Statement unites 3 legs of conservatism

BAPTIST PRESS ^ | Michael Foust

[Dubya]

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (BP)--A coalition of leading conservatives has unveiled a document promoting a "constitutional conservatism" and affirming the three legs of the movement: social, economic and national security conservatives.

The Mount Vernon Statement, released at a news conference Wednesday (Feb. 17) at the Collingwood Library and Museum in Alexandria, Va. -- on land once owned by George Washington -- was modeled after the 1960 Sharon Statement, which was released 40 years ago and spearheaded by the late conservative leader William F. Buckley.

[Dubya]

"A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles," according to the document, which points continually to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. "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."

[GeronL]

A watered down statement full of vague generalities. This is not a rallying cry that is going to win any elections.

[9YearLurker]

Exactly. It accomplishes nothing.

[wizard1961]

It will be a wedge to bedevil the blue dogs. It also tampers down the “fringe” accusations. It provides a bridge to conservatives who have to be careful to avoid looking too radical — they can say, sure, I support the MVS, who doesn't, and then look at their opponent.

[La Enchiladita]

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform

Maybe we could ask Norquist, a passionate advocate of amnesty for illegals, how that amnesty fits into this new Constitutional scheme. Norquist is also working on McCain's re-election bid. What a coincidence.

[Pyro7480]

The original Sharon Statement:

In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths.

We, as young conservatives, believe:

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;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

That the genius of the Constitution- the division of powers- is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies;

That the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistance with, this menace; and

That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?

[GeronL]

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That is all.

[9YearLurker]

Now that is an elegant statement!

[Mariner]

The morality clause scares me. When left general, I wonder what is being planned on the legislative front.

Will I be able to buy beer on Sundays? If you think I will, why do you think that?

[9YearLurker]

Good point. When government takes the lead in morality I get worried. I also wonder how far we’re supposed to take the democratic crusading around the world that seems implied in a nod to the neocons. (And I am very pro-Israel, btw.)

[parsifal]

Good point. It lacks pizzazz. What does it mean. A good lawyer could drive a convoy of trucks thru it. As I recall, the Declaration of Independence got pretty specific.

Conservatives need something with teeth, yet short enough to understand, like the jihadis’ “Skandar Ackbar!”, or whatever it is they holler before they detonate.

parsy, who is deflated by this mellow purr of a roar

[Jacquerie]

The morality clause scares me.

How does:

"and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them . . ."

and

"all Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."

strike you? From a moral standpoint of course.

[9YearLurker]

There’s a difference between having a moral underpinning to the laws of men and state power—and trying to shape and lead morality via the law.

[LibLieSlayer]

“Words... just words.”

LLS

[loboinok]

All law is legislated morality

[9YearLurker]

Our Founders were well aware that law alone could not create and sustain the morality required to make a democratic republic work.

[EternalVigilance]

Our "statement" - which actually has teeth, and is being backed up by action.

[Mariner]

Those are fine, but a non-sequitor.

I'm wonderin' aloud what the moral aspects of the declaration under discussion mean from a legislative point of view.

Do you have an opinion on what they may mean?

New federal laws? Constitutional Amendments?

[EternalVigilance]

These politicians wouldn’t sign something that actually required them to change anything they’ve been doing for the last couple of decades.

Folks need to remember that these are the people who got us to where we are.

[Jacquerie]

Those are fine, but a non-sequitor

It appears you do not recognize the source.