When the time came for me to register with a political party in early 2000, I was presented with a difficult choice. As a member of the minority of the American political spectrum, the center, I could choose either party and find parts of the platform unpalatable. After some thought, I chose the Republican Party, because it fit best with my libertarian ideals: It believed in small government, responsible fiscal policy and free trade. Besides, I needed to cast a vote for John McCain in the Republican primary, and California did not have open primaries at the time.

I voted for George Bush in 2000 with a clear conscience. In 2004, I voted for him again with deep reservations, but secure in the knowledge that California was going for Kerry no matter what. Just three months after Mr. Bush’s new term began, I wonder what happened to that party I registered with four years ago, the one that worked for smaller deficits and economist-driven economic policy, and small government.

Under Mr. Bush’s administration, the deficit of this country has ballooned. I understand that September 11 necessitated large amounts of spending, and that the economy took a downturn after it, but Republicans continue to spend and spend with no Democratic majority to stop them. Meanwhile, the dollar is getting hammered, and Alan Greenspan has been making the strongest remarks regarding the deficit he ever has. Yet, the administration seems interested in little else but continued spending. Many say that we need to spend because of our involvement in Iraq, but shouldn’t the administration ought to have weighed that possibility more heavily before invading?

Now that the election is fought and won, administration rhetoric regarding the war has taken a disturbing turn, as well; now as justification for the war, we hear about how Iraq is going to be a shining example of democracy in the Middle East, and none of the regretful talk of missing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Mr. Bush has entered the nation-building business, it would seem, and it wasn’t all that long ago that he said that it was a sure loser. He was right the first time.

All of this would be disturbing on its own, but it would not likely drive me from the Republican Party. No, these could be issues that could be fixed from within, and some in Congress have voiced similar concerns, although not as vocally as I might like. But the total arrogance of nearly all Republicans in dismissing their dearest plank of the platform, the ideal of small government, has succeeded where all else had failed. Some of the government growth was necessary, such as the addition of the Department of Homeland Security. Other parts of it, such as the Patriot Act, are disturbing. But it is not the worst of it.

Mr. Bush came out last year against “activist judges” making up law rather than interpreting what was written. In principle, I agree with him, but what he missed is that the judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage were ruling on the law, namely, the Constitution, which says a few things about withholding rights from some that many possess. Yet Mr. Bush seems to be on the search for activist judges. He rushed home from vacation to sign the bill that authorized federal courts to rule on the Terri Schiavo case, despite the fact that Florida courts had already made their rulings. This is an assault on states’ rights, a principle Mr. Bush supposedly upholds. Yet his administration has harassed states more than any in recent memory, from right to die issues to gay marriage. His Justice Department has harried California in an effort to thwart medical marijuana, despite the fact that a federal ban on marijuana is unconstitutional in the first place. Remember prohibition? There was a reason they needed the 18th Amendment to pass it, and it was because the 10th Amendment gave powers not given to the federal government to the states and the people.

The Bush administration has been the most belligerent against both civil and states’ rights in recent memory, and the rest of the Republican Party seems content to sit and watch. Mr. Bush may have won the battle by winning the 2004 election, but if he and Karl Rove wish to found a Republican dynasty as Roosevelt did for the democrats in 1936, he should remember that his victory was won on the backs of older voters motivated more by his cultural war declarations than his policies, in slim margins in Ohio and Florida. This balance of power will not be there for long.

Next time I check a box on my voter registration form, it will say Democrat next to it.

-The writer is a junior majoring in history.