Thinking about the actions of the Bush II administration in its first three years, one can easily see two patterns.

Domestically, primarily through the tax cuts, a structure has been put in place to dismantle much of the social progress of the 20th century.

Internationally, a massive shift has occurred from global cooperation to an attempt at global American dominance, using all means of power available including so-called preemptive war.

Trying to think about the future, and faced with such a complete re-construction of America internally and externally, this observer has difficulty seeing a point at which the Bush people will stop in achieving their goals, a point at which they would say, "Here, but no farther."

Considering that this administration came to power under questionable conditions and with far less than a majority of votes, it’s especially difficult to imagine what considerations of law—either domestic or international— would give them pause.

If the war in Iraq continues on its present bloody, expensive course, and if the economy continues to resist efforts at recovery, then come spring and summer before the 2004 election, the administration is going to face the real possibility of losing power.

Given what we know they have done, the kind of bending facts to fit their own scheme of things and ignoring other facts that simply don’t fit, along with a consistent tendency to say one thing and then do another, one has in recent months repeatedly seen a government of expediency on an unprecedented scale.

Certainly, all politicians act expediently. What has kept the American system of governance afloat in the murky real world of politics is two things: 1) the willingness of expedient politicians to compromise, and 2) the system of checks, balances, and shared power.

Since the 2002 congressional elections, few have pointed out that basically we now have a rubber-stamp legislature, no better, repeat, no better than the Communist legislatures behind the Iron Curtain we used to snicker at.

Which means one of the three balancing arms of power is gone.

While the courts still show some signs of thoughtful independence, it’s important to remember the dubious role of the Supreme Court in bringing this government to power.

What we have now is a severe IMBALANCE of power.

Put such a government in a position next year where its right to rule is threatened, what may they—or may they not—be capable of doing in order to retain power?

As I said, when you think about it, given what they’ve already done, it’s difficult to see any sort of legal—much less moral or ethical—point at which they would stop and say, "No farther."

Ought we perhaps try to learn from the past?

A similarly expedient government found itself in roughly the same position 70 years ago. A catastrophe occurred in that government’s capital city which the government then used as an excuse to suspend the constitution and lay the groundwork for dictatorship.

In January, 1933, the economically weakened German government appointed Hitler as chancellor. Though his party was still in the minority, the Nazis were the largest vote-getters in the previous election.

A few weeks later, on the night of February 27, the Reichstag—the parliament building in Berlin—burned. A communist arsonist was arrested, tried, and executed. (Historians still disagree about whether he was the actual guilty party or whether the fire was in fact the Nazis’ doing.)

Hitler, Goering, et al. used the fire as the excuse to gut the constitution and to put themselves in positions of absolute power. Interviewed at the smoldering building, Hitler said, "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in German history... This fire is the beginning."

(Adding to the confusion in our own time: conspiracy theorists on the far right, following 9/11, immediately leaped on the Reichstag fire to shore up their argument that the American government was either behind or knew beforehand of the terrorist attacks.)

Today, for Americans trying to live and be good, thoughtful citizens under a government that has repeatedly shown itself capable of the most devious kind of expediency, we are faced with the difficult, tragic question: Is this administration willing to go that far in securing its re-election?

I have no answer to that question.

But if vigilance and extreme skepticism toward our government have ever been called for, it is now and in the coming months. Because it could turn out that the whole terrible weapons-of-mass-destruction duplicity leading to the war in Iraq was only a warm-up exercise.