Andrew C. McCarthy wants to give the government more power; Sen. Rand Paul doesn't.



Before 93 percent of the U.S.
Senate voted to approve the 2012 National
Defense Authorization Act last week, Sen. Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) tried to block a provision allowing for the indefinite
detainment by the military of American citizens.



When Paul
directly asked McCain in floor debates whether his provision
might allow for Americans to be detained in Guantanamo Bay, McCain
responded "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who
they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United
States, I don't think they should be allowed to continue that
threat." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also
clearly believes that the bill allows for the indefinite
holding of Americans.



...what Robert Higgs, author of Crisis and Leviathan:
Critical Episodes in the Growth of Government, dubs "the
ratchet effect." Higgs writes that while government power may ebb a
bit after wartime panic passes, it rarely
returns to its original scope or size. This is what concerns
Paul. And this is what McCarthy dismisses as extremism, paranoia,
or at best well-meaning naivete.



The difference between Paul and McCarthy is that the
latter interprets constitutional powers as broadly as possible
in favor of government. He does so especially when government
invokes the magic incantations of war and terrorism as its
excuse for the security state. McCarthy doesn't trouble himself
over the risk that innocent people will be caught under the heel of
the state. The senator from Kentucky, on the other hand, has an
attachment to constitutional rights and a broad skepticism of
government power. Unfortunately for the current GOP—and for the
country—Paul is the rebel in his party, and McCarthy is more of the
same.



http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/09/a-tale-of-two-conservatisms