The buzz word is “reorganization,” but the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is actually an expansion of the government that masquerades as protection against terrorism and provides a false sense of security for the American public.

Republicans and Democrats both laud the new department, which will control 22 different government agencies, including the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard. The cabinet-level department is intended to bridge the gap between protection and intelligence. This restructuring is the most significant change to the executive branch of the federal government since Harry S. Truman created the Department of Defense in 1947.

While the public clamors for assurance against further terrorist attacks, Republicans have demonstrated their willingness to compromise their basic party values in an effort to appease the electorate. Before Sept. 11, some GOP candidates ran on platforms of abolishing the Department of Education, arguing that it duplicated the efforts of state and local education. Now the party of small, efficient government is the biggest advocate of a growing executive.

“Republicans are justifying the war on terrorism and in the last 14 months, have justified every increase in spending as helping the war on terrorism,” said David E. Williams, a spokesperson for the Citizens Against Government Waste, a fiscally conservative public interest group.

Foregoing efficacy and principles, the Republican party’s support for the Department of Homeland Security is an attempt to court public opinion. Even Bush initially rejected the idea of a new cabinet department only to embrace it in June, just in time for the beginning of the campaign season. Bush could rally the nation to support his party, using the proposed department to demonstrate the GOP’s commitment to the fight against terrorism.

How can a party that so often looks to slash layers from the federal government then support the creation of an entirely new cabinet department? Conservatives are torn on the creation of this department because it forces them to choose between protection against terrorism and small government, according to Chris J. Burger, a spokesperson for the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. “If the private sector were able to solve these problems, that would be great, but this is something we have to do,” he said.

The department makes the public feel more secure, but past precedent indicates that cramming different agencies together tends to weaken cooperation and effectiveness as each agency fights for its own identity and mission within its delineated turf. Bush and his followers believe that changing a few desks around will somehow make the U.S. more capable of anticipating terrorist attacks.

More dangerous than a padded executive branch, however, is the false sense of security the department fosters among the American public. In exchange for even higher approval ratings and a GOP sweep of the mid-term elections, Republicans have sacrificed reality to placate American nightmares. True conservatives should balk at this new layer of bureaucracy, which is merely a band-aid for the country’s fear and compromises a crucial element of the party’s founding principles.