What a difference a Bush administration would make
By Andy Seré
The federal government's seizure of Elián Gonzalez has left the (common sense-filled) heads of many conservatives spinning. How could President Bill Clinton and Kidnapper General Janet Reno abuse executive power in such an unchecked, criminal fashion? The Right may never sink so low as to be able to comprehend such malfeasance.
One thing we do know: a President Bush (Dubya, that is) would never have allowed such a fiasco to occur on American soil, especially during Easter weekend. George W., if elected into office this November, will drastically alter the face of Clinton's existing government (translation: decriminalize it). A Republican administration would make an extremely palpable difference.
For the purposes of this article, discard your qualms regarding Bush's allegiance to conservatism. In your mind, substitute George W. Bush for Clinton. Then place Bush in the eye of the storm of today's controversial topics. If you hold dear life, liberty, and our Constitution, you'll love what you see.
How would Bush have handled the sticky Elián situation? To provide a full and adequate reply, we must dig deeper than the Oval Office. Upon Inauguration Day, the president completely revamps the personnel of the myriad of federal departments. Also, he often ends up making numerous judicial appointments, which last for life and comprise the whole of the federal government's judicial branch.
Clinton's appointments adversely affected Elián's case for freedom. Because Clinton appointee Janet Reno heads the Justice Department, a six-year-old boy now appears destined for Communist Cuba. On the contrary, a Bush attorney general would no doubt have allowed local Florida and district courts to decide the boy's future. The courts themselves, with Bush judges on the bench, would have affirmed Elián's right to due process from the very beginning, avoiding the guns-blazing showdown that occurred on the black morning of April 22.
As for himself, President Bush would not have deemed this horrific scene "successful," "necessary," and, most laughably, "the right thing to do:" An armed-to-the-teeth federal marshal, wielding enormous and deadly firearms, finger inches from the trigger, targeting the terrified, lachrymose face of a little boy privately residing in a peaceful, loving, gun-free, law-abiding household at 5:15 in the morning of Holy Saturday.
Comparing the Clinton administration's policies to those of Governor Bush is like comparing Janet Reno to Cindy Crawford so antithetical as to spur laughter. Name any major current issue, and you're likely to find Clinton and Bush on opposite sides of the fence and that's a good thing.
If Congress once again passes a bipartisan partial-birth abortion ban, a President Bush would sign it the moment the bill touched his desk. That's right, no more Clinton vetoes of a bill that outlaws infanticide. Furthermore, "abortion-rights" spew and "a woman's right to choose" rhetoric would vanish. Instead, our ears would hark to a different tune: "a child's right to live." Don't forget that Bush will appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices if he wins the highest office in the land. Could Roe v. Wade be overturned? This dream is possible only with a Republican administration.
Under George W. Bush, Second Amendment rights would be enthusiastically protected. There would be no calls from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for mandatory trigger-locks, "smart guns," or gun registration. Rather, Bush and his friends would actually prosecute those who misuse firearms under the current 22,000 gun laws on the books.
If, God forbid, another gun-toting misfit shot up his school, Bush would be the first to console the parents of the dead and the last to slap unconstitutional restrictions on the law-abiding living. Children murdering children would not be shamelessly thrown into the political arena.
Recently, gun manufacturer Smith and Wesson abandoned principle and acquiesced to the demands of the federal government. Clinton's threats of litigation and regulation coerced one of the nation's largest firearm providers into forsaking the wishes of their customers out of fear of the feds. On the other hand, George W.'s administration would never have intimidated Smith and Wesson. Bush's Justice Department would respect the rights of gun owners and those who supply their firearms.
In yet another assault on the free market, the Justice Department and 19 states have filed an antitrust suit against Microsoft, aiming for a breakup of the software company. The Clinton administration continually assails capitalism in the interest of "leveling the playing field." Does anyone smell socialism?
Here's how a Bush government would control the market: it wouldn't . The governor understands that the best way to prolong this good economy is to stay out of it. Microsoft, an innovative and essential enterprise, would continue to benefit consumers as one company with Bush at the helm.
Tobacco is one more industry beset by Clinton's leviathan government. Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court, with a narrow 5-4 vote, denied the FDA's claim that it has the power to regulate tobacco products; only Congress may do so, said the court. But tobacco is not out of the snare of the feds quite yet. A business and consumer-friendly Republican president is necessary to preserve the right of the people to consume any and all legal products in whatever quantities they see fit, devoid of governmental intrusion.
Oh, what to do with the budget surplus. Clinton says, "Spend it, but disguise it as reducing the national debt and saving Social Security and Medicare.'" Bush counters, "Give the people their money back. Money left in Washington is money spent."
The best thing about Bush's tax cut? It's substantial and across-the-board. Although it's not the best tax reform proposal (the flat tax and national sales tax are both better deals), it's tax relief something we will never get with a Democrat in office. Let me assure you: a President Bush would never veto a marriage-tax penalty repeal, he would never abjure a $792 billion tax cut, and he would never squeal "risky tax scheme" like a broken record.
George W. Bush would not consider himself the superintendent of America's public schools, nor would he force-feed them with billions upon billions of ineffective taxpayer monies. Quite the opposite, he would return to states, localities, and parents the power to control their own schools. Although Bush would not abolish the Department of Education (a goal of many conservatives), federal roadblocks to school choice through vouchers would be scrapped.
While I detest using a John McCain quote, Clinton's misuse of U.S. troops calls for it. "The Clinton administration has conducted a photo-op foreign policy," said McCain. Indeed, Clinton has sent our men around the world like toy soldiers in the interest of improving his legacy and distracting Congress and the American people from his scandals. Nearly all Clinton/Albright foreign missions, especially Balkan operations, have been executed for "humanitarian" purposes. The effect was the antithesis of the plan. Our government has killed thousands of innocent civilians because Clinton doesn't understand what "U.S. national interests" means.
A Commander-in-Chief Bush would ask himself, "Is this military operation in my country's best interests?" before bombing anybody, anywhere. He heeds George Washington's famous and wise warning to avoid (unnecessary) foreign entanglements. Most sensible Republicans make the distinction between U.S. interests and the interests of small, European or Asian countries. With a Democrat in control, this important line would be flagrantly blurred. Bush, however, would recognize and respect the unmistakable parameters of proper U.S. foreign policy.
Set aside Clinton's indefensible policy blunders and focus on the man and his friends. Does anybody need a vomit bag yet? This country's leader has been mired in dishonor throughout his tenure. Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, 1996 fundraising malpractice, Monica, and the recent e-mail disgrace have all tarnished the Oval Office and served to lower American morale. The United States of America deserves better we deserve honor.
George W. Bush would bring needed dignity and respectability to the presidency. You can listen to him and know he's telling the truth, a scarcity in Clinton's bag of tricks. In addition, Laura Bush, the would-be First Lady, is not a race baiting, win-at-all-costs, feminist-socialist (two times the fun!) liar with her own hard-core leftist agenda. She is an asset to Bush, not a partner in crime.
A President Bush would increase the defense budget and cut social spending (though not by much, I admit). He would not use the presidential bully pulpit to promote unconstitutional campaign-finance reform or the removal of the South Carolina Confederate flag, a state issue. He would not push for or sign into law "hate-crimes legislation," which, like many other bills sponsored by congressional liberals, feels good but accomplishes nothing. He would not seize millions of acres of private property without due compensation for "the good of our environment, our world."
Almost every day, I am left saddened and dismayed at yet another bold-faced lie, another reprehensible move, another brazen abuse of government power by Clinton's administration. We conservatives can only wait and hope that November's elections signal the downfall of burgeoning American socialism. Until then, while Clinton/Gore/Reno/Albright wantonly persist in their attempts to dismantle the U.S. Constitution and the rights and freedoms it guarantees, I can only wonder what a difference a Bush administration would make.
Andy Seré, a sophomore in high school, is President of the Young Republicans Club at Strake Jesuit College Preparatory in Houston, Texas. Contact him at email@example.com.
© 1996-2018, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.