Our National Identity and the Principles of American Liberty

In light of last year’s election and the inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States, many liberals have been throwing out accusations that conservatives are hypocrites and that we hold very different standards for Republican presidents and Democratic presidents.

We do hold them to different standards. Our doing so is not hypocritical. At play behind it all is a high degree of principle which I think we have not necessarily explained as well as we could.

Laid out here is my model of conservatism. It is not necessarily a new view - conservatism is about what is tried and true, not about innovating the “next big idea” which may or may not work. The former is an approach rooted firmly in reality while the latter is characteristic of the head-in-the-clouds approach of liberals.

At the center of this model is the concept of American National Identity. American National Identity is the essence of what it is to be an American. It is who we are as a People and as a Nation.

American National Identity finds its roots in several key places, the primary of which is Anglo-Saxon culture. The Anglo-Saxon culture from which we draw our identity is built upon the edifice of Christian morals and values. We cannot separate our identity from Christian principles - even our Founding Fathers, whom admittedly were not the best of Christians themselves, recognized this truth. Furthermore, from this Anglo-Saxon culture we derive the English language, which is also core to our identity. From this tradition we also derive principles of Christian liberty and the rights to protect that liberty through force, if necessary. We derive a deep value on the private ownership of property and production, in personal responsibility for one’s own affairs, and in the fruits of hard labor. These are essential to whom we are.

From all of this emerges a sense of whom we are as Americans. From this American National Identity proceeds certain refinements which are manifested as our traditional American culture and our American institutions. It was in defense of all for which this cultural identity stands that our forefathers fought the Revolution and created the Constitution to protect - they didn’t fight for vague principles of liberty, but rather for the sovereignty of an American Nation which values principled freedom at the core of what it is.

The Constitution is not the foundation of our nation. It is a noble document which attempted to enshrine all that actually is that foundation: our culture and our identity. The government proceeds from this document and enforces it.

Our freedoms and liberties come from our National Identity, traditions, and American institutions. They do not proceed from the Constitution, which ultimately only has value insofar as it encapsulates our values. Jettison the American National Identity and you sacrifice all value within that document. The Constitution was written to reflect all for which we stand - our rights, however, are God-given.

The problem arises when individuals whom are antithetical to the American National Identity from which all else proceeds find themselves in control of the government. Liberalism, in its modern form, is contrary to our foundations as a nation. It is contrary to the basis for our liberty, even though it strives to protect its outward forms. Worse than this, liberalism focuses its assaults on this American National Identity. It tries to undermine and downplay the role of our Christian principles in society. It tries to legitimize the blatantly immoral in the name of tolerance. It defenestrates our codes of moral values for the sake of, “different strokes for different folks.” It extends rights and freedoms intended for a very specific people by virtue of whom they are to those whom seek to destroy that people through acts of terror. In short, liberals destroy liberty by assaulting that upon which it is built.

Republicans talk about needing to move to the left in order to win elections. The unspoken folly in this is that most Americans, at least in a vague sense, understand that leftwing approaches and policies undermine our National Identity and, by extension, the liberties we so dearly value. This is why Conservatism wins elections every time it is tried. The essence of Conservatism is the protection of our National Identity. So long as that is maintained and promoted, our liberty can never be taken from us. You cannot enslave a people whom, by nature, are free. This is the core reason why policies which were acceptable under President Bush have become abominable under President Obama. Insofar as President Bush was conservative and was concerned with protecting all that we are, he could be trusted with powers which in better times we would have shunned. When we protect our identity and our people, our liberty is invariably preserved by extension. Wiretapping, enhanced interrogations, increased security at airports - these things helped keep us safe in light of extraordinary circumstances. So long as our government was held by men and women whom were insistent upon preserving and promoting our Christian principles, our cultural foundations, and our American identity , our liberty could never be stripped from us. So long as whom we are and what we value are preserved, we could survive as a free people even without the Constitution. It exists to protect us from those whom would undermine these aspects of our nation.

I am not one to doubt intentions. Unlike many, I don’t necessarily believe that Obama is ill-intentioned or means to do this country harm. With that said, I do not have to question his intentions to know that what he has done and what he has plans to do are ultimately harmful. He supports legalized abortion on demand. He supports undermining traditional marriage. He supports unconditionally meeting with enemies whom want to destroy us and our allies. He supports government control over the economy and increasing the size of the public sector. He supports undermining Christian institutions throughout our country. He certainly can support all of these and believe he does so for the sake of advancing liberty with the best intentions, but the fact of the matter is that liberty is conditional and he is undermining the very conditions that make it possible.

This is why we it is not hypocritical that we oppose Obama for doing the same things we accepted under Bush. Bush, being a conservative, was not going to undermine our way of life. Our way of life is contingent upon our National Identity. Obama, by virtue of his positions as a radical liberal, seeks to undermine our National Identity because the core principle of liberalism is that National Identity is an antiquated notion. They have formulated a principle of liberty which views the concepts connected to National Identity as being contrary to liberty.

This view of liberty is certainly not new. Every time it has been tried, it has led to tyranny. It was the core difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The American Revolution was fought along lines of liberty as they have been defined by this essay. The French Revolution was fought along the conceptions of liberty that are espoused by modern American liberals. One revolution led to unprecedented Freedom. The other led to inconceivable Terror.

As Conservatives, so long as we work to preserve our traditional Way of Life, our Culture, our Christian Principles, and our National Identity, we can never undermine our liberty, even if at times we might at times have to be creative in the application of our Constitution and Laws. You cannot destroy something you have taken every step to cement at the core of who you are. Liberalism, however, no matter how well intentioned, can only lead to tyranny because by its nature it seeks to undermine those institutions which, in reality, actually make men free.

“Feedback is certainly appreciated!”

OK.

Most would agree the value of your “model of conservatism” is that it is “tried and true”. What immediately follows in your statement also rings true for many.

Then, in my view, the proposition hits a brick wall: “The Constitution is not the foundation of our nation”!
I think many anti-Americans would endorse that statement. They would like to lead us around the Constitution and persuade us to believe that, at best, it is a living document that must reflect or incorporate current social needs and political attitudes.

Initially, there were only ideas. Our founders used the best of those ideas combined with careful reasoning to construct what was to be the foundation of our new nation of laws, the Constitution.

It is important to note that the oath of office of U.S. Senators and Representatives, as well as all military officers, is not an oath to defend the country, or to defend America, but solely and expressly to defend the Constitution.

You say - “I don’t necessarily believe that Obama…means to do this country harm.” – but then say “…he is undermining the very conditions that make (liberty) possible.”

That is the view of some or many Americans, and may be based on an inability to comprehend the true nature of the threat.

What did we know about Obama prior to the presidential election?
- his history and the history of those that surrounded him during his youth and adulthood, and his documented political viewpoints, activities and voting record;
- his obstinate and energetic refusal to respond to legitimate and substantial questions surrounding his eligibility to hold office; and,
- his view that “...the Constitution is fundamentally flawed”.

Regards,

Thank you for the well thought out analysis.

Then, in my view, the proposition hits a brick wall: “The Constitution is not the foundation of our nation”! I think many anti-Americans would endorse that statement. They would like to lead us around the Constitution and persuade us to believe that, at best, it is a living document that must reflect or incorporate current social needs and political attitudes.

I should probably expand upon what I meant by that comment.

Our Nation predates the Constitution. Americans did not suddenly enter existence upon the signing of that document. It is my belief that, in the sense I proposing, our nation, at least in terms of its identity, actually existed prior to the Revolution. Our people had a sense of whom they were and had developed a sense of their sovereign rights. This is what led the colonies to bound together and oust the British.

After the war, this sense of national identity grew and developed. That there would be a Constitution was not a foregone conclusion after the last shots of our Revolution were fired. Regardless of this, the American people existed and had core values in which they firmly believed.

The Constitution did not create our people or our identity as a people. My point was that it encapsulated core aspects of those concepts. The document has value insofar as it is understood to reflect core American principles - principles which, incidentally, are represented and safeguarded by Conservatism.

I disagree with your argument that anti-Americans want to jettison the Constitution. It's quite the contrary, actually - they want to maintain the Constitution but remove all recognition of those underlying values of which its words reflect. They strive to reinterpret it. This is why the judiciary is all-important to them - it is the only branch of government capable of doing this.

My point was merely that insofar as they do this, they make the Constitution a meaningless piece of paper. Their reinterpretations cannot strip our rights. Those rights are embedded and maintained by that "invisible Constitution" which is simply a part of who we are. Our rights and our identity survives the liberal bastardization of our Constitution. Sadly, the legitimacy of the government which actually IS founded upon that Constitution does not survive - a government is only legitimate when it reflects the will of its people.

My point is that the Constitution CANNOT be a living document because it must, by its nature, reflect and defend those principles and institutions which have always been a part of the American National Identity.

You say - “I don’t necessarily believe that Obama…means to do this country harm.” – but then say “…he is undermining the very conditions that make (liberty) possible.”

That is the view of some or many Americans, and may be based on an inability to comprehend the true nature of the threat.

Don't misunderstand me, that comment was not meant to provide even the slightest bit of support to our current president.

I do think Obama is well intentioned. I also very firmly believe that the path to hell is paved with good intentions and all the good intentions in the world don't count for a pile of dirt.

A misinformed doctor can prescribe cyanide as a treatment to his patients under the "best intentions." He could really think that he is doing what is best for his patients and providing a reasonable treatment. It does not change the fact that his treatment will do massive irreversible harm and that he should be stopped at all costs.

I point out that I think he is well intentioned as symptomatic of a bigger problem - he also probably thinks his approach is right. When ill-informed people think they are right about something, they will oftentimes fight tooth and nail in the face of opposition to make sure it is carried through.

That is not to say he is right. He isn't. But he probably thinks he is right. When coupled with total control of the government, this spells something highly disastrous.

The larger point of everything I am saying is that we are not bound to follow him down this path, no matter how much he might twist and bend the Constitution against us. Our Rights are ours by virtue of our identity as Americans and we have a responsibility to safeguard and advance our rights and principles.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.