Conservatism is Drowning in the Wetlands

Rudy Takala

Bush recently announced in Maine his plans to create three million new acres of so-called “wetlands.” “Good conservation and stewardship will happen when people say ‘I’m not going to just rely upon the government to be the solution to the problem,’” Bush said. I agree with that. However, contrary to Bush, I do not believe that it is government’s responsibility to do something poorly when the people decide they have no interest in doing it “well.”

When a politician perceives a problem, it does not invariably mean that it requires rectification; far more frequently, it means only that the politician has conceived of some new, purportedly life-on-earth threatening problem that only he, in his infinite wisdom, can properly comprehend to the level necessitated for realizing that government intervention is needed. Or, as Groucho Marx once said, “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

If the majority of people came to the consensus that wetlands were disappearing – the occurrence of which, we are to apparently suppose, would trigger a cataclysmic chain of events that would eventually climax in the destruction of mankind – they would probably do something about it. They might buy the land that is allegedly “wet.” They might start a “Save the Human Race” charity. The point is, they would probably do something to help themselves – all without the aid of a government full of self-righteous fools who give their lives purpose by invading other people’s.

Unfortunately, due to that self-professed infinite wisdom of our modern politicians, things don’t work that way. It seems extremely unlikely that the human race will end with the elimination of wetlands. But for some odd reason, our government continues to own these pieces of land. Why precisely is this?

A White House document said the fiscal year 2005 budget included $4.4 billion for conservation programs, including but not limited to wetlands. The document called that an increase of $1.5 billion over the fiscal 2001 budget Bush inherited from the Clinton administration.

Perhaps rather than asking why government owns this land, a better question may be, why does Bush insist on bragging how much better than Bill Clinton he is at spending? Who exactly is he trying to please? Does he remember what party he’s running for?

The issue of wetland conservation is a disturbing one indeed, but it is merely one issue of many contained in the fabric of Bush’s trend of statism. This trend is indicative of things far more worrisome in America than government’s mere preference of trees over the Constitution.

We, or at least I, did not support Bush because I wanted him to increase government land ownership in the name of preserving every three-legged mutant toad. There is no warrant in the Constitution for doing such a thing. Hence, it is theoretically not allowed. Al Gore was supposed to be the one running on the platform of ignoring the Constitution, not George Bush.

I want the human race to progress. I do not want its progress to halt because its furtherance requires offense to trees. A large number of people in our government apparently do. Bush appears to agree with them. This is yet another statist stance taken by Bush that I cannot support. Bush was getting three-fourths of everything domestic wrong prior to election year; now that election year is upon us, he seems to be intent on getting everything wrong. He appears determined to destroy his conservative base.

I would surmise that perhaps two-fifths of the Republican base has defected and is now standing on the side of freedom, be it with the Libertarians or otherwise. However, aside from those few disenchanted fellows who wander about mumbling to themselves about those darn politicians, a good portion of the Republican base seems to have no intention of taking any action. They’re going to vote for Bush again merely because they believe that Kerry would, by some act of God, find a way to tax them even more. Or they’ll vote for Bush due to the Supreme Court issue; which, perhaps, is a legitimate concern. However, what do Republicans intend on doing in 2008? Opposing Jeb Bush when he runs? It seems unlikely; because as we all know, opposition to any Republican will not be considered acceptable when Hillary runs. It wouldn’t look good if we weren’t unified when she runs. There may be no difference between the Republican and Hillary, but it’s all more in the spirit of things anyway. There may be no policy difference, but we’ll at least show the country that if there were a good candidate running, we’d vote for him.

The number of Republican officials in government who are actually conservative is dwindling. The Republican Party is filled with a multitude of statists and socialists whose lust for power has consumed whatever want for freedom they once had. It is time to understand that filling in the dots next to the R’s on election ballots will no longer buy freedom. This is an era in which people will actually be required to think, act and dissent if they wish to maintain liberty. Until people realize that, the “wetlands” will continue taking us down the same path of despotism that every other nation on earth knows so well.