The presidency and the future.(THE LAST WORD)

Nearly 20 years have gone by since the election of the first President Bush in 1988. Since that time the White House has been occupied continuously by a member of either the Bush or Clinton families. They have been so successful at monopolizing the executive branch it is possible to begin referring to a Bush-Clinton ruling dynasty.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The perception of a dynasty has been reinforced by the fact that the policies emanating from the White House have been remarkably consistent no matter which family happens to be in power. This is particularly true with regard to Bush-Clintonian beliefs about the preeminence of the presidency. Whether under George Bush I, Bill Clinton, or George Bush II, the nation's ruling house of Clinton-Bush has used every opportunity to expand the power of the federal apparatus in general and the executive branch in particular.

This trend reached a pinnacle under the current President Bush who, asserting himself under the dubious doctrine of the "unitary executive"--a euphemism, some would say, for a budding dictatorship--has sought to place himself above the law. If that sounds like a wild statement, consider the words of recently confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Asked during his confirmation hearings by Senator Patrick Leahy if the president can operate outside laws passed by Congress, Mukasey replied: "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country." In other words, according to our new attorney general, it would seem that if the president says he is defending the country, then he is above the law--a position that dovetails nicely with the president's actual behavior while in office.

Now, after 20 years under the house of Clinton-Bush, we have reached a moment in America that could prove historically decisive. Will voters stick with the status quo and select a candidate--Hillary Clinton being the most obvious--who will continue to carry the torch of expansive government for another four years or more (if subsequently reelected)? Or will voters attempt to force a break with the past by electing one of the vanishingly few contenders who may be inclined to chart a course back toward limited government and respect for both the rule of law and the separation of powers?

The stakes, it seems, couldn't be higher. Among the Republican contenders, most have indicated a willingness to continue the foreign-policy direction of military preemption, intervention, and nation building that the first President Bush inaugurated, Bill Clinton perpetuated (think ...