It's worth noting that liberal theorists came up with the idea of "limited government" as opposed to absolute government. It had existed before modern liberalism, of course, most notably in the examples of Greece, Rome, and the Italian Renaissance republics. But Locke's social contract theory provided a thorouhgoing philisophical foundation which accomplished the seemingly contradictory feat of grounding governmental authority in individual liberty--and visa versa.

The rational was simple: in a state of nature, without government, no individual liberties were secure. The foundation of government was the recognition that some liberties were essential--inalienable--while others could reasonably be set aside as a means to an end, so long as the end was secured, and others still could be arrayed in between, and dealt with through political and judicial means.

With this philosophical foundation, the grounds were finally laid on which, eventually, the monarchy itself could be disposed of--which it was, following the American Revolution. And thus we established a limited government with separation of powers placing the primary war powers in legislative hands, giving the President executive powers in war, the same as in domestic matters.

Conservatives, however, didn't like this arrangement when polical results started going against them. First, they worked furiously to redefine "limited government" to mean "government limited to military spending, the FBI, the war on drugs and pork for my district." And now that they've brainwashed away any recollection at all of what "limited government" actually means, they are set on proclaiming that George Bush is king--ruling by divine right, no less, since obviously a majority of people didn't vote for him in 2000. (This isn't snark. I've actually read a Bush supporter arguing this.)

Why do conservatives really hate America?

Like the scorpion in the story in The Crying Game--they can't help themselves. It's just their nature.

Earlier this week I referred to Richard Reeves' book on the Nixon presidency, Alone in the White House, which details how thoroughly Nixon wanted to restructure the American political system, not just the executive branch, centralizing all power in the White House and circumventing career officials and departmental procedures in the various agencies and departments, but even as far as creating a third party, to get around the traditions embedded there as well.

I noted that Rumsfeld and Cheney were Nixon true believers. Reagan's Iran-Contra activities, among others, showed a continuity of desire to restructure political arrangements to central power in the White House, regardless of what the law said. And thus, there are clear lines of continuity from the Nixon Adminstration, through every subsequent GOP administration to this very day.

Since this is so, it is hardly surprising to find the deletion of crucial records has become increasingly common as well. To the contrary--it would be surprising if documents didn't disappear. Removing accountability is a key genetic component of the Nixonization program. And removing records of government action is a crucial means of removing accountability.

For some time now, I've take to calling the Beltway/political elite as "Versailles." This points up their insularity, isolation, cluelessness and shared delusion that they speak for and deeply understand a nation which is actually entirely strange to them, and close to wanting them all dead.

An exaggeration? Surely. But not by all that much. It also suggests that we can learn important lessons about those who currently rule over us by looking back at the court politics of Versailles. Instructively, those politics did not end with the fall of the court. They are with us to this very day.

One of their most enduring and pernicious legacies was the dogged refusal to let go of their delusional belief that they and they alone represented the "true France." By necessity, this belief meant that the Revolution did not express the true will of the French people, and was not the result of decades of misrule and neglect, but was instead the product of a malicious, hidden, secretive, secular "liberal elite"--the Bavarian Illuminati (who had actually been disbanded over a decade before the Revolution, and were located [as their name indicated] in far-off Bavaria).

When the Federalists were driven from power in 1800, in a backlash against their authoritarian ways (the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.), they glommed on to the myth of the Bavarian Illuminati to explain their woes. (Again, the utter lack of Illuminati, Bavarian or otherwise, was not a problem for them. Even then, the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence.) Over time, a series of other secret society myths modelled on the myth of the Illumaniti has joined together with age-old anti-Semitism to form a crucial part of populist rightwing ideology--a vital link between conservative elites and the masses who love them.

With this pattern in mind, it seems virtually certain that the current Versailles crowd will continue circulating its litany of lies long after our troops have withdrawn from Iraq. Truth will never penetrate their temple of faith--in themselves. Indeed, we should expect those lies to be handed down from generation to generation, as further proof of how evil, insidious and traitorous liberals really are. That will be the sole historical lesson that Versailles draws from their ignominous end.

But, then, they already knew that. Didn't they?