The Mount Vernon Statement (a differing view)

What is there to say about this statement, which is being called a new conservative “manifesto”? Someone might object that Russell Kirk said that conservatives do not have manifestoes, but that would be entirely too quaint and old-fashioned. What is one to make of the organizers’ selection of the site of George Washington’s home for a statement that refers to a foreign policy of “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world”? I would say that it is in extremely poor taste, but then this statement is not directed at people like me.

My admiration for Washington comes partly from his rejection of the sort of militaristic Caesarism that fuels the modern cult of the Presidency in which so many conservatives indulge. I agree with his advice that we should “observe good faith and justice towards all nations” and that we should “cultivate peace and harmony with all.” Most modern conservatives today embrace antagonistic, confrontational policies either informed by a hubristic nationalism or inspired by a misguided fear of vastly exaggerated threats. I also agree with Washington that “[t]he great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” It would amaze me if most of the signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement would endorse this view. After all, how can we exhaust our resources “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world” if we do not enmesh ourselves deeply in the politics of every other continent?

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. It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.

Until we see these basic demonstrations of fidelity to constitutional principle from the would-be constitutional conservatives of this Mount Vernon meeting, we should assume that this is little more than a new ruse designed to rile up activists and donors during a Democratic administration in order to breathe new life into a moribund and bankrupt movement.

Yet the President (Commander-in-Chief) is Constitutionally empowered and sworn to defend the Constitution and the nation. No? If an attack is coming (as they are continually today) does not the President have the Constitutional power to take military action to defend the nation?

And what are these “wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the President’s (temporary) military role” that the author of this article objects to? Does the author not want the President to have the power to order interception of enemy communications crossing our border? Or does he object to the Patriot Act? The author should be specific as to what it is that they object to.

I just read on and see that this author is really concerned with the rights of terrorists. Pathetic. Please you are no conservative at all.

“Most modern conservatives today embrace antagonistic, confrontational policies either informed by a hubristic nationalism or inspired by a misguided fear of vastly exaggerated threats.”

A sweeping and, to my mind, unfairly inaccurate generalization. I’m a modern conservative and a military type. I’ve lived the tightrope of giving due respect to a host nation while upholding the honor and prerogatives of my own. Explaining the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty to a rent-a-mob of Panamanian agitators in the middle of Balboa Highway - unarmed, and in Spanish, not in English - is not my idea of fun, but we did it with due respect, even though we knew that respect would not be returned.

I’m not alone in this opinion. Understanding does not equate to empathy.

Colonel, USAFR

The Mt Vernon statement is a restatement of the Sharon statement from back in the 60's. They are trying to re-affirm the Conservative principles. And that's ok. To me it's about the same as a guy dropping by Barnes and Noble and buying a copy of the Federalist Papers ... excellent reading, excellent to re-focus ... but it is not a "movement." I think people are misunderstanding the Tea Party Movement. When you see it from the "inside" you understand WHY it is working in a most unusual fashion ... populism. The Patriot's Flag - The Tea Party. Once you understand it, you begin to realize how it is one of the most powerful forces in politics today.

Until we see these basic demonstrations of fidelity to constitutional principle

The whole notion of "constitional fidelity" is pretty much a joke. Constitutional limits? By whose definition? The Constitution leaves it ultimately to the SCOTUS. And the Federal Judiciary, being a co-equal branch, decides for itself what weight to give past precedent.

Original intent? Don't make me laugh. If we were to make a list of federal programs not authorized by the original meaning of the Constitution that enjoy popular GOP/conservative support, we'd have quite a long list indeed.

The expansion of national power didn't begin 40 years ago. It began in the Washington administration, which adds some irony to the ignorance of the Mt Vernon statement.

Unless they have some plan for undoing roughly 200 years worth of SCOTUS precedent, unless they have a plan for changing the constitutional powers of the federal judiciary, unless they are willing to be more strict than even Washington himself, it's just a bunch of hot air.

Washington wanted Congress to create a national university. Where's that in the Constitution? In the end, as long as we have a national government weilding supreme power, all of these things will remain political questions,not structural ones. The Constitution is a toothless hag.

"I also agree with Washington that “[t]he great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.”

I agree with Washington (and the author) 100%. However, any person gounded in reality will also understand that what constituted "as little...as possible," in Washignton's day and age, was substantially different than what "as little...as possible" entails today.

I'm not saying that we're not overextended militarily, economically and diplomatically, but to think we can indulge in some type of 1790's isolationism is pure folly.

I guess that leaves us with nothing but the triumph of power.

That's how it appears to me. Look at the track record. In my opinion, "mixed sovereignty", while a novel idea, has been a failure. Clearly what we have is national sovereignty.

Look at tort reform. All the conservatives are clamoring for it, but tort cases are tried in state civil courts. Where in the Constitution does the fed gubmint derive the power to regulate state civil courts?

It's not there, unless they decide to adopt past judicial inventions involving the 14th amendment. And so we have the conservatives agitating for federal control of state civil courts, encroaching on one of the most fundamental rights at the time of the founding---the trial by jury. It seems that many conservatives now trust the federal government more than they trust a jury of their peers. You decide where that leaves us.

Madison's "few and defined" powers concept has long since been proven to be a pipe dream. How long is long enough before you stop saying "if only they'd follow the Constitution?" The Federalists wanted a strong national government--they got one. They left the states just enough alleged power to make the change palatable. But let's get real--the Constitution offers very few real limits on federal (national) scope of power, and even those are subject to the whims of the federal judiciary---without appeal.

The only real appeal is by amendment, which is very difficult to do, or convention. And conservatives don't want a convention--they trust the government more than they trust juries, you think they are going to trust a federal delegation at a convention?

The toothpaste is out of the tube. All I can do when I hear talk of "returning to the Constitution" is roll my eyes. In case no one has noticed, everything that has happened has occurred under the Constitution.

“They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.”

If he means the Patriot Act I agree. When we have a act named Patriot and security called Homeland I fear for my freedom (I see the propaganda of another era in my mind) as it gives the Progressives (Fascists) an opening to eliminate our freedoms under the guise of security and Patriotism. It does nothing for real security.

...misguided fear of vastly exaggerated threats

Try telling that to the loved ones of the 3,000 incinerated on 9/11. Or to the loved ones of those murdered at Fort Hood. Or to the people who were the intended victims of the Shoe Bomber, or the Underwear Bomber, or any of the others in the recent past.

It is simply breathtaking how certain elements have retreated back to a 9/10 mentality. It's as if they are living in some sort of alternate fantasy universe, where radical Islamist thugs aren't, and never have been, trying to kill us because we won't submit to their totalitarian ideology.

These people who think the president shouldn't have the power to combat immediate external threats to our security are delusional. Their worldview is beneath contempt under the circumstances.

A steaming pile by someone who thinks he is conservative, and tells us in no uncertain terms what he thinks real conservatives are thinking. How he knows is not adequately explained.

It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.

More evidence of the manure this guy is selling, with no evidence or specifics as to what in sam hill he is talking about.

This sounds a good bit like BDS.

To all who have replied above:

We detained the enemy and subjected them to military tribunals in 1943 to 1946. I have no problem with that. Because we fought the war to win and achieved unconditional victory.

I reject the idea that we are going to be accumulating and warehousing "detainees" for the next fifty to a hundred years.

It's unacceptable to me that my grandchildren are still going to be fighting a "war on terror".

It's unacceptable that our country is attacked with over three thousand civilian casualties and instead of mobilizing America on a war footing to fight the enemy and beat him, the President tells us to "go shopping".

It's especially unacceptable that we have been fighting in Afghanistan for twice as long as it took to beat Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo combined.

Our current "war on terror" strategy is like fighting skin cancer with Bactine, and it's pissing away American lives in order to not lose, rather than to win. This was almost as true under Bush as it is under Obama.

Yet people such as the author of this article have been continually fighting against any of us who try to fight this war to win. They attack every effort taken to defend this nation and to defeat the enemy. They whine and complain that we are violating the Constitution and the rights of foreign illegal enemy combatants (terrorists). The author of this article thinks that he is a Constitutional conservative yet he takes the same position as those in leftist groups like International A.N.S.W.E.R. and CodePink.

No, I do not care about the rights of actual terrorists. People who actually are terrorists have surrendered even their right to live. What I do believe -- and this is indeed the conservative position, the one that does not reject the most fundamental and obvious underpinnings of the American Revolution and our heritage of freedom -- is that innocent people should be free and that the only way to ensure that they are is to give everyone who we are holding the full and complete opportunity to disprove whatever the government believes justifies it in holding him. This idea is even older than the American Revolution. "Oh so you are concerned as to whether foreign ‘illegal enemy combatants’ are having their rights treated properly?" No. Terrorists in any location are terrorists, but that's a pretty conclusory argument. We do not know that every person we are holding is a terrorist. We think that they are terrorists and we hopefully have good reason to believe that they are terrorists. My guess is that most of them are terrorists, but those who are not terrorists should not be treated like terrorists.

And do we give the same right then to illegal enemy combatants killed on the battlefield? Of course not and so your ideals then fail you. I am not concerned with giving Constitutional rights to foreigners who are caught waging illegal warfare against America or our allies but obviously you are, though you are misguided in doing so and it is not a conservative principle to imply rights on illegal enemy combatants. This is a war being waged illegally against the United States. Cry about the rights of terrorists if you like (even if you claim that you are not) but you are not taking a conservative position at all.

You do not see a difference between the rules on the battlefield and the rules when we have captured someone and imprisoned him in Cuba? Back home, in the United States, if someone (a robbery suspect, let's say) is shooting at the police, the police do not have to give him a trial before shooting back at him, do they? And why is that? He has rights, though, doesn't he? If he is captured alive, he would be entitled to a fair trial, wouldn't he? For the idea that there is a difference between being interested in the rights of actual terrorists and being interested in the rights of accused terrorists, I do not know what I can say other than to repeat: yes, there is a difference between the two. "Accused terrorists" is a set of people that includes "actual terrorists," but it also includes innocent people. I also want to reaffirm that yes, I am confident that it is the conservative position to not dispense with rules of justice that are even older than the United States (yet are among those that the American Revolution was specifically intended to protect).

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.