That would be a very acceptable reason to vote against it. Considering the contents of the bill, the fact that her only defense is that it “does not go far enough” gives the distinct impression that she never even read the bill to begin with. Haven’t voters had enough of politicians not reading the bills they vote on? Texas Congressman Ron Paul, also a presidential candidate, shed light on the true nature of the bill saying that it “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war.” Elaborating on this, Paul explains that if HR 2278 passes, “the president would be authorized to use US Armed Forces to engage in search and rescue; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; aerial refueling; and operational planning against Libya.” Unfortunately for President Obama, without a congressional declaration of war, such activities are unlawful.
In Bachmann’s case, having provided such a weak defense of her vote on this bill leaves two speculative options: the first being that she, in fact, did not read the bill. The second option being that she was, indeed, aware of the contents and decided that voting against it for the sake of appearing fiscally conservative would satisfy many of her colleagues and constituents while not drawing too much attention to the unconstitutionality of American foreign policy, as long as she played the rhetorical game correctly.
The disconnect between her rhetoric and legislative action suggest that she is nothing more than a political opportunist seeking to cover sympathies for presidential powers more characteristic of kings and emperors. She may talk a good game, but after two key opportunities to stand up for constitutional foreign policy, she has chosen to do the opposite. Unfortunately, her affronts to the constitution do not end here.
In 2009, Bachmann voted in favor of H.R. 4061 Cybersecurity Enhancement Act, which grants the President extensive powers to abridge the rights protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. This is, of course, done under the guise of protecting national security. The language of the bill would have granted the President an effective kill switch over any network or information system he viewed to be a threat or at risk of becoming one. It is dubious, at best, to suggest that the passage of such a bill wouldn’t open the door to even further government control of the internet, a domain our public servants are all too eager to lay their grasp on. In addition to the draconian powers, over cyberspace, Bachmann voted to give the President, her vote also supported the spending of $395 million for ‘Computer and Network Security Research Grants’ for the construction of new buildings and research grants devoted to subsidizing education and post-doctoral studies. An additional $108 million is tagged in Section 107 for the ‘Federal Cyber Scholarship for Service’ program grants free tuition in exchange for requiring recipients to work for the federal government.
If this were baseball, Bachmann would be off the plate by now.
In 2010, Bachmann voted against H.R. 5486 Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act that would have provided tax breaks to small business, allowing them catch a breath in an increasingly anti-business climate. So while claiming to be a champion of lower taxes for all Americans, and mixed voting record to support, or challenge, this claim, Bachmann sporadically chose to jab a fiscal knife into the sides of America’s small business owners by voting against this bill.
As of March, 2011, Bachmann remained convinced of the necessity of continued military occupation of Afghanistan by U.S. forces, an exercise in nation building and interventionism that mainstream America became exhausted with years ago, and continues to heavily contribute to the breaking of this nation’s fiscal back. Regardless, Bachman voted against H.Con.Res.28 which would have greatly accelerated the process of withdrawing American armed forces from Afghanistan.
Bachmann’s willingness to overlook the serious consequences of U.S. interventionism that are visited on Americans as acts of terrorism, is not at all limited to foreign affairs, but also applies just as extensively to domestic policy, if not more so. For the sake of protecting Americans from many of the same evils actually created by the U.S. government, Bachmann, having voted to continue the PATRIOT ACT, fully endorses the use of warrantless wiretapping, illegal searches and seizures of property, as well as voting having voted against H R 207 which would forbid the TSA from utilizing full-body scanners as a primary means of mandatory inspection methods. If there is a single area of consistency for Bachmann, this is it. She never hesitates to sacrifice liberty for security in the crusade against terror, no matter how many unintended consequences may arise from it.
Despite Bachmann’s, supposed, public fidelity to fiscal conservatism and her belief in laissez faire capitalism, Bachmann seems to feel quite differently about the legitimacy of government welfare in her personal life. According to Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that monitors the use of American agricultural subsidies, Bachmann’s family farm was given $251, 973 in federal subsidies from 1995 to 2006. The estimated value of Bachmann’s share in the farm is, roughly, $250,000. Bachmann’s own financial disclosure forms reveal she had been receiving income from the farm, which, in 2008, was the modest sum of $50,000. This is of course in addition to her congressional salary of $174,000 a year. As correct as she might be when criticizing the morality or efficacy of federal supplements in the market, she is hypocritical at best.
If American conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians, or just freedom-loving voters in general, wish to continue the revolution on capital hill, that was kicked off last fall, Bachmann must be seen for what she really is: a rhetorical opportunist who will vote away essential liberties and sacrifice the youth of this nation to wage never-ending aggressive wars that do nothing but undermine the very principles she claims to represent.
http://mockpolitics.com/?p=2133
