 |
Tuesday,
January 27, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
We
cannot sacrifice liberty for the sake of security
Brian Chatman is a sophomore news editorial journalism
major from Fort Worth.
Let
the campaigning begin. With the State of the Union address,
President Bush has clearly begun to put out ideas that
do little, yet will placate many moderate voices and buy
votes. The State of the Union address was less about actual
policy, and more about building up actions taken by the
President — or events that occurred under his watch.
Bush gave his tax cuts credit for the economic recovery.
While we may be in the beginning of a recovery, we still
have a long way to go. As Sen. Kerry pointed out after
the speech, a recent administration goal to create 250,000
jobs produced only 1,000. The stock market has recovered
because companies have laid off enough workers to become
profitable. And if this administration wanted to speed
up recovery they would have given tax cuts to the lower
and middle classes and not the upper class.
Bush played up the international involvement in our war
in Iraq. Even if Great Britain or Pakistan’s government
support us, American forces are still left with the majority
of the burden. We do need support, and disregarding world
opinion will not give us that. The reasons for the war
were characterized as moral. In actuality, they were about
political convenience. Morally, Saddam should have been
overthrown in the 80s before we armed him and allowed
him to use chemical weapons on Kurdish villages.
Many promises were made regarding health care. Ideas like
tax-free health-savings accounts, and health care premium
deductions would be a step in the right direction. Though
they will still fail if drastic government funding is
not put behind them. While more people will get insurance,
many will still go uninsured.
Republicans claim to stand for smaller, more efficient
government that allows the people to use their own money
as they see fit. If that were what they really stood for,
I would be a card-carrying member. The Bush agenda may
give people their money back, but freedom is the cost.
The “sanctity of marriage” is not the venue
of the government. Marriage is defined by one’s religious
beliefs and those beliefs are what law should protect.
Religious charities should be given equal opportunity
at social service grants, but the idea of government sanctioned
“faith-based initiatives” is merely a sugarcoated
attempt at establishing a state endorsed religion.
The Patriot Act may help stop terrorism, but it allows
for violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments
even for those who are not terrorist suspects. Ben Franklin
said it best, “Those who would sacrifice liberty
for security deserve neither.”
The president spoke contemptuously about the “status
quo.” He then maintained the validity of laws that
infringe upon personal freedom for the sake of maintaining
that status quo. If we continue to elect officials that
pass and uphold laws that prevent this country from living
up to its creed, then what exactly is this so-called “war
on terror” protecting us from? I think President
Bush is absolutely right in saying that the status quo
will always have its defenders — he is one —
and should be looked at with contempt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
