I sat up and listened intently when Mary started the show with virtue as the topic. It is something I would expect to hear on Mark Levin’s show, not Rush’s. I was only able to listen to the first few minutes, but gathered the gist.
As luck would have it, I’ve been reading Gordon S. Wood’s 1969 classic, Creation of the American Republic. The quotes below are his. He isn’t alone of course. The Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers . . . all touched on the value of virtue.
“The very greatness of republicanism, its utter dependence on the people, was simultaneously its source of weakness. In a republic, each man must somehow be persuaded to submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the whole. This was termed “public virtue.” A republic was such a delicate polity precisely because it demanded an extraordinary moral character in the people. Every state in which the people participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which rested solely on the people absolutely required it. “
“Without some portion of this generous principle, anarchy and confusion would immediately ensue, the jarring interests of individuals, regarding themselves only, and indifferent to the welfare of others . . . would end in ruin and subversion of the State.”
In less eloquent terms, a people that sends enough Sheila Jackson-Lees to Congress cannot expect to keep a government designed by the likes of James Madison and Benjamin Franklin.
Yes, we did "get it."
The program was not the usual "Rush," but the subject of "virtue" as an attribute for leaders, no matter who introduces it, is one that needs discussion.
The poster's focus on "limiting" government is well taken and absolutely correct.
The Founders's left a written Constitution which, if implemented by men who respected their oath and possessed undying fidelity to the Constitution and its underlying principles, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and their written records, would accomplish the Preamble's stated purposes.
Under their formula, elected leaders would come from among "the People," and would return to live among "the People." As a result, all the wonderful quotations provided on this thread about the necessity for "virtue" among "the People" necessarily applies to those elected to leadership.
The Founders understood the human tendency to abuse power, but they provided a "parchment barrier" to limit delegated power. Even so, they warned that more was needed--election of leaders whose lives exhibited a certain "virtue" which would honor and respect limitations on their power.
Further, we have living proof that all the "limits" provided by the Constitution have not stopped the current president from resisting and bypassing those limits, even declaring that "we can't wait" long enough to do things we want to do in order to abide by the strict provisions of the Constitution.
Clearly, this president's life history was not perused enough by most citizens to provide full disclosure to them that they were voting for an individual whose inner motivations and overt actions clearly indicated a strong sense of fidelity to and appreciation for the Founders' Constitution's protections for their individual liberty, as well as a strict limit on the Executive Branch's power.
Thanks, again, for your contribution to this thread. There are no "superior" or inferior contributors. Over the years, FR has been a place where all opinions were respected and valued.
Hopefully, all of us are just citizens who are seeking, rediscovering and sharing the ideas underlying our documents of freedom as a means to preserving them for future generations.