The manufactured divide: rhetoric aside, little of substance separated George W. Bush from John Kerry--and a second Bush term will do nothing to reduce the size, expense, and power of government.

The narrowness of President Bush's margin of re-election victory over John Kerry vividly illustrates that little of substance separated the candidates from each other. This is further demonstrated by the fact that many voters in key states, such as Ohio, remained undecided literally up to the moment they cast their votes. It's difficult to believe that so many voters would have suffered such paralyzing indecision had Bush and Kerry presented starkly defined alternatives.

The Economist of Great Britain tidily summarized the election as a contest between "incompetence" and "incoherence." The noteworthy differences between the major candidates could be reduced to caricature: one candidate couldn't carry on a simple conversation in recognizable English without the aid of cue cards; the other couldn't decide on a dinner entree without commissioning a poll and would then change his mind before the appetizer was served. But each of them was a New England-born product of exclusive prep schools, Harvard and Yale, and the elitist secret society Skull and Bones. And both were surrounded by a retinue of advisers drawn from the Council on Foreign Relations (to which Senator Kerry belongs).

In a very real sense, the only significant distinction between Bush and Kerry is one of marketing: Mr. Bush was packaged as a champion of Middle American values, while Senator Kerry was pitched to the public as the voice of cosmopolitan moderation. As the New York Times noted in a post-election analysis, Bush's re-election offered "the clearest confirmation yet that this is a center-right country.... [F]ully one-fifth of voters said they cared most about 'moral values'--as many as cared about terrorism and the economy--and 8 in 10 of them chose Mr. Bush."

According to conservative political commentator Robert Novak, the Bush re-election illustrates that the Democratic Party is "out of touch with the country on social issues, the role of government and the war against terrorism.... [T]he anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, socially conservative agenda is ascendant, and the GOP will not abandon it any time soon." Approaching the matter from a different direction, liberal New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman offered a similar assessment, concluding that Mr. Bush's re election resulted from "an outpouring of support ... by people who don't just favor different policies than I do--they favor a whole different kind of America."

Ironically, Friedman's lamentation provided the most crucial insight into the most recent election. "It seemed as if people were not voting on [Mr. Bush's] performance," observed the Times columnist. "it seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on."

Friedman's analogy works, up to a point. Contending teams in sporting events, after all, don't compete to define the nature and rules of the game; rather, each of them tries to beat the other in achieving the same objective. As has been the case for decades, during the 2004 presidential election, the major party candidates competed for the privilege of implementing an agenda defined by the ruling Establishment--which was itself the true victor in the contest.

Georgetown historian Carroll Quigley, an academic mentor of Bill Clinton, was a key chronicler of the emergence of the Power Elite and an astute student of its methods. He famously described the Establishment's political game plan in his 1966 book Tragedy and Hope:

   The chief problem of American political
   life for a long time has been
   how to make the two [major] parties
   more national and international. The
   argument that the two parties should
   represent opposed ideals and policies,
   one, perhaps, of the Right and
   the other of the Left, is a foolish idea
   acceptable only to doctrinaire and
   academic thinkers. Instead, the two
   parties should be almost identical, so
   that the American people can "throw
   the rascals out" at any election without
   leading to any profound or extensive
   shifts in policy.... [E]ither party
   in office becomes in time corrupt,
   tired, unenterprising, and vigorless.
   Then it should be possible to replace
   it, every four years if necessary, by
   the other party, which will be none
   of those things but will still pursue,
   with new vigor, approximately the
   same basic policies.

The most remarkable aspect of President Bush's victory has been left completely unremarked by the mainstream media. Through the Bush administration, the Power Elite described by Quigley has firmly enlisted Middle America--particularly the conservative Evangelical community--into building the total state through unlimited government at home and unlimited warfare abroad.

Fictitious Partisan "Divide"

In his November 3 concession speech, Senator Kerry promised "to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide." That task should pose little difficulty, since that divide--in substantive terms--has rarely if ever been narrower than it is now.

The narrowness of that divide was displayed in remarks made by Bush and Kerry during their three pre-election debates:

* United Nations at the center of the "war on terror": In the first Bush-Kerry debate, Senator Kerry upbraided the president for going to the United Nations tardily and reluctantly for support in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. "It wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you've got to go to the UN, that the president finally changed his mind ... and went to the United Nations," asserted Kerry. To which Mr. Bush testily replied: "I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I went there myself."

* Invasion and occupation of Iraq: "What my opponent wants you to forget," Mr. Bush correctly observed in the first debate, "is that he voted to authorize the use of force [against Iraq] and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." The president also noted that Senator Kerry "looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat." (Ironically, this amounts to criticizing Senator Kerry for giving credence to the administration's artfully misleading pre-war "intelligence" regarding the supposed threat from Iraq.) After stating in the first debate that "the president made a mistake in invading Iraq," Kerry was asked by the moderator if American soldiers are "now dying in Iraq for a mistake." Kerry replied: "No, and they don't have to providing we have the leadership ... that I'm offering"--meaning that Kerry offered to do a better job of carrying out what he had described as a mistaken policy.

* Support for embryonic stem-cell experimentation: "I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem-cell research," stated Kerry during the second debate, criticizing President Bush for supposedly "mak[ing] it impossible for our scientists" to use human embryos in medical experiments. President Bush correctly observed: "Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell." In the very next breath, the president boasted: "I'm the first president ever to allow funding--federal funding--for embryonic stem cell research."

* "Tolerance" toward homosexuality and homosexual "couples": While both Bush and Kerry promised to honor the unique status of marriage as a union of a man and a woman, they also pointedly rebuked anti-homosexual "prejudice." "[W]e have a choice to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity," replied Mr. Bush when asked in the third debate if homosexuality was a chosen behavior. He also maintained that "in a free society, consenting adults can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored." Senator Kerry's comments on the matter--apart from a gratuitous and politically imprudent reference to Vice President Cheney's lesbian daughter--were all but indistinguishable from the president's.

* Roe v. Wade is safe: In a political career that has been littered with equivocation, John Kerry--like nearly all liberal Democrats--has been a stalwart defender of abortion. During the third debate, Kerry promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would preserve the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that struck down all state laws against abortion: "I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade." Referring to Mr. Bush, Kerry continued: "The president has never said whether or not he would do that. But we know from the people he's tried to appoint to the court he wants to. I will not."

Later in the debate, moderator Bob Schieffer reminded Mr. Bush that Kerry claimed "that you had never said whether you would like to overturn Roe v. Wade. So I'd ask you directly, would you like to?" "What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges?" replied the president. "And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test." In his rebuttal, Senator Kerry correctly observed: "Well, again. the president didn't answer the question."

* Amnesty for illegal aliens: "I don't believe we ought to have an amnesty," stated President Bush during the third debate, held in immigration-conscious Tempe, Arizona. He also plugged his proposed "guest worker" program, which amounts to an amnesty that would allow "willing employees" from abroad--including illegal aliens--to connect with "willing employers" in the United States. Senator Kerry also endorsed an "earned-legalization program" that would permit those who have violated our immigration laws to "start moving ... toward full citizenship"--an approach that is largely indistinguishable from that proposed by the Bush administration.

One Agenda

Throughout the campaign, Senator Kerry consistently endorsed key elements of the Bush agenda while insisting that he would implement them better. One telling case in point was the "No Child Left Behind" education reform bill, which radically expanded the federal government's role in education. Kerry repeatedly chided President Bush for supposedly under-funding the measure, which genuine conservatives recognize as entirely unconstitutional.

In similar fashion, Kerry endorsed the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would begin the process of consolidating the entire Western Hemisphere into a European Union-style socialist superstate. The FTAA, which would build on the North American Free Trade Agreement, has been supported by congressional leaders from both parties, as well as every Republican and Democrat presidential contender since it was first proposed in 1994. President Bush and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill anticipate having a completed FTAA pact ready for congressional approval in early 2005.

Kerry voted to ratify NAFTA in 1993. In characteristic fashion, the senator subsequently condemned the accord during the 2004 campaign. However, in an interview published by the Hispanic business magazine Poder in August, Kerry not only endorsed the FTAA but actually described it as the foundation for an EU-style "Community of the Americas."

In matters both foreign and domestic, George W. Bush and John F. Kerry embraced the same program, with only minor changes of emphasis. Furthermore, in post-election comments intended as a preview of his second-term agenda, President Bush entirely avoided mentioning the "moral issues" that catalyzed his conservative supporters.

"I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it for what I've told the people I'd spend it on," commented President Bush during his November 4 press conference. In domestic terms, "the model" would be "the No Child Left Behind Act." As recently as 1996, the Republican Party called for abolishing the Department of Education. Now a "conservative" president was citing an unprecedented expansion of that department as a "model" for domestic activism.

Historically, Republican conservatives have condemned nation-building, foreign aid, and similar long term foreign entanglements as utopian nonsense. Yet President Bush used the same press conference to describe his re-election as a mandate for "our vision of spreading freedom through out the greater Middle East"--a "vision" first implemented in the invasion of Iraq, and one anticipating similar "peaceful" initiatives in Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. And Mr. Bush made it clear that he considers it his prerogative to decide when, where, and against whom our nation will go to war. "I laid out a doctrine" dealing with terror-sponsoring states, he explained, offering an utterly Orwellian elaboration: "I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful."

But that's not the limit of Mr. Bush's utopian ambitions. "We have an obligation in this country to continue to work with nations to help alleve [sic] poverty and disease," he continued during his November 4 press conference. "We will continue to press forward on the HIV/AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. We will continue to do our duty to help feed the hungry."

The millions of conservative Americans who supported President Bush as the candidate of smaller government should be distressed to discover that he has interpreted their support as a mandate for more activist government both at home and abroad. But as Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter observed after the election, this is entirely predictable: "Because the conservative base has now done its job and helped to re-elect [Bush], he is free to take it for granted."

"Will of the People"

"I've got the will of the people at my back," stated a smiling President Bush during the press conference, playfully warning overeager reporters to limit their questions. When one reporter tried to slip in a follow-up, the president remarked: "Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people." While it was clear that Mr. Bush was having fun at the expense of the White House Press Corps, such comments resonate with previous remarks that were not intended in jest--and that suggest a disposition better suited to an autocrat than a constitutional chief executive.

In the October 16 New York Times magazine, reporter Ron Susskind recounted the experience of congressional leaders who were brought to a White House briefing on Iraq in October 2002. Congress was considering a resolution to authorize President Bush to enforce UN disarmament decrees against Iraq. One Republican senator described how President Bush told the congressional leaders: "Look, I want your vote. I'm not going to debate it with you." As one senator began to ask a question, the president abruptly cut him off: "Look, I'm not going to debate it with you."

In his book Bush at War, a favorable account written with extensive White House cooperation, reporter Bob Woodward related a very similar statement from Mr. Bush describing what he perceives to be the prerogatives of a wartime president:

   I'm the commander--see, I don't
   need to explain--I do not need to
   explain why I say things. That's the
   interesting thing about being the
   president. Maybe somebody needs
   to explain to me why they say something,
   but I don't feel like I owe anybody
   an explanation.

Under this model of the presidency, Congress simply acts as an instrument of the president's will. The president himself, drawing his legitimacy directly from the people, enjoys essentially unlimited power. A similar model was explained in detail in the Organization Book of the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party. Referring to the Supreme Leader, or "Fuhrer," the Nazi manual explained: "He shapes the collective will of the people within himself and enjoys the political unity and entirety of the people in opposition to individual interests.... [His] power is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited.... He is responsible only to his conscience and the people...."

Many supporters of George W. Bush are so besotted with the man, and so delighted that the Republican Party controls the White House and both Houses of Congress, that they refuse to understand the dangers inherent in the imperial presidency. Such people apparently believe that the present political alignment will continue indefinitely, and that the Bush administration can be trusted with the extra-constitutional powers it has gained in order to enact "value-based" policies both at home and abroad.

Leaving aside the fact that the second Bush term will do even less to advance conservative values than the first, conservatives have a very compelling reason to rein in the presidency by activating Congress to carry out its constitutional functions. That reason is named Hillary Rodham Clinton--and she is already warming up for a presidential bid in 2008. It's not difficult to imagine the uses to which a second President Clinton would put the expanded executive powers claimed by the second President Bush.

But in the long run it's useless for genuine conservatives to focus their efforts on propelling the "right" candidate into the Oval Office--or, at least, keeping the "wrong" one out. Nobody should be considered qualified to exercise the grotesquely bloated powers of the presidency in its present form. The most urgent task ahead is to restore Congress to its properly preeminent role, and to make that body accountable to the people.

Incoming and Departing Congressmen

Following are the new members of the 109th Congress and departing
members of the 108th Congress. Republicans are italicized and
Democrats are in regular type. Percentages indicate THE NEW AMERICAN'S
cumulative "Conservative Index" score for the 108th Congress.

STATE/DISTRICT        NEW CONGRESSMAN       DEPARTING CONGRESSMAN

                   Incumbent Defeated in Primary

HOUSE
Texas 9th             Al Green              Chris Bell (30%)
Texas 28th            Henry Cuellar         Ciro D. Rodriguez (33%)

               Incumbent Defeated in General Election

SENATE
S. Dakota             John Thune            Tom Daschle (28%)

HOUSE
Georgia 12th          John Barrow           Max Burns (40%)
Illinois 8th          Melissa Bean          Philip M. Crane (53%n)
Indiana 9th           Mike Sodrel           Baron P. Hill (25%)
Texas 1st             Louie Gohmert         Max Sandlin (44%)
Texas 2nd             Ted Poe               Nick Lampson (40%)
Texas 17th (old) (1)                        Charles Stenholm (35%)
Texas 24th (old) (1)                        Martin Frost (30%)

            Incumbent Did Not Seek Re-election (Open Seat)

SENATE
Colorado              Ken Salazar           B. Nightharse Campbell (50%)
Florida               Mel Martinez          Bob Graham (33%)
Georgia               Johnny Isakson        Zell Miller (64%)
Illinois              Barack Obama          Peter G. Fitzgerald (55%)
Louisiana             David Vitter          John B. Breaux (26%)
N. Carolina           Rep. Richard M. Burr  John Edwards (30%)
Oklahoma              Tom Coburn            Don Nickles (65%)
S. Carolina           Jim DeMint            Ernest F. Hollings (35%)

HOUSE
California 3rd        Dan Lungren           Doug Ose (28%)
California 20th       Jim Costa             Cal Dooley (19%)
Colorado 3rd          John Salazar          Scott McInnis (38%)
Florida 14th          Connie Mack           Porter J. Goss (34%) (2)
Florida 20th          D. Wasserman Schultz  Peter Deutsch (47%)
Georgia 4th           Cynthia McKinney      Denise L. Majette (28%)
Georgia 6th           Tom Price             Johnny Isakson (44%)
Georgia 8th           Lynn Westmoreland     Mac Collins (45%)
Illinois 3rd          Dan Lipinski          William O. Lipinski (50%)
Kentucky 4th          Geoff Davis           Ken Lucas (35%)
Louisiana 1st         Bobby Jindal          David Vitter (35%)
Louisiana 3rd (3)                           Billy Tauzin (31%)
Louisiana 7th (3)                           Chris John (38%)
Michigan 7th          Joe Schwarz           Nick Smith (66%)
Missouri 3rd          Russ Carnahan         Richard Gephardt (36%)
Missouri 5th          Emanuel Cleaver II    Karen McCarthy (31%)
Nebraska 1st          Jeff Fortenberry      Doug Bereuter (28%) (2)
New York 27th         Brian Higgins         Jack Quinn (39%)
New York 29th         Randy Kuhl            Amo Houghton (26%)
N. Carolina 5th       Virginia Foxx         Richard M. Burr (40%)
N. Carolina 10th      Patrick McHenry       Cass Ballenger (38%)
Oklahoma 2nd          Dan Boren             Brad Carson (39%)
Pennsylvania 8th      Mike Fitzpatrick      James Greenwood (23%)
Pennsylvania 13th     Allyson Schwartz      Joseph M. Hoeffel (37%)
Pennsylvania 15th     Charlie Dent          Patrick J. Toomey (59%)
S. Carolina 4th       Bob Inglis            Jim DeMint (46%)
Texas 2nd (old) (1)                         Jim Turner (38%)
Texas 10th (1)        Michael McCaul
Texas 11th (1)        Mike Conaway
Texas 24th (1)        Kenney Marchant
Virginia 2nd          Thelma Drake          Ed Schrock (47%)
Washington 5th        Cathy McMorris        George Nethercutt (33%)
Washington 8th        Dave Reichert         Jennifer Dunn (33%)
Wisconsin 4th         Gwen Moore            Gerald D. Kleczka (42%)

(1.) Because Texas' districts were redrawn, incoming and departing
congressmen could not he matched up in every instance. Two departing
Texas congressmen, Charles Stenholm and Martin Frost, were defeated in
incumbent vs. incumbent races.

(2.) Rep. Goss resigned in Sept. 2004 and Rep. Bereuter resigned in
Aug. 2004.

(3.) Two Louisiana House races will be decided in December 4 "runoff"
elections because of a state law requiring a candidate to win at least
50% of the vote.