OPINION:
Whether you like his brand of conservatism or not — and there’s plenty about his approach to national security and foreign policy that I don’t like — you have to admire the principled stand that Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky took on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. Mr. Paul made Americans step back and take a long, hard look at civil liberties and freedom — and the very real threat that an out-of-control government poses to American liberty.
Last week, for the first time since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, the Congress of the United States re-evaluated the balance between collective security and personal liberty. The malicious attacks on the American homeland that day instantly and permanently changed the landscape of American national security.
That fear seized Congress, where members naturally felt it was their obligation to ensure that similar atrocities would never again happen on American soil. The result was the now-infamous USA Patriot Act, which vastly strengthened the capacity of the American government to monitor and investigate its citizens. The Patriot Act was debated in a hothouse environment with due diligence in short supply. Just six weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it was signed into law by President Bush.
Suddenly the scales of American liberty had a weight placed on them. Infringements of personal freedoms such as “sneak and peak” warrants and roving wiretaps — actions that would not have been whispered on Capitol Hill two months earlier — were sanctioned by the majority of members, tacitly accepted by the public, and enacted with the full force of the law.
As provisions of the Patriot Act expired, and the obligatory retrospectives began, I applauded Mr. Paul for spotlighting the leaders who had the courage to defend personal freedoms and fight for transparency in government’s surveillance tactics.
I am proud to say many of these leaders were colleagues during my tenure in the House of Representatives. Two months after my 2005 swearing in, the Patriot Act came up for renewal, a measure 13 of my Republican colleagues in the House and I voted against, but was nevertheless passed. Joining me in the dissent was Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, Sen. Paul’s father, who tallied his second vote against the act, having been one of only three Republicans to vote against the original in 2001.
The obstruction of the act we engaged in was not simply rhetoric, however. Like-minded lawmakers and I successfully preserved sunset provisions that would force Congress to reauthorize the act, or it would cease function. Those provisions ensured Congress would think about — and vote for — invading privacy again, just a few years down the road.
The opposition of recognizable leaders and critical media reports began to reshape American perception on issues of civil liberties. After Sept. 11, more than half the nation believed the government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism, even if it meant violating civil liberties. By 2006, through the concerted efforts of champions of freedom from both parties, that number had dropped to only 31 percent.
The pro-freedom push reached its crescendo recently, as senators filibustered the reauthorization of the act. Those lawmakers deserve special recognition for running out the clock on the Patriot Act Monday, allowing the very sunset provisions we enacted years earlier to kick in, effectively ending an era of curtailed civil liberties.
Those of us who believe that potential laws should not be cavalierly debated but rather subject to careful scrutiny have been vindicated. Think about it: In the relatively short time since its adoption, public and congressional opinion has shifted quickly and significantly against the act. This is the key lesson. Congress and other leaders in Washington must have the foresight and the courage to avoid reactive policy, especially if the policy is to the detriment of liberty.
“There is danger from all men,” said John Adams. “The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
• Connie Mack IV is a former Republican member of Congress from Florida. He currently serves as managing director of Levick Communications.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.