Just as the bloodthirsty bandit leader in the film “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” proclaimed, “We don’t need no stinking badges,” the Bush Administration similarly didn’t see any need to bother with a warrant or permission from the Foreign Intelligence Security Administration.

It just plowed ahead and compiled the largest database in history, based on millions of phone records surrendered by AT&T and other tele-communications firms (despite unconvincing denials).

This unwarranted and illegal intrusion into the private lives of Americans is more evidence that the Bush administration has created its own parallel universe in which it unilaterally defines the extent of its own powers, while blithely ignoring Bush’s 29% approval rating.

Bush and his supporters believe that their endless and aimless “war against terror” has placed them utterly above the law. Even the Republican-stacked Congress and courts have been downgraded from equal branches of government to trivial twigs. Whether it be imperiously tossing aside Congressional intent in legislation with 750 “signing statements” that contradict the bills Bush has just signed or illegally gathering up millions of phone records, the Bush team sees itself entitled to trample over laws and vilify individuals (e.g., Gen. Eric Shinseki and CIA officials Valerie Plame and Mary McCarthy) considered to be standing in the way of their agenda.

“President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statue passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution,” as Charlie Savage reported in the April 30 Boston Globe. Among the laws that Bush asserted his right to reinterpret are: military rules and regulations, affirmative action provisions, “whistle-blower” protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.

Perhaps the most interesting of these new self-appointed powers has been his bypass of the “torture ban” and his unwillingness to report to congress before diverting funds for secret operation such as the “black sites” where terrorists have secretly been imprisoned. In addition, he has claimed that he can order military operations in Colombia, even though Congress has banned such action.

In line with the Administration’s assumption of unprecedented powers, news stories describe the CIA in shambles due to the undisguised manipulation of the staff by the White House. The political pressures and disregard for the insights of senior staff have resulted, according to Rep. Jane Harman, in the recent departure of CIA staff with 300 years of relevant experience. The current remolding of the CIA to be an extension of the President’s foreign policy has far exceeded even the worst days of the CIA. Revelations in the 1970’s of secret interventions in countries such as Chile, Cuba, and Angola forced Congress to enact the current, now-ignored restrictions on CIA activities.

Meanwhile, another devastating report by a Senate committee characterized post- Katrina FEMA as an agency broken beyond repair. Under the Clinton Administration, FEMA was re-built into a model of effectiveness, reversing the crony ridden FEMA under Bush Sr. However, W. chose to undo the bi-partisan support for the Clinton-era improvements by appointing a set of directors hopelessly unqualified to take the lead. Absorbing the agency into Homeland Security and the pathetic leadership managed to drive away legions of true professionals, the agency quietly fell apart, much like CIA. The horror of FEMA’s Hurricane Katrina performance starkly revealed what had been going on throughout the Bush Administration.

While some agencies have received more notoriety recently than others, it now seems clear that virtually all agencies (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration, EPA, Mine Safety Administration, and the FCC) are suffering under the dual yoke of incompetence and loyalty to policies that serve corporations rather than people. The Bush solution to this growing perception is to obscure the remaking of the agencies to serve his cronies’ interests by simply reshuffling the bureaucracy under new teams of loyal and inept leadership, as is now being proposed for FEMA and the CIA. However, this ploy isn’t going to re-focus the agencies on the public interest without a dramatic shift in the policies that guide these agencies, which is most unlikely under Bush-Cheney management.

The decay of major federal agencies has largely occurred off the public’s radar screen due to the lack of attention by the media (with exceptions like the NY Times’ exposure of the lax collection of fines for serious mine-safety violations) Media outlets have largely bought into the prevailing framework presented by the Administration and echoed by congressional Republicans and a multitude of pundits: government agencies must carefully heed the concerns of big business or the US will be rendered “uncompetitive” in the global economy. Sadly, the Democrats echo the fundamental assumptions of Republican policy even while they quibble at the edges. The Republicans have managed to radically reframe the purposes of government to such an overwhelming extent that even critics accept this business-first view of public policy.

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency explicitly has the mission “to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends.” The EPA is supposed to focus on assuring clean air, clean and healthy water, land preservation and restoration, healthy communities, and monitoring global climate change. Nothing in EPA’s mission statement lists minimizing business costs, but that has clearly become the overriding concern for the agency.

To the extent that the Republicans have succeeded in gaining any public support for such a policy direction, it is because they have aggressively re-defined the debate about the role of government. For the past 30-plus years, a wide network comprising what David Brock labeled the Republican Noise Machine” has systematically and incessantly depicted government as an alien, obstructive, and oppressive force in ordinary people’s lives. We are told ceaselessly that while the entrepreneurial energies of the private sector are creating jobs and a dazzling array of new products, government regulations and taxes are sapping this vitality by undermining our property rights, (Episodes like the Katrina debacle may drive down Bush’s poll numbers, but they are also cleverly used to “demonstrate” the inherent incompetence of government, rather than the obvious consequence of appointing the hapless former Arabian Show Horse Association director to manage the fates of millions facing a huge natural disaster.)

In this parallel universe, it is necessary to ward off government tyranny and economic sclerosis. The need for “small government” is invoked again and again without irony, despite Bush’s remarkable record of deficit creation and corporate welfare. Prominent Right strategist (and close Jack Abramoff pal) Grover Norquist has proclaimed, “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” But in reality, before government is completely drowned, Norquist and his allies in the corporate world are intent on thoroughly soaking the taxpayer for huge subsidies, tax breaks, low-cost mineral and oil rights, and a host of other government-provided goodies

This full-scale capture of public institutions for private profit includes Bush colonizing the agencies meant to regulate corporate abuses of workers, the environment, and consumers, and using government agencies to infringe on fundamental rights.

However, Bush may begin to encounter fierce public resistance based on Americans’ deeply-held beliefs in lawful government and government as their protector. The Republicans’ propaganda about “small government” and “free markets” is colliding with core values of positive government, equality of opportunity, and respect for the law.

But the potential for a full-scale public revolt at the polls in November will not be activated if the Democrats continue their pattern of failing to demonstrate a commitment to the public interest. Nowhere is there less political risk in being forceful than by demanding the government and its agencies to “do their job” and protect all of us. Further, it is perceived as weakness when Democrats are unwilling to seriously challenge wrongdoing out of fear of losing votes

The Democrats’ current complacency, exemplified by the widely-held notion that Bush and the Republicans should simply be allowed to self-destruct, is bound to leave the public feeling that the Democrats offer neither any genuine dedication to their needs or commitment to a government that rules for the public good, not merely a desperation to get elected.

Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter are Milwaukee-based writers and activists. They can be reached at

[email protected]

---