The Mount Vernon Statement Won’t Fix What’s Broken
There’s something not to like for everyone in the Mount Vernon Statement of conservative principles that wasn’t signed at Mount Vernon but sure looks good on a masthead.
In fact, the statement was signed at the Collingwood Library and Museum in Alexandria, Virginia, on property which once was known as George Washington’s River Farm. Why they didn’t call the document the “Collingwood Statement” is understandable. According to the museum’s website, “a member of the British forces at the Battle of Bunker Hill, later in 1805 an Admiral commanding a portion of the British fleet in the Battle of Trafalgar, has had his name associated with the property.” It might prove awkward for the organizers if it became known that the site they chose to reaffirm constitutional conservative principles was connected to a man who fought against our revolution.
The organizers — a group of establishment types representing social, traditional, and libertarian conservative groups — call their little screed a “manifesto.” This is just a fancy word for a document written by committee that sacrifices clarity and specificity on the altar of “unity,” while striving mightily to say absolutely nothing elegantly and with as much conviction as can be mustered.
And yet, the very earnestness with which these efforts are undertaken recommends that we at least mark their passing and acknowledge the serious aspirations of the authors in making an attempt to define modern constitutional conservatism.
The maniefsto was written to build upon the seminal Sharon Statement of 1960, explains Ed Meese, former Reagan attorney general:
The statement intentionally harkens back to the Sharon Statement of 1960, which was signed at the home of William F. Buckley Jr. in Sharon, Conn. That statement of conservative principles helped launch an era of conservative activism that first led to Sen. Barry Goldwater winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1964 and then to Ronald Reagan being elected president in 1980.
“The whole purpose of it is to give an updated version of what are the principles that draw conservatives together,” said Meese, who came with Reagan from California to the White House in January 1981. “And so it was felt both that it was appropriate to draw attention to the Sharon Statement but also to update that in terms of generally how conservatives think today, which is basically the same principles restated in what you might call modern language.”
Why update a statement of principles? One would think that principles should be immutable, solid, permanent. In fact, the Mount Vernon Statement suffers by comparison. Part of the problem is that the Sharon Statement was written at at time when conservatives were truly in the wilderness. Also, the Sharon document was written by grassroots activists, not establishmentarians like Grover Norquist and Ed Meese.
As an example of the difference, here’s the Mount Vernon Statement on natural law:
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The Sharon Statement:
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
It’s not that the Mount Vernon Statement is necessarily deficient. It’s oatmeal compared to the red meat in the Sharon Statement. The manifesto leaves one empty and wanting more. It’s sentiments are pleasant and agreeable enough, but by trying to be all things to all people, it loses focus and ends up sounding platitudinous.
There is a question of consistency as well. Daniel Larison:
I cannot object to the statement that the “federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.” This is true. However, I have no idea why the organizers of this gathering think that anyone will believe their professions of constitutionalism after enabling or acquiescing in some of the most grotesque violations of constitutional republican government in the last forty years. If constitutional conservatism means anything, it has to mean that the executive branch does not have wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the president’s (temporary) military role. It has to mean that all these conservatives will start arguing that the president cannot wage wars on his own authority, and they will have to argue this no matter who occupies the Oval Office.
Please Mr. Moran, enough criticism and the cynical analysis. At least good people are trying to bring back what some commun sense in America. It is easy to sit down and say negative comments about the Mount Vernon Statements but what we need right now is unity against Obama’s collectivism and the idea that government is the solution. Remember the Greeks.
Surprise! Surprise! Mr. Moran does not like the Mount Vernon Statement or any attempt by conservatives to achieve unity. I knew your position on the topic as soon as I saw your byline. Very predictable.
It is also quite clear that many of your thoughts on the subject are a complete farce.
First, the manifesto is intentionally broad as the goal is unity. Yet, you critize it for being exactly what it was created to be. Manifestos are not party platforms nor are they a list of specific policy positions. You might as well critize it for not showing us how to make the perfect apple pie.
Second, since the manifesto is intentionally broad, it continues to foster debate within conservatism while still acknowledging the value of each of the conservative wings to the whole. If the manifesto had come out with 20 policy positions that one had to embrace to be called a conservative, you would have been the first to scream litmus test, small tent, etc, etc. Instead, the manifesto allows diversity and you – who often claim to want a big tent – now cry foul. Am I missing something?
Third, your claim that conservatives supported G.W.Bush ignores the facts and the context. Many conservatives denounced his actions when he swayed from conservative principles – prescription drug program, immigration reform, increased spending, bailouts, stimulus, Miers nomination, etc. To claim otherwise is to be knowingly ignorant or intentionally misleading. Did conservatives support Bush at election time? Yes, when John Kerry is the alternative.
Fourth, so a new “Contract with America” is the answer? The first one did not work all that well. I do not see how reviving a 20 year old campaign slogan is the answer.
No matter what the statement, you would find some fault with it. How about you do something really creative and try to come up with a manifesto on your own. Then you can submit it to us for review and comment. Show some guts for once instead of sniping safely from the sidelines.
Right wingers and conservatives are two different animals. The GOP has been overrun with the former. They are just another branch of socialism (use of power of state to mould society). Conservatives have never liked many of the policies supported by the GOP in resent years. Just because conservatives tend to relate better to the GOP does not make the GOP conservative or mean that the GOP speaks for conservatives. Conservatives did not screw up. The GOP screwed up by adopting to leftist political concepts ( left vs. right) and using leftist vocabulary. Of course considering that the left, up to recently, controlled all venues of public discourse, and the left controls all education, its easy to see why we would be stuck with leftist political theory as the only framework for political debate. But the GOP should have recognized what was happening and worked against it. Instead we have the likes of you writing anti-conservative hit pieces in support of the Right Wing Socialist/John McCain branch of the GOP.
I am a real liberal ( i.e. the antithesis of a socialist). I am not a right winger ( i.e. the antithesis of a lefty ) Its time to take back our language so that we can have a real political discussion.
And please forgive my rambling. I’m running a fever and really need to get to bed
There is much to be gained by many people voicing their devotion to
the U.S. Constitution in their own words.
And we don’t care much for whiny condescention from the likes of Allahpundit or you.
Let Freedom Ring. And not just in one tone.
At least some Americans are not willing to lie down and die. My hat’s off to each and every American who is lending their voice to keep their country alive. Live Free or Die.
I agree with other commentators that the Mount Vernon group gets an A for effort, However I just reread the Sharon Statement and it is a clearer statement than the Mount Vernon Declaration. With the changing of one word and the addition of one other word the document would be totally updated and I would sign it. The Mount Vernon Declaration, though as I said a good effort, has two many political loopholes in its wording for my comfort.
For the record I would change “administer justice” to administer the law in line 5. I would also add national to international Communism in the third line from the bottom. Other than that….love that Buckley.
“Indeed, are conservatives now to start acting like liberals and pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we wish to adhere to and which parts we wish to do away with?”
Um, pretty much, yeah. Have you not noticed the massive conservative media blackout and then the conservative cover-up of the violation of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5? The good (cough!) conservatives keep telling us it’s a non-issue. So, yeah, as long as conservatives let the Usurper keep squatting in the White House, they are picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution they’ll respect and adhere to.
Thanks for pointing it out
From another point of view, a critical opinion about the whole story:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/18/an-inconvenient-question-about-the-mount-vernon-statement/
Moran seems to suffer a bit in the clarity department as well. Certainly one of the problems with this article, and any attempt to discuss these matters is there is not a shared understanding of what it means to be conservative.
Republicans have done a pretty good job of adhering to christian conservatism, but are liberal in all other respects. Lincoln was a statist, and republicans have never stood for small government per se, just smaller government than democrats.
I call myself a libertarian because the word conservatism is considered to be the same as republicanism to the left, and its kind of pointless to argue when the parties have different meanings for important words.
The declaration as I read it is indeed vague, and adds little or nothing to our national debate–so I agree with Moran on that.
Question for P T Bull @9: How exactly have Republicans “done a pretty good job of adhering to christian conseratism”? Social conservative issues have hardly advanced since Reagan. At the most, we seem to be fighting a rear guard action against the social libertines. Even many in our own party want us to remain silent. What have the Republicans done for social conservatives?
By the way, this is not an endorsement of the Democrats. They are even more hostile to people of faith who actually try to live out their faith.
The only solution to save our country is TERM LIMITS & POLITICAL CAPITALISM! POLITICAL CAPITALISM – To free the party system! Let anyone start there own party without the red tap! The red tape is to just get on the ballot in local elections you have to get 5% of the voters in the last election to sign a petition! That is somewhere above 10,000 petitions or more! Who is going to give you the right information on the petition! Most petitions are discarded! That is why third parties don’t work. You have to win local elections to build a power base of support to be able to be competitive in statewide & national elections. WE NEED FREE ELECTIONS!
“Why update a statement of principles? One would think that principles should be immutable, solid, permanent.”
One bein’ some sort of neodowndumbee, that is. Obviously.
The Cuthbert Manifesto heroes know a trick that is worth two, or maybe two dozen, from Big Party Neocomrade R. Moran, with his curious private judgments about sentimental-ideological ‘oatmeal’. I suppose wombscholars must remain rather like small kiddies all their lives — predestined suckers and market fodder for garish primary colours like ‘transcendent’ and ‘God-given’ and, maybe brightest and best of all eye-catchin’ whizbangs for juveniles and jackdaws, “natural law.” Probably the Sages of Sharon fantasised themselves loyal subjects of Ms. Natura Legislatrix, but they had at least the good sense not to raise unnecessary issues about “dual loyalty” in the breasts of their fellow holy-Homelanders. For that matter, so do the Heroes of Cuthbert, for “the laws of nature and nature’s God” is more like ornamental Spinozato-Jeffersonian pastiche than a serious loyalty oath. Perhaps Neocomrade R. Moran should declaim a declamation that is all his own, wherein he can let it all hang out without worryin’ about what the rest of the committee thinks? Or possibly there is some Leostraussian(®) product available that he could buy off the rack?
Neocomrades say the darndest things: who would have dreamed of finding self-evidence dismissed as breakfast cereal? [1] But then, who would have dreamed, a degeneration or two back, that Wingnut City and Rio Limbaugh would ever decide that on the whole they do not care to be friends with the shyster community any more, now that the latter have supposedly taken to ambulance chasing and generally trying to drive Big Management to bankruptcy with frivolous tort litigation? [2]
Say what you will, Dr. Bones, these are not TAME sweet puppies!
Healthy days.
___
[1] Yes, to be sure, Dr. Bones. I DO understand that the ‘self-evident’ _shtyk_, considered historically and critically, has always been a good deal more complicated than just Ricky Reaction tryin’ to pass himself off as St. Euclid in front of an audience of strangers.
But come along, sir, there is no point in attempting to argue at *that* level in Outer Padschamastán, where the only thing that is significantly self-evident to the sweet puppies is that it is their own dearly belovèd neoselves that most urgently require to be (con)served. On from outside the monkey house, I guess, does it appear quite clearly that Master Narcissus Dexter is bound to land in difficulties if he starts muckin’ about with Statements and Manifestos and Universal Declamations Of. Why, R. Moran’s neoself does not seem to be broadcastin’ on the same wavelength as the neoself of D. Larison. (“Who?”). The latter specimen is guilty of flagrant unneoörthodoxy if it seriously supposes Cheyneyite omniexecutivitarianism to be unconstitutional under the 1787 document, as amended.
That discrepancy is enough by itself, surely, to start a civil war in the playpen of the Kiddie Selfservative Movement! The gentlecreatures of Cuthbert cry Fusion, Fusion. (In their eighth paragraphette, they even cry “Natural Fusion!”) But pretty clearly there is no Fusion worth mentionin’, whether artifical or natural or praeternatural. Not even Transcendent Fusion is anywhere in sight. Unless, to be sure, I am missing something here, perhaps out of a failure to empathise . . . .
Those Spanish wingnutettes and wingnuts of Century XII/XIX/LVI who allegedly made do with _¡Nosotros somos nosotros!_ were probably lucky rather than cunnin’. But one does have to admit, Dr. Bones, that their command of the self-evidential was impeccable.
And Father Zeus knows best about self-evidence.
[2] Sooner or later the kiddies will, I suppose, have to get around to havin’ their ‘conservative’ ‘intellectuals’ work out the implications of lawyer-hatin’ for Rulalaw. Though on the other hand, Rulalaw is what might be called “the very model of a Modern NeoPrinciple,” insofar as it can mean at least a couple of dozen quite different things.
You’ll remember that we found fourteen, I think it was, different sensse in the impeachster Hyde’s stemwindin’ tirade against St. Bill Clinton. [ http://tinyurl.com/yg49kle ] _Mais où sont les ouingnuts d’antan_? AFZKB!
Kipling, what I see of the republican party, both up close at local things, and nationally, is that they are energized by pro-life, anti-gay, and the professed religious beliefs of their candidates. If you don’t think they have done a good job along those lines, I have no basis to dispute that. My point was that christian conservatism does not have a position about deficit spending, overseas wars and occupation of countries, and individual freedom–or if they do, its one I disagree with.
Our local state district is a safe democratic one. There are so many union types that vote as their union leaders tell them, that a republican can’t get elected. This district does not attract talented candidates or leaders, and would be dispiriting to most folks interested in winning. However, when the republican party holds caucuses, the few that do turn out reliably are those interested in the christian agenda. I respect their willingness to invest their time and effort in the pursuance of their beliefs. We are getting more ron paul libertarian types lateny–which is where my heart lies, but right now, the christians more or less form the backbone of the local republican organization.
Reply to P T Bull @13: Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I think part of the problem is that you are seeing the Christian element in the Republican party through the lense of the main stream media.
Here is where I would dispute some of your characterizations.
First, Christain conservatives are pro-life – so no problem there.
Second, Christian conservatives are not so much anti-gay as they are pro-traditional marriage. The two are not the same. The ongoing battle over gay marriage is part of a broader assault by homosexuals upon traditional social values regarding marriage and the family. Homosexual activists launched the assault, not the social conservatives.
Third, Christian conservatives are very concerned about the worldview and basic beliefs of every candidate who asks for their vote. I am sure you are as well. Why not?
Fourth, Christian conservatives have strong positions on deficit spending, warfare, and individual freedom. The problem is that the MSM does not report these positions. They would rather portray Christians as anti-intellectual, anti-freedom (pro-choice), and as gay bashers. Such is not the case and I would encourage you to dive a little deeper.
I would be happy to explore any of the issues you mentioned in depth so that you can see the degree of Christian conservative thought on those issues.
Conservative Manifesto #412B
Response to skeeziks @15: Compared to the 1000th repetition of Marx by the leftists, I would say we are doing pretty good. By my count the conservative movement has had only four large manifestos – the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Sharon Statement, and now the Mt. Vernon Declaration. There is nothing wrong with a healthy debate amoung conservatives. It is actually much better the ideological straight-jacket of the left.
Statement could have been much shorter, IMHO.
“We the undersigned swear to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
Wait… aren’t congressmen and officeholders in DC already taking that oath?
THat’s what I thought.
I never thought I’d agree with Rick Moran on anything, but the statement does seem to me to be a bit short on meaning. You don’t need to add ‘conservatism’ to ‘constitutional’, just FOLLOW THE DAMMN DOCUMENT.
Not complicated.