THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

by

Laurence M. Vance
 Books by Laurence M. Vance

The Other Side of Calvinism

A Brief History of English Bible Translations
The Angel of the Lord
Archaic Words and the Authorized Version
A Practical Grammar of Basic Biblical Hebrew
Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update
Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the
Warfare State
King James, His Bible, and Its Translators
Greek Verbs in the New Testament and Their Principal Parts
War, Foreign Policy, and the Church
Guide to Prepositions in the Greek New Testament
The Myth of the Just Price and the Biblical Case for Laissez Faire
Guide to Nouns in the Greek New Testament
Guide to Adjectives in the Greek New Testament
Guide to Pronouns in the Greek New Testament
The Revolution that Wasn’t
THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T
by

Laurence M. Vance

Vance Publications
Pensacola, FL
 The Revolution that Wasn’t
Copyright © 2009 by Laurence M. Vance
All Rights Reserved

ISBN: 978-0-9823697-0-8

Published and Distributed by: Vance Publications

P.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524
Phone: 850-937-1970
E-mail: vancepub@vancepublications.com
Website: www.vancepublications.com

Printed in the United States of America

 INTRODUCTION
The so-called Republican Revolution began on January 3, 1995,
after the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in the
1994 midterm elections. The last time this happened was the congres-
sional elections of 1952. The Revolution officially came to an end on
January 20, 2009, when George Bush’s second term as president came
to a well-deserved and much-anticipated end.
It is my contention that conservatives who think the Republican
Party is the party of conservatism are mistaken, Christians who think
the Republican Party is the party of God are deceived, and anyone who
thinks the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils is ignorant.
These eight essays chronicle the Republican revolution that wasn’t.
The first essay, “What a Republican Majority Has Not Meant,” was
published in the July 2004 issue of Freedom Daily, the monthly
publication of the Future of Freedom Foundation. It is actually a
revision of an earlier essay called “What a Republican Majority Will
Not Mean,” which was written just after the Republicans regained
control of the Congress in 1994. The other essays all originally
appeared on the anti-state, anti-war, pro-market website,
LewRockwell.com. Along with their dates of publication, they are:
“The Myth of Republican Conservatism” (July 12, 2004), “Four Years
Growth” (Jan. 24, 2005), “Irritating, Lousy, Liberal Republicans”
(Aug. 1, 2006), “What Republican Revolution?” (Nov. 11, 2006), “Not
a Dime’s Worth of Difference” (Aug. 24, 2007), “Ichabod!” (Sept. 5,
2008), and T.G.I.F. (Jan. 26, 2009).
For further reading one may consult the in-depth examinations I
authored of the legislation passed by the Republican-controlled 108th
and 109th Congresses: “The 108th Congress: An Analysis” (Jan. 17,
2005) and “Our ‘Conservative’ Republican Congress” (Jan. 14, 2006).
On George Bush, see “The Christianity of George WMD Bush” (May
23, 2005). All three are in my article archive at LewRockwell.com.
The Republican Party had a chance to roll back the size, scope, and
cost of the federal government, but failed miserably. It is truly the party
of Lincoln—the party of war, crony capitalism, pious platitudes, empty
rhetoric, big government, and an imperial presidency.

5
6 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

WHAT A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HAS NOT MEANT

It has been more than a year now since the Republicans gained an
absolute majority in Congress and the White House. The road to this
majority began in the third year of Bill Clinton’s first term. The
Republicans gained complete control of the 104th Congress
(1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress (1997–1999),
and remained in power during the 106th Congress (1999–2001)
through the end of Clinton’s presidency.
After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republican majority in the
Congress during most of Clinton’s term in office appeared at the time
to be a welcome sight. But because the presidency eluded them, the
Republicans seemed to have an excuse for not rolling back the welfare
state, even though it is the legislative branch that passes all legisla-
tion—not the executive branch. And besides, Clinton made a good
scapegoat. Then, if only for a brief moment, it appeared finally to be
official—there was an absolute Republican majority in the House, a
50–50 split in the Senate with a Republican vice president to break ties,
and a Republican president in the White House. But when Jim Jeffords,
the Republican senator from Vermont, switched from being a Republi-
can to being an Independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majority
fizzled, giving the GOP another excuse.
But then, no more excuses. The 108th Congress, which took office
in January of last year, was solidly Republican. But since the Republi-
cans have gained control of the Congress, the federal budget (over $2
trillion) and the federal deficit (over $500 billion) are the highest ever,
the national debt is over $7 trillion (and increasing an average of $2
billion per day), hundreds of Americans have died on foreign soil, and
Americans have even less liberty now than they had before. This time,
however, the Republicans have no excuses. The lame excuse that they
are not responsible because they didn’t control the entire government
will not work anymore. And the even lamer excuse that the defection
of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords so early in Bush’s presidency didn’t give
the Republican majority enough time to do anything won’t work either.
The Republicans have now had total control—an absolute
Republican majority—for more than a year. And what did they do
during this time? The usual—nothing. No egregious legislation was
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 7

repealed. The welfare state was not rolled back an inch. No federal
programs or departments were eliminated. No budgets were cut. In fact,
legislation got worse (the USA PATRIOT Act), the welfare state was
strengthened (a new prescription drug plan), and a new federal
department was created (Homeland Security). So now that the initial
euphoria over an absolute Republican majority has subsided and the
Republicans have been in charge for a year, the Republican record can
be soberly addressed.
There is only one way to describe the record of the Republican
majority during its first year: a dismal failure. To students of political
history, however, this was not only no surprise, it was to be expected
and, in fact, predictable on the basis of the actions of the Republican
Party in the 20th century, whether they held the presidency, the House,
the Senate, or any combination of the three, including an absolute
majority. Because the history of the Republican Party is one of
compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout, there are a
number of things that a Republican majority has not meant, and in fact,
will never mean.

Republican Sellouts

A Republican majority has not meant any more than it did the last
time the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the Oval Office,
since the intent of Republicans is not to dismantle the welfare state with
its entitlements and income-transfer programs. The 83rd Congress of
1953–1955, which had the advantage of serving under the Republican
president Dwight Eisenhower, represented the last time in recent
memory that the Republicans commanded both houses of Congress and
the White House. Before then, it was during the first two years of
Herbert Hoover’s presidency that a Republican Congress convened
under a Republican president. With the Republican Eisenhower in the
White House, and a Republican majority in Congress, one would think
that the entire New Deal could have been repealed and the government
restored to at least its pre-New Deal levels. Yet during this period, the
Bricker Amendment to protect U.S. sovereignty went down in defeat,
the Cold War took shape, and the judicial activist Earl Warren was
appointed to the Supreme Court. This Republican majority was
8 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

short-lived, as the voters turned out the Republicans for what was to be
the longest tenure of one-party rule in U.S. history.
A Republican majority has not meant anything different from the
last time a Republican Congress had to contend with a Democratic
president, because the Republicans have no desire to rid the country of
affirmative-action policies, anti-discrimination laws, or anything else
granting special privileges based on race, sex, perceived victim status,
disability, or “sexual orientation.” Before the Clinton regime, the last
time a Republican Congress found itself in this position was during the
80th Congress of 1947–1949, which assembled during the second half
of the first term of the Democrat Harry Truman. One would have to go
back to the last half of Woodrow Wilson’s second term to find a like
occurrence. It is apparent that a Republican majority in Congress for
the first time since the New Deal would at least have been able to block
the legislative agenda of Harry Truman. But ability and willingness are
two different things. After authorizing $400 million in aid to Greece
and Turkey in 1947 and the $17 billion Marshall Plan in 1948, the
Republicans in Congress were still replaced by Democrats in the next
election.
A Republican majority has not meant anything different from the
last time the Republicans held a majority in the Senate, because the
practice of appointing and confirming judges and bureaucrats who
trample the Constitution and infringe the liberties of American citizens
has never abated. Throughout Ronald Reagan’s first term, and for the
first half of his second one, the Republicans had a majority in the
Senate under a Republican president. The only other two times this
century that this occurred were during the terms of Hoover and William
Taft. Although not possessing a majority in the House of Representa-
tives, with a majority in the Senate, and the most conservative president
since Calvin Coolidge, the repeal of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
seemed within reach. Some good was done during the period of this
Senate majority, but Sandra Day O’Connor, who proved to be a dismal
failure to conservatives, was installed on the Supreme Court. The
Social Security tax rates were also gradually raised throughout this
period, something that cannot be blamed exclusively on a
Democratic-controlled House. Further compromise with the Democrats
resulted in additional “tax reform.” A Republican House was never
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 9

elected to complement the Republican Senate, and the Republicans lost

the Senate for the remaining two years of Reagan’s final term.
A Republican majority has not meant something dissimilar from a
Democratic majority with a Republican president, because the
Republicans have made no effort to eliminate the laws, mandates,
regulations, and restrictions that strangle business and burden the
American people. The last Republican president to preside over a
Democratic Congress was George H. W. Bush. Every Republican
president since Eisenhower has had the disadvantage of serving with a
Democratic majority in Congress for at least part of his term, and
usually for the entire duration. It was expected that an attempt would
be made by Bush to block Democratic legislation. But not only were
some horrendous bills passed with the help of Republicans in the House
and Senate, President Bush signed them instead of using his veto
power. The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, and the
Civil Rights Act are three notable examples, not to mention the
disastrous budget deal that raised taxes.
A Republican majority has not meant any more than business as
usual with a complete Democratic majority, because the reckless,
globalist foreign policy of the United States is adhered to by most
Republicans. The total Democratic control of the government, such as
existed under Roosevelt, Truman (second term), Kennedy, Johnson,
Carter, and Clinton (first half of first term), has done much damage to
the country. Yet many of the increases in taxes, social spending, and
federal powers, with their assault on liberty and private property, were
passed with the help of Republicans at the time they were supposed to
be the opposition party. Republicans in the House and Senate supported
Clinton’s crime bill and the annual multi-billion dollar foreign aid
package.

The Solution

It is understood that with a Democrat in the White House, a

presidential veto can squelch Republican plans. That excuse may have
seemed plausible under the Clinton regime, but it does not hold
anymore. No matter how often Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh sing
their praises, the Republicans cannot be taken seriously. A Republican
majority in Congress and the White House has meant virtually nothing
10 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

positive for liberty, and will never do so, until they undertake a
systematic dismantling of the welfare, regulatory, interventionist state.
It is not just a matter of enacting more legislation to combat 40 years
of Democratic rule. Limiting spending increases to the rate of inflation
is not satisfactory. A balanced-budget amendment is not the answer.
Indexing taxes on capital gains to inflation is not the solution. A freeze
on federal spending is not enough. Welfare and Social Security reform
are not needed. More crime bills will not do. It is pointless to argue that
the Republicans will feed the federal leviathan less than the Democrats.
Instead of slaying the federal leviathan, bipartisanship, sellout, and
compromise will ensure that a Republican majority feeds it instead.
Unless the emphasis is on the elimination of all facets of the federal
monstrosity, including the repeal of the New Deal of FDR, the Fair
Deal of Harry Truman, the Great Society programs of LBJ, the
blunders of Republican presidents, and the sellouts of Republican
Congresses, a Republican majority will never mean anything positive
for freedom.
Ultimately, the solution lies in the hands of the American people.
The libertarian principles of the Founders, and especially the limited
role of government in a free society, should be on the lips of every
American. It is then, and only then, that elected representatives can
begin to eliminate the funding and power of the FDA, FTC, EEOC,
OSHA, EPA, HHS, HUD, BATF, CPB, NEA, IRS, and all the other
acronyms that rob the American people of their money, property, and
liberty.
_______

THE MYTH OF REPUBLICAN CONSERVATISM

The latest “Conservative Index” that has just been published by The
New American, (a biweekly publication of The John Birch Society), is
an eye-opener for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are
“conservative.” The index once again refutes the myth, based on the
voting records of Republicans in Congress, that the Republican Party
is the party of “conservatism.”
The “Conservative Index,” according to The New American, “rates
congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of
limited government, to fiscal responsibility, to national sovereignty,
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 11

and to a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.”

The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in
“preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moral
bedrock on which it is based.”
This is the third time The New American has published a “Conser-
vative Index” of the 108th Congress. For those who have forgotten
their high school American Government class, the U.S. Congress meets
for a two-year term, divided into two sessions of one year each. Every
Congress since the first one to meet under the Constitution has a
number. Thus, the 108th Congress is the 108th time in this country’s
history that a new Congress has been elected. A new Congress begins
its term in January of every odd year, after elections in November of
every even year. After the election coming up in November of 2004,
the 109th Congress will convene in January of 2005.
The purpose of this index is to present how all members of
Congress have voted on certain key issues. This certainly makes it
easier to see how members of Congress voted than calling their offices
in Washington or checking the results of each bill on the Internet. To
get an overall picture of the political philosophy of each congressman
(their ideologies actually range from socialist to statist to interventionist
to libertarian), the votes they cast on certain key issues are assigned a
plus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 are determined by
dividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total number of votes cast
and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number the stronger the
degree of conservatism of the congressman.
If it be objected by libertarians that a congressman scoring a
100—a “perfect” conservative score—is not necessarily something
good, it should be pointed out that libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX)
consistently scores 100 on this index. Therefore, this “Conservative
Index” is a good indicator of how devoted members of Congress are to
the philosophy of liberty.
Some of the House congressional votes that are counted in this
particular index relate to extended unemployment benefits (H.R. 3030),
child nutrition programs (H.R. 3873), transportation (H.R. 3550),
abortion at military facilities (H.R. 4200), and job training (H.R. 444).
Some of the Senate congressional votes relate to gun show background
checks (S. 1805), transportation (S. 1072), assault weapons (S. 1805),
12 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

extended unemployment benefits (S. 1637), and extending the Internet

tax moratorium (S. 150).
As mentioned, this issue of The New American (July 12) is the third
time a “Conservative Index” has been published. The other two were
in the July 14 and December 29 issues in 2003. Each index used ten
key votes from the House and the Senate. An added benefit this time is
that an average score for all three indexes is also given to assess the
overall philosophy of each member of Congress on a wide range of
issues.
The results of the index are shocking. The average score in the
House was only 46. The average score in the Senate was only 41. The
high score in the House (100) was made by Ron Paul (R-TX). The high
score in the Senate (80) was made by John Ensign (R-NV). The low
score in the House (13) was made by Diane Watson (D-CA). The low
score in the Senate (10) was made by two Republicans—John Chafee
(R-RI) and George Voinovich (R-OH). The Democratic ticket of
Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Edwards (D-NC) have no meaningful
score since they were out campaigning so much that they hardly voted.
Their overall scores are 15 for Kerry and 35 for Edwards.
So how does this index refute the myth that Republican Party is the
party of “conservatism”? Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only member of
the House of Representatives who admits to being a socialist, scored an
overall 47–about average. Former Republican Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
scored an overall 37. But 174 Republicans in the House (76%) and 23
Republicans in the Senate (45%) scored less than Sanders. Twenty-one
Republicans in the Senate scored the same as or less than the 40 of Ted
Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. None of the Republican leadership in the
House or the Senate managed to score over 50. House Republican
Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) scored a 50. Senate president pro
tempore Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Senate Republican Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-TN) each scored a 40–tying Senate Democratic Minority
Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD).
As should be obvious, the Republican Party is not the hope of
America. Nothing has changed since George Wallace said that there
was not a “dime’s worth of difference” between the Democratic and
Republican presidential candidates. It is pro-lifers, grass-roots
conservatives, the Christian Right, and the disciples of Rush Limbaugh
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 13

and Sean Hannity who are wasting their votes by voting Republi-
can—not conservative and libertarian critics of the Republican Party
who vote for a third party or not at all.
_______

FOUR YEARS GROWTH

“The American people have been overcharged for Government, and

they deserve a refund.” ~ President George W. Bush (The Budget
Message of the President, 2002)

The year 2000 Platform of the Republican Party implied that the
Republican Party was the party that held the supposedly conservative
ideas of fiscal responsibility and smaller government:

Since 1994, with Republicans leading the House and Senate,

spending has been held to an annual 3.1 percent rate of growth, and
the nation’s debt will be nearly $400 billion lower by the end of this
year. The federal government has operated in the black for the last
two years and is now projected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion
over the years.

We intend to downsize this mess and make government actually do

what it is supposed to.

A Republican president will run the federal government much as the

Republican governors run state agencies. Bureaucracy will be
reduced and trimmed in size at its upper echelons.

Nothing could be further from the truth, for as has been documented,
the idea that the Republican Party is the party of conservatism is a
myth. The Republican Party has always been the party of big govern-
ment, plunder, and sellouts. A look at the “four years growth” of the
federal government under the presidency of George Bush confirms and
amplifies these facts.
The Republicans gained control of the Congress in the third year
of Clinton’s first term. They had complete control of the 104th
Congress (1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress
(1997–1999), and remained in power during the 106th Congress
(1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency. After George
14 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled 107th

Congress (2001–2003) until May 24, 2001, when Jim Jeffords (R-VT)
switched from Republican to Independent, changing the Senate from
50/50 to 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The House
remained in Republican hands. The 108th Congress (2003–2005) was
once again solidly Republican, giving the Republicans an absolute
majority in Congress and the White House for the last two years of
Bush’s first term.
This means that the Republican Party has no excuse for the size and
scope of the federal government as it exists right now. Republicans
can’t blame anything on the Democrats like they did for the fifty years
before they gained control of the Congress.
Now that we are at the end of Bush’s first four years, a simple
question needs to be asked: Is the government at the end of Bush’s first
term in any way smaller or less expensive than the government at the
beginning of his first term. If it is, then Bush and the Republican Party
told the truth, but if it isn’t, then Bush’s rhetoric was just hot air and the
2000 Republican Party Platform wasn’t worth the paper it was written
on.

The Federal Budget

According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president

must annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in
February. The government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to
September 30. This means that the budget submitted in February is
actually for the next fiscal year that begins in October. An outgoing
president is not required to submit a budget. And because it is not
practical for a new president, who takes office on January 20, to submit
a budget within a few days of taking office, he is given extra time to
submit a budget his first year in office. On February 28, 2001, President
Bush submitted to Congress a FY 2002 summary budget plan called A
Blueprint for New Beginnings–A Responsible Budget for America’s
Priorities. In his message to the Congress that begins this document,
two comments by the president stand out:

Excessive taxation is corroding our prosperity.

Government spending has risen too quickly.
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 15

And what did Bush propose to do about these things? He proposed

an increase in the federal budget from $1.856 trillion in FY 2001 to
$1.959 trillion in FY 2002. That is an increase of $103 billion over
Clinton’s last budget. Then, on April 9, 2001, Bush submitted his FY
2002 budget to Congress. But the actual budget he proposed was up to
$1.961 trillion. “A Note to the Reader” at the head of one of the
budget’s accompanying documents, “A Citizen’s Guide to the Federal
Budget,” puts this figure in perspective: “Next year, your Federal
Government will spend nearly $2.0 trillion. Needless to say, that’s a lot
of money. In fact, that’s almost $7,000 for every man, woman, and
child in the country; nearly $5.4 billion per day; and about $3.7 million
per minute. And most of that money comes from taxes on the American
people.” But it gets worse, for according to the “Summary of Receipts,
Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits” in the FY 2005 budget, the federal
government actually spent $2.011 trillion in FY 2002.
In the FY 2002 budget, the estimate for the FY 2005 budget (the
last budget of Bush’s first term) was $2.169 trillion. But by the time
this budget was actually submitted to the Congress on February 2,
2004, it had grown to $2.4 trillion. It was only ten years ago that the
federal budget was about a trillion dollars less than it is now. Will the
federal budget shrink or even stay the same during the next four years
that Bush is in office? The answer should be quite obvious. The
projected budget for FY 2009 is a whopping $2.853 trillion.
Finding what to cut in the federal budget is not a difficult matter.
The series of LRC articles by Jim Grichar on “Cutting the Federal
Budget To Prevent U.S. Bankruptcy” should be required reading for all
members of Congress.

The Federal Deficit

The federal deficit is the amount by which the government’s

spending exceeds its revenues for a fiscal year. Clinton had a budget
surplus his last four years in office. When FY 2001 ended during
Bush’s first year in office (9/28/2001), there was a surplus of $127
billion. Bush turned that into a budget deficit of $157 billion for FY
2002, $375 billion for FY 2003, and $413 billion for FY 2004. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last September that the
16 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

deficit for FY 2005 would be $348 billion.

The Federal Debt

The federal debt is the total of all the deficits and surpluses that the
federal government runs each year. The daily change in the debt can be
seen on the website of the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public
Debt. At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the federal debt
stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of his second inauguration
on January 20, 2005, the federal debt stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34.
Thus, the federal debt increased almost $2 trillion under the first four
years of Bush’s reign. The federal debt at the end of the last three fiscal
years is as follows:

Fiscal Year Federal Debt

FY 2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
FY 2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
FY 2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

As anyone with high credit card balances knows, maintaining a high

debt level costs a lot of money in the form of interest payments. The
interest expense for the last three fiscal years is as follows:

Fiscal Year Interest Expense

FY 2002 $332,536,958,599.42
FY 2003 $318,148,529,151.51
FY 2004 $321,566,323,971.29

The interest expense for the first three months of FY 2005 (Oct., Nov.,
& Dec.) was $120,248,160,823.07. The interest expense on this
massive debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget.

The Federal Bureaucracy

According to the FY 2005 budget, the estimated total of executive

branch full-time equivalent (FTE) federal employees (excluding postal
employees) at the end of FY 2005 is 1,875,000. This is up substantially
from the number of 1,737,000 at the end of FY 2001. The federal
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 17

bureaucracy mainly consists of the executive branch departments, the

offices under the Executive Office of the President (EOP), and other
assorted federal agencies and commissions.

Executive Branch Departments

When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans talked about

eliminating some executive branch departments. As usual, their actions
did not match their speech. However, at least no new departments were
added under Clinton’s rule. It is too bad that the same thing cannot be
said about no new departments being added on Bush’s watch.
The following is a list of the executive branch departments along
with the dates of their creation:

Department of Agriculture (1862)

Department of Commerce (1913)
Department of Defense (1947)
Department of Education (1979)
Department of Energy (1977)
Department of Health and Human Services (1979)
Department of Homeland Security (2002)
Department of Housing and Urban Development (1965)
Department of the Interior (1849)
Department of Justice (1789)
Department of Labor (1913)
Department of State (1789)
Department of Transportation (1966)
Department of the Treasury (1789)
Department of Veterans Affairs (1989)

[The Department of Commerce was originally the Department of Commerce

and Labor (1903); the Department of Defense was originally the Department
of War (1789); the Department of Health and Human Services was originally
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1953); the Department of
Labor was originally the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903)]

No one is saying that all of these departments should be elimi-

nated—just the majority of them. The original four (Justice, State,
Treasury, and War) might conceivably serve some useful purpose— if
18 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

they were scaled down considerably. But what about the other
departments? What did we do in this country without a Department of
Education until 1979? Were people not being educated properly until
then? Is it the job of the government to provide health and human
services? Is it the job of the government to oversee housing and urban
development? And to those who say that we need the new Department
of Homeland Security to defend us from terrorist attacks, I say: What
about the Department of Defense? If U.S. troops were not scattered all
over the globe then perhaps they might be able to guard our borders,
patrol our coasts, and defend us from terrorist attacks.

Executive Office of the President

The EOP consists of individuals and agencies that directly assist

the president. The EOP is a New Deal increase in the federal bureau-
cracy. It was created by Congress in the Reorganization Act of 1939,
at the instigation of President Roosevelt. Here is the official list from
the White House EOP website:

Council of Economic Advisers

Council on Environmental Quality
Domestic Policy Council
National Economic Council
National Security Council
Office of Administration
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Office of Management and Budget
Office of National AIDS Policy
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science & Technology Policy
Office of the United States Trade Representative
President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board
President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
USA Freedom Corps
White House Military Office

The number and size of EOP agencies varies from administration to

administration. President Bush could have eliminated any one of the
above agencies.
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 19

Federal Agencies and Commissions

And then there are the numerous federal agencies and commissions.
Here is the official list from the White House “Federal Agencies and
Commissions” website:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

African Development Foundation
Agency for International Development
American Battle Monuments Commission
AMTRAK
Appalachian Regional Commission
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms
Bureau of Arms Control
Bureau of Engraving & Printing
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bureau of the Census
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Central Intelligence Agency
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Commission on Civil Rights
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Corporation For National Service
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Information Systems Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Defense Logistics Agency
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Defense Security Service
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Drug Enforcement Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
20 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Election Commission
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Housing Finance Board
Federal Labor Relations Authority
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Reserve System
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
Federal Trade Commission
Food & Drug Administration
General Accounting Office
General Services Administration
Ginnie Mae
Immigration & Naturalization Services
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Inter-American Development Bank
Inter-American Foundation
Internal Revenue Services
International Bank for Reconstruction & Development
International Labor Organization
International Monetary Fund
International Trade Commission
Legal Services Corporation
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Archives and Records Administration
National Bioethics Advisory Commission
National Capital Planning Commission
National Commission on Libraries and Information Science
National Council on Disability
National Credit Union Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 21

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
National Imagery & Mapping Agency
National Institute of Justice
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of Standards & Technology
National Institutes of Health
National Labor Relations Board
National Mediation Board
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
National Science Foundation
National Security Agency
National Skill Standards Board
National Technology Transfer Center
National Telecommunications Information Administration
National Transportation Safety Board
Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Special Counsel
Office of Thrift Supervision
Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development
Organization of American States
Overseas Private Investment Corp.
Pan American Health Organization
Patent & Trademark Office
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Postal Rate Commission
Railroad Retirement Board
Securities Exchange Commission
Securities Investor Protection Corp.
Selective Service System
Small Business Administration
Smithsonian Institution
Social Security Administration
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration
Surface Transportation Board
22 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Tennessee Valley Authority

Trade and Development Agency
U.S. Customs Service
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Government Printing Office
U.S. Institute of Peace
U.S. Office of Government Ethics
U.S. Treasury
United States Holocaust Memorial Council
United States Postal Service
United Nations Information Center
Voice of America
Walter Reed Army Medical Center
White House Fellows
White House Commission on Remembrance
Women’s History Commission

Are all these agencies and commissions necessary? Are any of them
constitutional? Most Americans have probably never even heard of half
of them.

Conclusion

This brief look at the four years growth of the federal budget,
deficit, debt, and bureaucracy shows without a doubt that a Republican
president and a Republican Congress cannot be trusted to roll back the
welfare/warfare state even one-tenth of an inch. Given their track
record, you can count on them to increase it substantially during the
next four years. Never, never, never trust any document written by the
Republican Party or anything that comes out of the mouth of any
Republican president, congressman, or politician about reducing the
size and scope of government. And yes, the same thing goes for the
Democrats.
George Bush was right when he said a few years ago: “The
American people have been overcharged for Government, and they
deserve a refund.” The only problem with his statement is that it is now
Bush and the Republicans who have overcharged the American people
for government, and there is no refund in sight.
_______
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 23

IRRITATING, LOUSY, LIBERAL REPUBLICANS

National Review is upset with Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). The

midterm elections are coming up later this year, it’s almost primary
time, and Chafee may win reelection. Chafee’s crime is that he is a
“liberal” Republican. Not just any liberal Republican, but a “spectacu-
larly lousy Republican” who “might be the most irritating Republican
in the Senate.”
Those who paid attention in their high school American Govern-
ment class know that an election is held every two years for one-third
of all U.S. Senate seats. This is in contrast to the U.S. House of
Representatives, where members only serve for two years instead of six
years like the Senate.
Writing in the August 7 issue of National Review on the midterm
elections, John Miller introduces us to Stephen Laffey, the mayor of
Cranston, Rhode Island, and a “mainstream conservative” who is
running against Chafee in the Rhode Island Republican primary on
September 12. A surprise Laffey victory “wouldn’t be merely pleasant,
but positively exhilarating.”
Is that so? Republicans are forever telling conservative voters that
if they could only get rid of irritating, lousy, liberal Republicans like
Senator Lincoln Chafee then the U.S. Congress would be transformed
into a conservative Republican utopia. But are liberal Republicans like
Chafee really the problem? Miller writes that “a close look at Chafee’s
congressional record suggests that the senator would fit comfortably
within the Democratic fold: The American Conservative Union gives
Chafee a lifetime rating of 37 out of a possible 100.” But how about a
look at the record of the “conservative” Republicans in Congress? Are
they any better than the “liberal” Democrats?
Fortunately, this is an easy thing to do. The latest “Conservative
Index” that has just been published by The New American, (a biweekly
publication of The John Birch Society). As usual, it is an eye-opener
for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are “conserva-
tive.” The “Conservative Index,” according to The New American,
“rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional princi-
ples of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty,
and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.”
The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in
24 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

“preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moral

bedrock on which it is based.”
The latest “Conservative Index” is the magazine’s third look at the
109th Congress, and was published on July 10, 2006. As in previous
indexes, the votes cast by congressmen on certain key issues are
assigned a plus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 are
determined by dividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total number
of votes cast and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number, the
stronger the congressman’s commitment to the constitutional principles
just mentioned. The overall average score for the three indexes
prepared thus far for the 109th Congress is also given.
The results of the index show, as usual, that the Republican Party
is not the party of real conservatism at all. It is the party of interven-
tionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state, plunder,
compromises, and sellouts—just like the Democratic Party.
The average score in the House was only 36; the average score in
the Senate was only 26. The high score (100) was once again made by
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). Since Chafee is a senator, I will focus
on the Republicans in the Senate.
The party breakdown in the Senate is 55 Republicans, 44 Demo-
crats, and 1 Independent. The average score for the Republicans was a
dismal 24. The Democrats at least managed a 29. The lone Independent
scored a 30. Ten Republican senators scored a 0. None of the Demo-
crats did. In the fourteen states that have both a Republican and a
Democratic senator, only in four of them did the Republican have a
higher score than the Democrat. Two Republicans were tied for the
high score of 60, but one Democrat (Byron Dorgan [D-ND]) also
scored a 60. The Republicans and Democrats each had five senators
score 50 or above. None of the Republican leadership managed to score
over 50. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) received a 20 as did
Senate Assistant Majority Leader (the Whip) Mitch McConnell
(R-KY). The third in command, Conference Secretary Rick Santorum
(R-PA), beat them out with a 22. Senate President Pro Tempore Ted
Stevens (R-AK) received a 0. The Republican leadership all scored less
than Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Kerry
(D-MA).
The 1994 Republican revolution is a failure. It is such a dismal
failure that despite the Republican rhetoric about the virtues of
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 25

conservatism, the benefits of the free market, and the need for less
government intervention in the economy and society, the increasing
Republican majority in both houses of Congress can only be counted
on to further increase the size and scope of government. This, of
course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the Republican Party
is one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout.
Is the Republican Party the party of conservatism? Sure, Republi-
cans can talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes time for
an election. But real conservatives need to wake up: Republicans are
now not only proudly embracing New Deal- and Great Society-like
programs—they are expanding them at record levels. Conservative
Christians likewise need to open their eyes: The Republican Party is not
the salvation of America—how hard is it to position oneself to the right
of the Democratic Party? As I said on another occasion: The Republi-
can Party is not the lesser of two evils, it is pure evil, just like the
Democratic Party.
If you ignore Republican campaign rhetoric about how they are for
free markets and limited government, and focus on Republican
performance, it is readily apparent that the old adage is true now more
than ever: there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two
major parties.
_______

WHAT REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION?

Since the Democrats took control of the Congress in the recent

midterm elections, we have heard and seen numerous references to the
Republican victory in the 1994 midterm elections as the Republican
revolution of 1994.
What Republican revolution?
We can see the results in history of revolutions like the American
Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, but
what evidence is there of a Republican revolution?
When the 104th Congress began in January of 1995, it was the first
time since the 83rd Congress of 1953–1955 that the Republicans had
control of both the House and Senate. They had never controlled the
House during the forty-year period of Democratic rule, and only briefly
controlled the Senate, during the 97th through 99th Congresses of
26 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

1981–1987.
After forty years of being out of power, a revolution was certainly
in order. True, the Republicans did not yet also control the White
House as they did during the 83rd Congress when Dwight Eisenhower
was president, but it is Congress that writes the laws, not the president.
And unlike the Congress under Eisenhower, which reverted to
Democratic rule in the next election, the Republican control of the
Congress under Bill Clinton continued unabated through the end of his
second term.
When what looked like a Republican revolution seemed to stagnate
under Clinton, excuses began to be made for the fact that the Republi-
cans were acting like anything but the conservatives who voted them
into office. Republican control of the White House, we were told, and
a larger Republican majority in Congress, were needed to complete the
revolution. After all, Clinton could veto any bills passed by a Republi-
can Congress, and the Republicans did not have a veto-proof majority.
It turns out that in eight years Clinton only vetoed seventeen bills,
making Republican fears unfounded.
And then came George W. Bush.
Republicans were ecstatic. A Republican president was once again
elected. This time, however, things were different. When George Bush
was inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republican-
controlled Congress. This is something a Republican president had not
had for forty-five years. The millennium was now here. The Republican
revolution was now ready to be completed.
Enter Jim Jeffords.
The Republican controlled 107th Congress (2001–2003) had a
weak link: the Senate. Jeffords was a Republican senator from
Vermont. Early in Bush’s first term, Senator Jeffords switched from
Republican to Independent, changing the 50/50 balance of power in the
Senate. Although the House remained in Republican hands, those hands
were tied, so we were told, because the Republicans no longer
controlled the Senate. The Republicans always seem to have an excuse.
Big government, intrusive government—it is always the fault of those
evil Democrats.
But then, finally, no more excuses. The midterm elections of 2002
gave us a new Congress (the 108th, 2003–2005) that was once again
solidly Republican. This gave the Republicans an absolute majority for
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 27

the last two years of Bush’s first term. This scenario was confirmed by
Bush’s reelection and the further increase of the Republican majority
in the 109th Congress. Republicans could no longer blame everything
on the Democrats like they did for so long before they gained their
absolute majority.
So, now that the Republicans have controlled the House since
1995, now that the Republicans have controlled the Senate for the same
period except for about a year and a half, now that a Republican
president has been elected and reelected, and now that we have had
several years of an absolute Republican majority, a simple question
needs to be asked: What Republican revolution?
Jacob Hornberger, the president of the Future of Freedom Founda-
tion, recently asked some pertinent questions about the Republicans:

! How many departments were abolished when Republicans controlled

the presidency and both houses of Congress?
! How many agencies?
! How many spending bills were vetoed?
! How many pork-barrel projects were jettisoned?
! How much was federal spending reduced?

The answer to every question is, of course, a big fat zero. No egregious
legislation was repealed, and the welfare/warfare state is bigger and
more intrusive than ever. Some revolution.
Although many Republicans who claim to believe in a limited
government can talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes
time for an election, one statistic is all it takes to see that there has been
no limit to the growth of government under the Republican Party.
On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the
national debt was just under $5 trillion. At the time of Bush’s first
inauguration in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64.
At the time of his second inauguration in 2005, the national debt stood
at $7,613,772,338,689.34. On the day of the recent midterm elections,
the national debt was up to $8,592,561,542,263.30.
The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite the
Republican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of
the free market, and the need for less government intervention in the
economy and society, the Republican majority in both houses of
28 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Congress did nothing but further increase the size and scope of
government.
This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the
Republican Party is not one of real conservatism at all; it is the history
of interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state,
plunder, compromises, and sellouts, as Clyde Wilson and Thomas
DiLorenzo have showed us in great detail.
Those who voted for a third party candidate for Congress in the
recent election are not the ones who wasted their vote. Republicans
who voted for Republican candidates hoping that “this time” perhaps
the performance of the Republicans might improve are the ones who
wasted their vote. Conservatives who, against their better judgment,
voted Republican because they feared what would happen if the
“liberals” were in control, wasted their vote on a party that deserved to
lose. Evangelical Christians who held their nose and voted Republican
because they thought they were choosing the lesser of two evils not
only wasted their vote, but are sadly mistaken.
Do I celebrate the Democratic victory in the midterm elections for
Congress? Hardly. The socialist and statist policies of the Democratic
Party are well known, but at least Democrats are usually honest about
being advocates of bigger government and increased government
intervention instead of masquerading as advocates of smaller and less
intrusive government like the hypocritical Republicans do.
It is too bad that the Republicans did not at least win control of the
Senate (the Senate is now 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 liberal
Independents). It is great to have gridlock between a Democratic
Congress and a Republican president, but it is better to have gridlock
between the House and Senate as well. We can only hope and pray that
this government comes to a grinding halt—for the sake of the liberties
of the American people.
_______

NOT A DIME’S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE

Not only is there not a “dime’s worth of difference” between the

Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to just about
anything, there is certainly no difference at all when it comes to
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 29

increased federal spending, the expansion of government power, the

destruction of liberty, and interventionism in general, both at home and
abroad.
One quick way to see this is “The Freedom Index,” published about
every six months by The New American magazine. This index, which
used to be called “The Conservative Index,” rates Congressman “based
on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government,
fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign
policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” The higher the number, the
stronger is a congressman’s commitment to these constitutional
principles.
The latest “Freedom Index,” which looks at the 110th Congress,
has just been released. The average score in the House was a 40; the
average score in the Senate was a 38. This is just as one would expect
since both houses of the 110th Congress are controlled by the Demo-
cratic Party. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and
2 Independents who are Democrats in all but the name. In the House,
there are 231 Democrats, 202 Republicans, and 2 vacancies.
But how does this compare with the 109th Congress, which was
controlled by the Republicans? The party division in the Senate for the
109th Congress was 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
The party division in the House for the 109th Congress began as 233
Republicans, 202 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When the 109th
Congress ended, there were 229 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1
Independent, and 3 vacancies. The average score in the Senate for the
109th Congress was 35.5, based on the four times The New American
complied “The Conservative Index” for the 109th Congress. The
average score in the House was 37.5, again, based on the four times The
New American complied “The Conservative Index” for the 109th
Congress.
This means that the average score is higher for the
Democratic-controlled 110th Congress than it was for the Republi-
can-controlled 109th Congress. Barely half of the Republican members
of the current House scored above a 50. And the Republican Party is
the party of conservatism?
Admittedly, “The Freedom Index” is not a comprehensive analysis
of the voting patterns of each member of Congress, but if we look at a
30 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

key piece of legislation where we would expect a conservative/liberal

divide, it is clear that the Republican Party is not the party of real
conservatism at all.
The 110th Congress had barely begun in January when an attempt
to raise the minimum wage was undertaken. H.R. 2 passed in the House
by a vote of 315-116. All the Democrats voted for it, which means that
it didn’t need any Republican votes to pass. So what did the Republi-
cans in the House do? Eight-two Republicans voted for it anyway.
When the bill was sent to the Senate, only three Republican senators
voted against it.
The only real conservative in Congress in the Old Right sense is
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who scored a perfect 100 on the index in both
the 109th and 110th Congresses. (I should note, though, that those on
the Old Right didn’t call themselves conservatives.)
For the liberty-loving American who wishes that Congress would
at least try to follow the (admittedly imperfect) Constitution, the
Republican Party is not an alternative to the Democratic Party. They are
two peas in a pod; they are two sides of the same coin; they are the two
faces of Janus. Yet, in the typical election, millions of “conservative”
Americans will vote Republican (especially if Hillary is the Democratic
nominee) because they see the Republican Party as the lesser of two
evils instead of the party of the interventionist welfare/warfare
state—just like the Democratic Party.
A more compassionate militarism, interventionism, and statism:
Vote Republican.
_______

ICHABOD!

“And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed
from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her
father in law and her husband.” ~ 1 Samuel 4:21

It’s done, it’s over, it’s official: The Republican Party nominated
John McCain to be its 2008 presidential candidate. Conversely, and
more importantly, this means that the Republican Party failed to
nominate Ron Paul to be its 2008 presidential candidate.
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 31

It wouldn’t normally matter whom the Republican Party nomi-

nated. Bigger government and less liberty have always been the result.
And if you think Reagan was an exception then you are sadly mistaken.
This time, however, the Republicans had a chance to nominate the
only candidate who embodies everything good that the Republican
Party has ever claimed to stand for. Ron Paul is undoubtedly the most
pro-life, pro-family, pro-property, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution
candidate in history.
The Republican Party and its apologists that write for the red-state
fascist blogs and magazines and host the reich-wing nationalist TV and
radio talk shows did everything they could to persuade people from
voting for Dr. Paul in the Republican primaries.
The nomination of John McCain over Ron Paul means that the
Republican Party should never again be taken seriously when it comes
to even the slightest pretense of being a friend of liberty, free markets,
and limited government.
Ichabod!
In the Old Testament book of First Samuel we read of the death of
Eli, who judged Israel for forty years, and the birth of his grandson.
During a battle with the Philistines, Israel lost thirty thousand men,
including the two sons of Eli, and had their ark of the covenant taken.
A messenger ran to the Israelites and, after a tumult was raised, Eli
inquired of the man what the problem was. After the messenger told
him what had befallen Israel, his two sons, and the ark of God, Eli fell
backwards and broke his neck. When his daughter in law, who was
great with child, heard that the ark was taken by the Philistines, and that
her father in law and her husband were dead, she died after giving birth
to a child, but not before naming the child Ichabod, because “the glory
is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken” (1 Samuel 4:22).
Whatever glory the Republican Party may have had when it came
to liberty and limited government is now departed, and with a ven-
geance, judging by the treatment given to Ron Paul supporters at the
Republican convention
I have written about the evils of the Republican Party here, here,
here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Others, like Thomas
DiLorenzo, Clyde Wilson, Jacob Hornberger, and Chris Leithner, have
done the same, and in great detail. Here are the Republican Party
32 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

campaign slogans that you will never hear this year:

! Interventionism, at home and abroad: Vote Republican.

! Nationalism, fascism, and statism: Vote Republican.
! Militarism, puritanism, and collectivism: Vote Republican.
! Debt, deficits, and a declining dollar: Vote Republican.
! Big government, big brother, big budgets: Vote Republican.
! The warfare state, the welfare state, the surveillance state: Vote
Republican.
! Corporate welfare, the military-industrial and security-industrial
complexes: Vote Republican.
! Compromises after compromise, sellout after sellout: Vote Republi-
can.

There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic

and Republican Parties when it comes to peace, liberty, property, free
markets, sound money, and the size and scope of government. The
Republican Party is not the lesser of two evils. It is, like the Democratic
Party, stupid and evil. Ichabod!
_______

T.G.I.F.

The Republican Revolution has been gasping for breath since the
Democratic Party won the congressional midterm elections in 2006.
After the Republicans were soundly defeated in the 2008 elections, the
Revolution was in its death throes until noon on January 20 when
George Bush’s second term as president ceased and the Republican
Revolution officially came to an end.
Thank God it’s finished.
The Republican Revolution began on January 3, 1995, after the
Republican Party had won control of both houses of Congress for the
first time since the 83rd Congress (1953–1955) under Dwight Eisen-
hower. Although a Democrat (Bill Clinton) occupied the White House
for the remainder of the decade, the Republicans hung on to the House
and Senate until the election of a Republican president (George Bush)
in the year 2000 gave them an absolute majority.
The Revolution had reached its zenith. Republicans were ecstatic.
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 33

Although Vermont senator Jim Jeffords soon attempted to derail the

speeding Republican train by leaving the Republican Party—temporar-
ily shifting the balance of power in the Senate to the
Democrats—Republican victories in the 2002 midterm elections
restored the GOP’s absolute majority.
After enjoying this absolute majority for the last two years of
Bush’s first term, Republicans coasted to victory in the 2004
election—retaining the presidency and further increasing their control
of the Congress.
And the country is worse off for it. So worse off, in fact, that I, a
conservative Christian who has nothing but contempt for the Demo-
cratic Party, much prefer the presidency of Bill Clinton the fornicator
in chief to that of George Bush the warmonger in chief, spy in chief,
and spender in chief.
The Republican Revolution was a failure from the beginning. The
Contract with America that was introduced by the new Republi-
can-controlled Congress in 1995 was bogus because it focused on
reforming government agencies and programs instead of eliminating
them. It was pointed out in 2000 that “the combined budgets of the 95
major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate
have increased by 13%.”
I remember speaking with Joe Scarborough, my congressman at the
time, on a local call-in radio talk show in late 1994 or early 1995. I
asked him about the new Republican-controlled Congress repealing
some of the legislation passed during the first two years of the Clinton
administration. He would have to stand in line to introduce such
legislation, he said, because of everything his fellow Republicans had
planned.
Okay, let’s take two of the worst pieces of legislation passed during
Clinton’s first two years. Did the new Republican majority in the 104th
Congress repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act (PL 103-3) or the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (PL 103-159)? Of course it
didn’t. Just like it didn’t repeal the Motor Voter Act (PL 103-31) or the
Violence Against Women Act (PL 103-322).
And what did the Republican majority in Congress do throughout
Clinton’s terms? Sure, there were a few good things that Congress
did—like repealing all federal speed limits in 1995—but how many
major federal agencies, programs, or regulations were actually
34 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

eliminated? How much really egregious legislation was repealed? How

many pork-barrel projects were denied funding? How much was overall
federal spending reduced? Was the government any less intrusive at the
end of six years of Republican control of the Congress? What was
actually done to limit the government to that prescribed by the
Constitution?
The size and scope of the federal government were not reduced by
one inch during the first six years of the Republican Revolution. All we
heard during the six years of a Republican-controlled Congress under
Clinton were excuses about needing a larger majority, a veto-proof
majority, or, better yet, a Republican president to really complete the
revolution.
But what happened when the Republican-controlled Congress
finally got a Republican president? We got an unprecedented increase
in the welfare/warfare/surveillance/nanny state. First came the ignoble
USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56). This was followed by the No Child
Left Behind Act (PL 107-110). Then came the Authorization for Use
of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (PL 107-243), which
gave us the senseless, immoral, unconstitutional, unjust war in Iraq that
has already cost the American taxpayers about $1 trillion. Although the
seed of the Iraq War was planted by the Iraq Liberation Act (PL
105-338), that was also passed by a Republican-controlled Congress.
And then there is the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (PL 108-173)—the largest expansion of the
welfare state since the Great Society. Even LBJ would be shocked at
the cost of this welfare scheme. And who can forget the increase in
farm subsidies, the crony capitalism, the mockery of the Constitution,
the Republican acceptance of the neoconservative agenda, and the
imperial presidency. No wonder Republicans earned the wrath of voters
in the recent election. They deserved to lose as bad as they did, and
more.
As I pointed out the following in my article on how bogus the
Republican Revolution was, one statistic is all it takes to see that there
has been no limit to the growth of government under the Republican
Party—the national debt. Consider the following:

! On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the

national debt was just under $5 trillion.
 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T 35

! At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the national debt

stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64.
! At the time of Bush’s second inauguration in 2005, the national debt
stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34.
! On the day of the 2006 midterm elections, the national debt stood at
$8,592,561,542,263.30.
! On the last day of Bush’s second term, the national debt stood at
$10,626,877,048,913.08.

Who is responsible for this tremendous increase in the federal debt?

Not the Democrats. Not Bill Clinton. It is the party that laughingly said
in its 2004 platform that it was committed to “lower taxes, limited
regulation, and a limited, efficient government.” Yes, the same party
that helped the Democrats pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization
Act of 2008 (the Bailout Bill).
But is this really a surprise? Not if one knows anything about the
history of the Republican Party—a history of state capitalism, milita-
rism, presidential power, big government, plunder, compromise, and
sellout.
Just look at the Republicans latest outrage: the confirmation of
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Since the day her husband became
the president, the personification of evil according to all Republicans
has been Hillary Clinton. So, what did the Republicans do when Mrs.
Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to
receive the first vote toward her confirmation as secretary of state?
With but one exception (David Vitter of Louisiana), the Republicans
on the committee voted for Hillary. Then, when the full Senate took a
vote on Clinton’s confirmation on January 21, only two Republican
senators (the aforementioned David Vitter and Jim DeMint of South
Carolina) voted against her. During the presidential campaign, before
it became evident that Barack Obama would get the Democratic Party
nomination, John McCain never ceased to remind us how bad it would
be if we voted for Clinton instead of him. And then he turns around and
votes for her confirmation for secretary of State.
This, of course, does not mean that I prefer the Democratic Party.
There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and
Republican Parties. Neither party is the lesser of two evils; they are
both pure evil.
36 THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Nevertheless, I rarely bother to write about the evils of the

Democratic Party. The socialist and statist policies of the Democratic
Party are well known. And since the Democrats don’t masquerade as
advocates of smaller and less intrusive government, it is pretty obvious
that the Democratic Party is the party of liberalism, socialism, orga-
nized labor, environmentalism, affirmative action, wealth redistribu-
tion, the nanny state, and increased government intervention in the
economy and society. Another reason I don’t bother is that Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage need
something to rant about.
Strom Thurmond was right. He left the Democratic Party because
the party was “leading the evolution of our nation to a socialistic
dictatorship.” I would just go a step further: The Republican Party
during the so-called Republican Revolution was leading the evolution
of our nation to a faith-based, compassionate, fascist dictatorship.
When bad revolutions have run their course, they often lead to
something just as bad or even worse. The Republican Revolution, like
the French and Russian Revolutions, was an absolute disaster. And just
as these revolutions gave the world Napoleon and Lenin, so the
Republican Revolution has given us Barack Obama—a man with a
radical left-wing congressional voting record, with even more radical
associations, with a life spent in the service of racial preference, with
an aberrant vision of Christianity, and with plans to further redistribute
the wealth of taxpayers to tax eaters. That being said, whether he can
possibly top George Bush in the “one of the worst presidents ever”
category remains to be seen.
The Republican Revolution failed because it was not based on any
real principles. Contrast this with the Ron Paul Revolution, which
continues unabated because it is based, not on empty Republican
rhetoric about the benefits of the free market and the need for less
government intervention, but on the bedrock principles of peace,
nonintervention, economic freedom, personal liberty, sound money,
and a drastically limited state. Any Republican who really believes in
these principles should abandon the GOP’s sinking ship of war, statism,
and fascism.
_______