abstract: |

Skip Navigation

by William Gould

This article was inspired by a discussion with Tom Rose regarding Executive Order 13083. I first heard about E.O. 13083 on a talk radio show. The host claimed it would establish dictatorship at the stroke of a pen. After downloading it from the White House's Internet site and reading it, I know that it does not do that. It does lay a foundation for a fresh round of intrusive rulemaking by the several agencies and cabinet departments which comprise our central bureaucratic leviathan. Since our discussion, Dr. Rose has written an article for The Christian Statesman (vol. 141, no. 5 [September-October, 1998], pp. 25-32), and I do not greatly disagree with him on his analysis that the order emphasizes centralization, and an increase of central government power. However, for Dr. Rose to claim in his article that it "sought to destroy our republican form of government and help convert it to a centrally controlled unitary state" (p. 25) is, I believe, to overstate the matter.

It is important, when we evaluate the level of threats to our remaining liberties, that we consider the character and power of the threatener, the immediate target of the threat, and the available restraints on the threat.

The Character of the Threatener

Would President Clinton attempt to establish dictatorship at the stroke of a pen? I think not. Yes, he could be that wicked. But he would not be that blunt. President Clinton's methodology has been to talk centrist, and appoint leftists to the subcabinet posts in his administration. It is therefore not surprising that he suspended this piece of his regulatory offensive after it got attention. Although he has no ethical restraint, he is restrained by fear, in this case the fear of adverse publicity. Once there was sufficient publicity to E.O. 13083, he dropped it, maybe forever, maybe for a more opportune time. The man is not brave enough to be openly leftist. He may try to reinstate a similar order. However, he has shown that he will not stand against adverse publicity. Let us remember how rapidly he backed off of his "gays in the military" order. He tried that during his first month in office, when he was in the strongest political position of his presidency.

If President Clinton wanted to suspend some important constitutional liberty, such as the right to a jury trial, he would cause national panic, quite out of keeping with the apathy which has kept his administration afloat so far. There is also the president's weakness of his needing to be liked. If he hoped to get away with curtailing civil rights, he would have to fabricate a crisis, and then show himself as a big leader in crisis. That will be difficult to do when you are a slave of your focus groups. To look like a strong leader you have to be a strong man, and Bill Clinton is a weak, albeit a clever, man.

We tend to overestimate President Clinton's strength because we see him score political victories over a cowardly Republican congress. Yet the lesson of this order is that President Clinton will beat a hasty retreat whenever he meets principled opposition. Initially, only internet newsletters and talk radio hosts were talking about the E.O. But as soon as some governors and mayors complained about it, he suspended it.

The Target of the Threat

The overt purpose of this order was to encourage more federal regulations, and to override state and local governments. Its impact on private citizens would be indirect. It does not carry the language to suspend any specific constitutional right. The President would have to promulgate a new, different, and additional order to do that.

Restraints

Judiciary and legal system

The first thing to remember is that any action taken pursuant to this order would be headed for the briar patch known as the legal and judicial system. Since E.O. 13083 would make a federal executive order conflict with state laws, we could expect lawsuits asking whether the order actually has jurisdiction. An executive order always carries less weight than federal law passed by congress. Federal regulatory bureaucrats do not cite executive orders to authorize their regulations. They cite a statute, usually with a name like the Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Act of 1998, which is vaguely worded, and, therefore, open to challenge whether it is actually applicable to the matter at hand.

Federal regulators tend to lose many, maybe a majority, of the cases that actually make it to court. This may be because (1) the judicial branch defends its prerogatives by slapping the executive around from time to time; or, (2) only the weakest federal civil suits make it to court, or alternatively; (3) usually the government's case is weak, but the regulated community prefers not to fight.

Press and Public Opinion

As stated above, this administration and its loyal opposition have shown that they will run and hide against serious adverse publicity. Indeed, this restraint has proved effective in forestalling the implementation of E.O. 13083.

Problems with Overstatement

Dr. Rose has stated the suspicion that President Clinton may try to concoct an emergency and declare martial law (p. 31). The times could be very interesting if he tried. What kind of resistance would there be? Would the army obey him, or remove him? Could a martial law government effectively control dissent without also choking the channels of communication which have become the bedrock of our financial and information industries?

Dr. Rose is not alone in overstatement. Indeed, his writing on this subject is restrained compared with some of the talk radio announcers. Much of their rhetoric concerning E.O. 13083 sounded like some of the talk going around about the United Nations. Indeed, E.O. 13083 updates and UN updates were read together on my morning talk radio program. Supposedly, the UN is going to establish a global totalitarian state, and control every detail of all our lives. The UN might want to do something like that (their charter is obviously, and idolatrously messianic), but they have proven singularly ineffective at much smaller missions; so ineffective that "UN peacekeeper" has become as oxy-moronic as "modern art."

Similarly, much of the discussion surrounding E.O. 13083 became overheated. Yes, the proposal is malign, but it is overrated.

I am concerned that the rhetoric employed by some critics of E.O. 13083 will cause people to discount the many resources available to blunt the effect of such an order, and therefore employ unwise, or even lawless, resistance strategies and tactics. For example, if E.O. 13083 actually did establish a dictatorship, the NRA might need to go underground. As it is, we can not only do our work promoting Christian principles of civil government out in the open, but we can also mail our magazine at rock-bottom postal rates. It would be unwise for us to catch the last train out prematurely.

National Sin, the Greater Danger

On the other hand, the liberties of Americans are not safe now that this order will not become effective. E.O. 13083 was never our greatest danger. The big danger to freedom remains our own longing for civil government to do the work of the church and family, and the institutions which spring from the church and family. Government schools are able to develop programs to turn children into stool pigeons against their parents because we expect government education to make America good. Countless laws are being passed to punish morally acceptable conduct (smoking cigarettes, owning firearms) because we are placing the sin on the instrument, not confessing the sin in our hearts. The liberty of every American to earn an honest living is in jeopardy because we resent illegal aliens. Our wealth is confiscated by excessive taxation because we envy our neighbor (want him to pay his "fair share") or have larceny in our hearts (tax my neighbor to subsidize me). Only when we stop lusting after the daddy-state can we hope to ever become free of it.

William Gould holds the Ph.D. degree from Penn State and is the treasurer of the National Reform Association. He also serves as a deacon at Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church in Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania.

back to top