Skip to content

That’s Nice, But We’re All Set, Thank You [Update at 1415]

16 February 2010 @ 11:48

Various groups on the Right are putting together statements of principles in the belief that such documents will lay out for the American people what it is exactly we on the Right believe in and are fighting for.  

-One group that calls themselves the Tea Party Patriots has written a manifesto called the Contract From America that is:  

…a grassroots-generated, crowd-sourced, bottom-up call for real economic conservative and good governance reform in Congress.  

You can read about just who they are by clicking here.  

-Another group has prepared the Mount Vernon Statement.  Over at The American Spectator, W. James Antle describes this coalition:  

On Wednesday, more than 80 conservative thinkers and organization heads will come together to ratify a joint manifesto ahead of the 2010 elections. Dubbed the Mount Vernon Statement, its goal is to unite the right — economic, social, and national security conservatives — under a set of shared principles. The idea is to make different conservative groups feel part of the same team and also to bind them in a common intellectual enterprise.  

…  

Unlike the Contract With America, the Mount Vernon Statement is not a detailed legislative agenda. Instead, it intended as a set of philosophical principles that can serve as the foundation for policy formulation later. It is less Frank Luntz than Frank Meyer.  

All well and good.  

Michelle Malkin believes that The Constitution Of The United States is ‘the only statement of guiding principles we need’.  

I would raise her and argue that there are two guiding statements of our philosophy we need: The Constitution and The Declaration Of Independence.  Anything else, if true to The Founding, would be just mere restatement of what is in those documents, and I have yet to see any such attempt be successful.  I invite my Friends In The Ether to prove me wrong.  

While I would advocate for two core documents as guides, I wholeheartedly agree with Mrs. Malkin when she states:  

…if the signers of all these new documents support political candidates who brazenly undermine the grand principles they put forth, what’s the point?  

SIDENOTE: Even if I agreed that the Mount Vernon Statement was necessary or useful, I could not in good conscience sign it because of the following information related in Mr. Antle’s report [emphasis mine]:  

Participants read like a virtual who’s who of conservative movement heavyweights: former Attorney General Edwin Meese, American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, Heritage Foundation President Edwin Feulner, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, among many others….  

Mr. Norquist, as I have posted a number of times, is a useful idiot of the Jihad, as Discover The Networks has chronicled here.  Anything he approves of is, in my opinion, tainted.  

Grover Norquist: Useful Idiot of the Jihad.

 

When will the Right start shunning this dupe? 

________________________________________________________ 

UPDATE at 1415… 

In the Comments Section, The Classic Liberal wrote of his [justified, in my opinion] frustration: 

The “Mount Vernon Statement” is just an obvious ploy by the Beltway to get in with the Tea Party crowd, but I have no real beef with the “Contract from America” (from what I know) though. 

You’re 100% right about the Constitution and Declaration, but I ask, who in Washington gives a rat’s behind about it anymore (other than “conservatives hate” Ron Paul)? 

I just fisked Newt Ginrich’s pathetic health care plan on my blog, but we already know he’s a moron. And movement conservatives won’t except the plain language of the Constitution if it involves being anything other than unquestionably-committed to our Washington Overlord’s war plans. 

Is there a better way to fight radical Islam than progressive nation-building? Obviously! But question it, and you’re sent away as a heretic in support of the Caliphate. Constitution be damned. 

Unfortunately, “we the people” have to come up with more than just the Constitution and Declaration right now. Because nobody’s interested in its plain language anymore. We need nothing short of a revolution. 

I responded: 

I do sympathize with your frustration; in fact, I empathize with a great deal of it [considering myself an 18th Century conservative]. But revolution is not the way — restoration is. The War For Independence was not a revolution, it did not tear down existing structures and destroy the society and alter the culture [the marks of revolution]. The Founders fought for a restoration of their rights and for an increase in other rights per the terms of 1688. The vast majority of them [except for Jacobins like Tom Paine] did not seek something on par with the French. Our goal cannot be to destroy, but to takeover and renovate. The frame and foundation are sound; the house can still stand. 

3 Comments
  1. 16 February 2010 @ 13:00 13:00

    Dear Bob,

    The “Mount Vernon Statement” is just an obvious ploy by the Beltway to get in with the Tea Party crowd, but I have no real beef with the “Contract from America” (from what I know) though.

    You’re 100% right about the Constitution and Declaration, but I ask, who in Washington gives a rat’s behind about it anymore (other than “conservatives hate” Ron Paul)?

    I just fisked Newt Ginrich’s pathetic health care plan on my blog, but we already know he’s a moron. And movement conservatives won’t except the plain language of the Constitution if it involves being anything other than unquestionably-committed to our Washington Overlord’s war plans.

    Is there a better way to fight radical Islam than progressive nation-building? Obviously! But question it, and you’re sent away as a heretic in support of the Caliphate. Constitution be damned.

    Unfortunately, “we the people” have to come up with more than just the Constitution and Declaration right now. Because nobody’s interested in its plain language anymore. We need nothing short of a revolution.

    Your truly,

    Politically Frustrated

    • bobbelvedere permalink*
      16 February 2010 @ 14:04 14:04

      I do sympathize with your frustration; in fact, I empathize with a great deal of it [considering myself an 18th Century conservative]. But revolution is not the way — restoration is. The War For Independence was not a revolution, it did not tear down existing structures and destroy the society and alter the culture [the marks of revolution]. The Founders fought for a restoration of their rights and for an increase in other rights per the terms of 1688. The vast majority of them [except for Jacobins like Tom Paine] did not seek something on par with the French. Our goal cannot be to destroy, but to takeover and renovate. The frame and foundation are sound; the house can still stand.

  2. 16 February 2010 @ 16:49 16:49

    The Revolutionary War was the final blow in a multi-generational revolution against the tyranny over man. The new, constitutionally-limited government that was created after the former British government was destroyed, became the first, and only government of the people, designed specifically to do nothing more than protect man’s inalienable rights. In other words, the only government based on natural law.

    They did not restore anything, for they never experienced the gift of liberty before. Well, except in much of the territories anarcho-capitalist regions, too far away for the British crown to cause any serious damage, and where people lived in peace. The “wild west” for example, was hardly wild.

    But hey, what can you expect of me? I’m a Jeffersonian classical liberal! It’s constitution or bust! As Jefferson so eloquently stated, “Every generation needs a new revolution!”

    Don’t confuse leftist “revolution” with real revolution. I know they like to control the language. But don’t let ’em!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: