A group of “conservative leaders” met today to draft what they are calling the Mount Vernon Statement ahead of the conservative gathering, CPAC, which begins tomorrow. Some have called the meeting of conservative minds an attempt to unite the “wings” of conservatism under a common statement of principles. Ignoring whether such unification is necessary or even beneficial, the meeting was designed with the intention of drafting a unifying statement that would effort to bring together many from across the “conservative ideological spectrum. Again, I must question whether such a wide range of view points can legitimately exist under the banner of conservatism, but it was nonetheless their objective, so we will go with that for now.
You can read the full statement here…
I won’t spend time discussing the document as a whole. I think it was a noble endeavor that lacked any real focus save for “unification.” I would have preferred an open discussion regarding the legitimacy of these alleged “wings” of conservatism, but my preferences are not the subject of the day here. I will however address one portion of the “statement” that I find particularly troubling.
“A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.”
While I am encouraged by the passion and strength of conviction that led to the drafting of this statement, I do take issue with the portion of the piece listed above. As I have stated repeatedly, I do not believe in the compartmentalization of conservatism. I believe that it is a ideological impossibility to be “conservative” on fiscal matters while being something else in regards to social issues or national security concerns. To me, conservatism is about a process rather than a compulsory acknowledgment of fundamental principles or prefabricated “conservative” talking points. Rhetoric that aims to characterize “conservatism” on a case-by-case / issue-by-issue basis only succeeds in dividing the base, diluting the message, and detracting from the true principles of conservatism. Embracing such labels as fiscal conservative, social conservative, or national security conservatives does a great disservice to a true conservative ideology as its TRUE message stands to be lost in the distinctions…
It is also worth mentioning that the language I have bolded at the end of the list of objectives – “It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith” – would have been a more fundamentally “conservative” point if it would have been amended to say something like this “It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and the Right of free expression of one’s individualized religious or non-religious views or practices free of government sanction or interference” – or something similar to that. I understand that it is a bit more wordy, but if this is supposed to be a “Constitutionally Conservative” document, I don’t think it should skip right over the First Amendment. I think that one was pretty important.
That being said, it should not be inferred from my objections to this portion of the decree that I oppose the greater message being offered by this “statement” or at least the greater intention of “unification.” I fully support any objective that aims to bring conservative Americans together in the spirit of the Founding Fathers, and I supremely appreciate these men and women for their efforts. I simply disagree with their beliefs that conservatism is a piecemeal ideology that can be subverted or replaced with situational expediency. I understand that the goal of this statement was to bring conservatives together, and I would assume that such a concession was a necessary evil for doing so. I do not support that compromise, but do not throw out the whole of the document for the shortcomings of a brief passage.
While I appreciate the passion behind their efforts, I firmly believe that as a general rule, documents such as this “Mount Vernon Statement” are absolutely ridiculous and reek of arrogance and a lack of understanding of one fundamental and glaring point… Shouldn’t our only guiding or uniting document be that which our Founding Fathers drafted at Independence Hall?
Would I have preferred to have seen a “statement” free of this divisive language or the constitutionally inconsistent message regarding “faith” that infuses “everyday conservatism” with an ideology? Of course I would have but I was not in attendance AND my take on conservatism has on more than one occasion left me on the outside looking in at those who seem to believe they have this conservative thing all figured out, so I am not surprised that I stand in objection to at least some part of such a wide-ranging statement – or any that would attempt to detract from the only document that really matters – The United States Constitution.
Allahpundit I do believe… shares my reservations on the inclusion of the “faith” language.
Michelle Malkin appears skeptical about the need for these “statements” and Contracts as a general rule…
There’s the “Contract from America” from the Tea Party Patriots.
And the “Mount Vernon” statement from various leaders of the Right.
All well and good, but if the signers of all these new documents support political candidates who brazenly undermine the grand principles they put forth, what’s the point?
Anyway, isn’t the document featured here the only statement of guiding principles we need:
Donald Douglas at American Power also references this last passage, but he takes a more optimistic tone in expressing his satisfaction that the “Statement” appears to agree to a less-meddling approach to social issues.
DD also references Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) who had this to say about the “statement.”
Kyle at Right Wing Watch is profoundly confused about the focus and objectives of the document….
via Memeorandum
________________________________________________________________________________
I think you have a legitimate point. The Constitution is what our nation is based upon. Why do we need another statement to affirm that fact?
That’s my point precisely. We believe in and will protect the Constitution….. End of story – there’s your “constitutional conservative statement.” Done and Done…. Statements like this lead me to believe these men and women think they need to clarify their support which to me raises obvious questions. If they fully support the Constitution… do they really need to tell us which aspects / portions of it that they hold closest to their hearts?
@LD Jackson I think you hit the point along with T. What is the point? Why is there always an extra statement that we support the Constitution and its principles? Do we think we have to tell everyone what that means because they are too dumb to know for themselves? I’m not a doctor or a lawyer but I know enough to know that these people seem to want to feel important and wise or visionary in doing this. I do not like it. I would not sign this thing if you made me.
A Justice McNamara Dispatch…
…
Your title says it all. The answer is “we don’t”.
I think you might be reading a bit too much into this. Statements like this have the tendency to remind people what they believe and/or pull people together for what is to come. In a sense, it’s like a couple renewing their wedding vows. They’re still married, and they always have been, but the renewing is a symbolic way for them to reaffirm that. Sometimes, symbolic acts can pull people together.
I do agree with you part about the language. I like yours much better.
Sometimes…but sometimes they’re a way for elitists to assert their influence where it is neither warranted nor desired.
Personally, I see this is particular episode as heavy on the latter. I just don’t like this crap.
You know I hate these lists, decrees, statements, contracts, or whatever. A waste of time and a tool for dumbing down while appearing smart. The kind of thing that makes me want to hit a wall.
I can buy the wedding vows thing if it were about the vows. This just seems to be a picking and choosing which “vows” we like and which we don’t. I am all for conservatives reaffirming their commitment to the Constitution. Hell if I had a kid I’d make him say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning and throw in my own line “to the Flag… and the Constitution …of the United States of America.” I just dont see this as that.
Should have also said thanks. I obv liked my language better but I appreciate you caught that. Even if I “loved” this statement or the idea of one, that line would have made lost me. Situational strict interpretation is the mother of all hypocrisies.
Matt, in one of those rare moments where booze soothes the savage beast, let me say it this way:
If somebody, anybody, needs a “statement” other than the ones already made (or the ones, presumably, they have on their own) to remind them of what they believe, we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.
OTOH, if it’s to “pull people together for what is to come”…I still say ‘eh’, but I’m willing to embrace it in the same way I embrace Hannity.
IF-and this is a big ‘If’-this serves to do just that and make it more likely that we win, then I’m all for it.
I’m just a little skeptical that this resonates with the people I hung out with on 9/12. To me, it sounds like more of the same elitist nonsense.
But then again, I’m drunk. Time’s are tough. It was Fleischmann’s tonight.
http://www.bartonbrands.com/fleischwhiskey.html
A fifth for 10 bucks.
Can’t beat that with a bat.
Be careful. The Oathkeepers who are comprised of soldiers, veterans, law enforcement, and firemen as well as patriots in the civilian sector are being ridiculed for pledging to obey the oath they took and are now considered “extremists” because they don’t want to disarm law abiding citizens and violate their Constitutional rights under any circumstances or obey unlawful orders. An organization that asks us to be prepared to confront a possible circumstance like Katrina and Pittsburgh where citizen rights were violated by use of force, where soldiers and police were used as government thugs by politicians that took us off guard and counted on the notion that we are trained to obey orders, a group that wants to protect and not take away anyone’s rights… is considered extreme. Men and women that have actually shed blood for others, that march towards danger and not away from it, that only want the government to leave its law abiding citizens alone to live their lives with the freedom our Founding Fathers wanted them to have… is being mocked and ridiculed. We’re obligated NOT to obey an unlawful order and have a duty not to do so yet we’ll be the first ones a politician will sacrifice if we did such a thing if it involved somebody that had political connections. According to Bill O’Reilly (who I admire greatly) we should follow orders and wait for the Supreme Court to make a ruling on whether or not it was proper. That’s not even an option to those of us on the streets. Our lives will be ruined long before any Supreme Court rules on such a thing. If I’m ordered to disarm a law abiding citizen and he or she gets killed by some thug because I took away their rightful means of protecting themselves I couldn’t live with that nor would I allow that to happen. In essence, we’re extremists because we want to continue to do what we have always done regardless of the ruling body in power at any particular time.
@jake i am not sure that is true