Since the New Deal, essentially the last sixty years, politicians from both parties have taken extraordinary liberties with the public treasury. The Clinton agenda, however, institutionalizes the idea that the purpose of government is to take the assets of one class in order to create "security" for other classes. The Clinton tax-package, National Health Care Reform, Family Leave, and National Service all depend on the redistribution of assets to create equality of outcome. Incidentally, it is no accident that the supposed benefits of many of these programs do not begin until his second term, essentially financing his re-election bid from the public trough. The nation might well benefit if the president declared a temporary hiatus from the campaign trail.

In the process, it is Clinton's intention to redefine the purpose of government, rejecting entirely the constitutional edifice of the Founding Fathers, in addition to rejecting the principles themselves. The sequence of events deriving predominantly from the programs instituted during the New Deal have already altered to a great extent the American understanding of the purpose of government. James Madison's understanding was that this government was created for the protection of individual liberty, and that the protection of individual liberty was manifested in the right to own property. In order to "reinvent government" according to his own vision, Clinton must reject the principles of the Founding, which he has done. He must content that private property is harmful to the public good, and he does so by demanding progressive taxation for the purposes of redistribution, and by the excessive regulations that restrict productive utilization of private land.

According to the Founding Fathers, the right to own property transcended the creation of wealth; it established limitations on government. Appropriately, our Constitution was written in anticipation of Bill Clinton's election; written to defy any assertion that our Constitution, and the principles defined therein, was only a list of suggestions. The right to own property was meant to provide protection for the gains obtained from one's industry and merit. It was acknowledged that not all men would be inclined to produce at the same level, that some were more capable than others or some were more ambitious than others. The first purpose of government, according to Madison, was to protect the diverse and unequal faculties of men for acquiring property. Each man should be encouraged to pursue his interests in an effort to become a self-reliant citizen. For the republic to succeed it would be necessary for the more capable of its citizens to participate, and such participation would not occur if their individual efforts were not rewarded, and if the fruits of their labor were not protected.

Under the Clinton leadership, Senator Patrick Moynihan proudly proclaims the Clinton tax package to be the most progressive he has ever seen. Madison would interpret that statement to mean that the tax package is the most un-American proposal he has ever seen. Progressive taxation is a rejection of "the diversity of faculties" premise, and a contention that no citizen has the right to succeed above the limitations set by the government. The Clinton agenda announces, for all to hear, that property rights, and, therefore, individual liberty, will be meted out by the government rather than protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Hillary Clinton, speaking to a group of medical students, put the opponents of the nanny state on notice when she proclaimed that it is time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of the individual. To the Clintons, however, "the common good," "the national interest," is not the Madisonian model that insists that the community was established for the purpose of protecting the rights of the individual. To them, "the common good" means the state. To Madison, justice is the common good, the core of which is the protection of the rights of the individual.

The distorted view that the Clintons hold as to what is best for America is reflected in their advocacy for gay rights, and in their plans for the redistribution of the wealth of the nation. Was there really a mandate for the appointment of gays and lesbians to the Cabinet? Was there a national clamor for opening the military to some grand social experiment in alternative lifestyles? Was there a consensus that the purpose of government was to create a new and exclusive set of rights for gay and lesbian couples? And is it true that Americans wanted our new president to seek some sort of retribution against those citizens that had financial success in the 1980s? That these are the positions held by the Clinton regime is another confirmation that they stand outside the mainstream understanding of the purpose of government.

The Clinton Presidency will fail for two reasons. It demands new definitions of justice and equality that reject the Madisonian common good. The Clinton principle asserts that justice means economic equality between all men. It further advocates that it is the role of government to create economic equality. It will never happen in a free society. Men have the right to succeed, to produce and to profit from their labor. "And inasmuch as most good things are produced by labor, it follows that all such things of right belongs to those whose labor has produced them…To secure to each laborer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible, is a worthy object of any good government." (Abraham Lincoln, Dec. 1, 1847)

And, though not as rhetorically attractive, men have the right to fail. What is called opportunity, or entrepreneurship, is having the courage to risk success and failure. It is not only what drives the American economy, but is the basis of citizenship. Justice requires that there should exist some penalty for failure, and rewards for success. Americans understand it, and wouldn't have it any other way. They cherish the idea of creating wealth because of the good it brings and because of the character it demands. Keeping the doors of opportunity open is the real national interest and the best way to serve the common good.

While the government can play a constructive role in helping to improve the lives of the disadvantage, such actions must take place within the context of the Madisonian constitutional limits on government; removing obstacles to success rather than providing for dependency. There are few problems that Americans face today that could not be solved if good jobs were available. Excessive taxation and regulation, the products of intrusive government, have eliminated those jobs. Clinton's vision is of the Supreme State, a fantasyland in which government cures all ills through a doctrine of economic parity. In realityland, it becomes a roadblock to opportunity. Clinton's fantasyland, and the reality of what it means to be an American, are two parallel universes, co-existing without relationship to each other.

If one's purpose is to narrow the gap between the poor and the wealthy, certain conditions must prevail. There can be no incentive to acquire property that is not accompanied by a guarantee that such property will be protected once acquired. The protection of property that is provided must apply equally, to those who own substantial property, and to those who own little.

Property is the fruit of labor—property is desirable—is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built. (Abraham Lincoln, March 21, 1864)

There is no room in this equation for governmental redistribution of property. Clinton will fail for the same reason that liberalism fails; it seeks justice for the poor while denying justice to the wealthy. In a free society, justice must exist for all. That is the true basis for community.

In reality, the attempt to create economic "security" through perverted principles creates a widening of the gap between rich and poor. Liberalism seeks to redistribute the economic pie rather than to grow the pie, and the pie can grow larger only when value is added into the economic pie mix. As those with fresh capital invest in the economy, the economy grows and the poor can benefit. When government grows, it does so by taking capital out of the economy; the economy shrinks and the poor fail to benefit.

The anticipated success of the New Deal, the Great Society and the War on Poverty has long been dispelled, and yet, the financial burden of these failed programs remain. The same Americans that risked their lives abroad, fighting Communism and Fascism, ardently support the collectivism of Social Security and welfare and appear to lend support to the lure of socialized medicine. Ironically, if asked to abandon our constitutional form of government for a form of socialism, these same recipients would readily take up arms in patriotic resistance. This contradiction of values is the national vice. The simultaneous demand for individual liberty and governmentally administered security, which must depend on the confiscation of the property of others, lacks rationality. It has been the philosophy of the Clinton administration to exploit the national vice to its fullest political advantage.

The best description of the state of the nation under Bill Clinton is "chaos." Even his most ardent supporters must have been startled when he announced, less than three weeks into his administration, that he had reduced interest rates and created thousands of new jobs. His politics are of expediency. He is the worst kind of politician. Clinton's desire to be president is not based on a desire to serve the nation, but, rather, a need to serve his personal arrogance. His is a presidency that rejects the principles of the Founding in the attempt to reinvent a government that is not "of the people, by the people, for the people," but above the people. In Clinton's new order we will take no pride in being self-reliant, in being independent, because it will no longer be a requirement of citizenship that we be so. Bill Clinton will feel our pain, and he will take care of us. Bill Clinton is always ready to proclaim himself as the guardian of security and fairness, ignoring that our only real security lies in our ability to provide for ourselves. I have never heard him mention the U.S. Constitution as the protector of rights.

The principles that define our national character have been written into a Constitution that, for over 200 years, has acted as a sentry against the invasion of individual liberty and guarded us against the perversion of self-government. We are, after all, a nation of principles, and our Constitution was written so that we might refer to those principles, and not forget them. The Constitution stands between the declaration of a people to remain free, and the totalitarian inclinations of a government too powerful and too committed to its own will to honor its intended purpose. Bill Clinton can create no rights or create no protections that are not already secured by the Constitution. The sooner he realizes it, the sooner David Gergen can remove the training wheels from the presidency.