Streetcar Line
What We Believe
Conservative principles are timeless.
‘Tis the season for restatements of the conservative creed. And ‘tis a good thing. Conservatives in the past 15 months have been doing a lot of reflection, self-examination, re-assessment, and constructive criticism. Encouraged by Tea Partiers and town meeting attendees, energized by the systemic threats posed by the leftist administration of Barack Obama, and motivated by a profound and admirable love of country, both veteran and new conservative leaders have been trying to put their principles into words. Wednesday, some 80 leaders released the most prominent of those efforts so far, the Mount Vernon Statement, self-described as “a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.” It is worthy of serious reflection — as are other efforts inspired by the same restorative impulse.
The Mount Vernon Statement openly pays homage to, and aims to update, the Sharon Statement adopted at the Buckley Estate of Great Elm in Connecticut, 50 years ago this year, as part of the founding of Young Americans for Freedom. My father, Haywood Hillyer III, was there in Sharon in 1960 (scroll down to the third remembrance), which might be why this sort of exercise is particularly meaningful to me. But what should be meaningful to all American patriots is the theme of freedom that animates every one of these conservative treatises.
You find that theme right at the front of the Sharon Statement: “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….”
It is here in the Mount Vernon Statement, too: “A Constitutional conservatism… honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life [and] encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.”
Last August, in this space, I wrote a column called “Us Versus Them,” which began with these words: “We are for freedom, they are for coercion.” I had no way of knowing it then, but a group of veteran conservatives called the United States Public Policy Council was itself looking to update the Sharon Statement, and its leader Richard Delgaudio contacted me after seeing the column and asked if he could use my column as the basis of its work. What resulted, with my permission, was a Delgaudian expansion of that column into what the council called The Thurmont Statement, named after the town near Camp David where the Council last fall held its annual conference. After the freedom/coercion line, the Thurmont Statement’s second sentence read as follows: “We conservatives are for personal responsibility and autonomy, enforced by self-restraint and community standards. They, the left, are for obligations and requirements imposed from without by unelected government bureaucrats.”
At about the same time, Reid Buckley very kindly sent me, out of the blue, a booklet of two of his essays, one called “The Conservative Dilemma” and the other, more to the point of this column, “A Manifesto for Conservatives.” This Buckley’s take is a little different, in that he puts freedom not first but a close second in the hierarchy of values: “Rededicate the conservative movement to the good, the true, and the beautiful as inseparably linked under the general concept of the good society…. Freshly commit to individual human liberty as society’s prime moral end after goodness itself and therefore a major conservative political doctrine.”
In his hierarchy (a hierarchy which also re-embraced conservationism as an essential facet of conservatism), Buckley echoes Russell Kirk, who wrote in The Politics of Prudence (1993) that the very first in his list of “ten conservative principles” is that “first, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order.” Kirk continued: “A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and order, will be a good society.”
The Thurmont Statement gets there, too: “We believe in ordered liberty serving a moral and righteous purpose….” And in his classic Ideas Have Consequences, Richard Weaver wrote that “there is some ultimate identification of goodness and truth, so that he who ignores or loses faith in the former can by no possible means save the latter…. We are looking for a place where a successful stand may be made for the logos against modern barbarism.”
Yet note that Weaver immediately linked goodness with its essential bulwark, the building block that is liberty guaranteed through property rights. The full quote is as follows: “We are looking for a place where a successful stand may be made for the logos against modern barbarism. It seems that small-scale private property offers such an entrenchment….”
The Mount Vernon Statement makes that linkage as well: “A constitutional conservatism… reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, [and reminds] social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government.”
All of which leaves us, or leads us… where?
It leads us to the understanding that everything old can be new again, that while issues and policies and applications of ideals may change, principles that are worthy will endure and will maintain both their value and their utility — not to mention their essential truth — from one generation to any future generation, utterly undimmed.
It is to that end that the Mount Vernon Statement asserts this: “The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles.”
Liberals just don’t understand this. They don’t understand that our founding principles are not constrictive, but liberating. The principles are not hidebound, but forward-looking. Rather than forcing a “change” that may destroy that change’s very agents, our founding principles allow for change to occur organically — and in a way that, because the change stems from the consent of the governed, will itself set the stage for yet other orderly, lasting, life- and freedom-affirming changes.
As various groups try to craft programmatic prescriptions for this day and time, they will succeed only — but entirely — to the extent that those prescriptions are grounded in the founding principles celebrated at Sharon, Thurmont, and Mount Vernon.
If so, it will be a good and joyful thing.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/19/what-we-believe
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Great Train Robbery
- The Vast and the Tiny
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Tenn Slim| 2.19.10 @ 6:38AM
Opine
bt
Conservative principles, to me, tend to make my eyes glaze over. And I must suspect do also to alot of good old folks, who inherently grasp the principles, yet do not have the language to soar to the Conservative Heights of Mr. Buckley.
So. TO alleviate all that I offer a simplistic set of Common Sense Principles, that the average Joe Plumber can grasp, enunciate and put into voting practice.
BT
February 16, 2010
Congressional Representative and Senator:
The following is the Common Sense Philosophy that I would have you follow in creating; amending or modifying any Legislation created by you or brought to the Floor for debate. Your attendance daily to these Common Sense Principles will ensure your continuance in the USA Electorate Elected position of Trust that you hold.
Bt
1. The United States of America is good.
2. We believe in God and He is the Center of our lives.
3. We must always try to be a more honest person than we were yesterday.
4. The USA American Family is sacred. It is the ultimate authority not the Government.
5. Justice is blind and no one is above the Law.
6. We, the USA Electorate, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, with no guarantee of equal results.
7. Government cannot force us to be charitable. We will work hard for what we have and we will share the results with whom we decide to.
8. It is not Un American to disagree with authority or to share our opinions.
9. The Government works for us. We do not answer to the Government, It answers to us.
bt
The consensus being, VOTE WITH THIS KIND OF COMMON SENSE, locally, state wide, DC Guvmnt elections and perhaps, just maybe, we can get our USA back to at least some semblance of Norman Rockewell normalcy.
end
Semper FI
We Will Prevail.
clay barham| 2.19.10 @ 4:01PM
We do not need another document, but a return to the 19th century democrats who upheld the Constitution, as cited in the Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com.
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 5:25PM
"Conservative principles are timeless."
But such is only because human nature is timelessly bad. Saying conservative principles are timeless is like saying "my attorney is always on speed dial to get me off."
IA Jasper| 2.21.10 @ 3:16PM
Bravo Tenn Slim, an excellent maintenance plan Marine but we must remember there are a lot of Americans who are expecting and have a sense of entitlement of a free lunch, this level of dependency wasn't created overnight and cannot be undone overnight these people have a vote and are easily manipulated into fighting to keep the gravy train going and keep the scoundrels in power.
It will take an awakening of the American people that the direction we are heading is unsustainable and will destroy us I'm hoping the tea party movement is the beginning of that, my only fear is that we will fall back into the same old fear of not voting for the man we know we should because he has convictions and not just positions because we are told he is unelectable or just once again take the lesser of two evils that has been the trail that has gotten us here, it's going to take moral and spiritual courage to resist this and not let voices like Limbaugh trying to make comparisons between the tea party movement and Ross Perot third-party failure stoking the fires of that old fear of defeatism so we fall for another huckster like Bush sprinkles a few God words on us to sucker the Christian rubes and then in an interview when asked if the Bible is true says "probably not."
I pray that Americans can summon the courage so we can restore our Constitutional Republic.
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
Samuel Adams
Louis Jenkins| 2.19.10 @ 6:52AM
I guess I'll be first to post with a negative comment. The Dead Elephant party should be joining the Tea Party movement, instead of begging the Tea Partiers to join them. The established Republicans seen a good thing and want some of "dat axtion." The Tea Party is certainly influencing Conservative Doctrine in a positive fashion, but I am concerned that the Tea movement will be sucked into a mundane existence by the RINOs. Once more a vibrant grass roots movement will be watered down. By maintaining its third divisionary status it can better serve and shape Conservative principles as we have now seen. Who will ride the coat tails? We should note that the Tea Party movement was anti-political establishment (that includes current sitting Republicans), and there was (is) dissatisfaction with all the 'bums' in DC. It got a lot of attention didn't it? So if the Tea Party "can't beat 'em " is it to join them and give up its identity and political leverage?
tatosian| 2.19.10 @ 8:02AM
The Tea Party has already joined the republicans.
This is part of an email sent to members on the 17th--
"Dear Fellow Tea Party Patriots, There is much talk of the formation of a third political party based on the tea party movement. Tea Party Patriots is issuing this statement in order to make it clear that we are not associated with any attempts to form a third party. Additionally, we believe that such efforts are unproductive and unwise at this time. The history of third party movements in this country is one of division and defeat. We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within their own parties. The mechanisms exist for citizens to participate in their parties, and to drive their parties in the right direction. The Tea Party Patriots encourage all citizens to get involved in the party process, and to reshape their parties into something in which they may once again believe."
Done deal.
Copyleft| 2.19.10 @ 8:22AM
Quick translation: "The GOP leadership doesn't care about your issues or your priorities, as proven from every Republican official's performance in office. But vote for them anyway."
That way, the GOP bosses can continue to ignore your little tea parties, because they know they still own your votes. (Those of you who remember being in the "evangelical base" in the 80s are probably familiar with this situation.)
Enjoy!
JeffW| 2.19.10 @ 4:02PM
Quick translation: "The DNC leadership doesn't care about your issues or your priorities, as proven from every Democrat official's performance in office. But vote for them anyway."
That way, the DNC bosses can continue to ignore your little inner city neighborhood, small business, labor unions, because they know they still own your votes. (Those of you who remember being in the "hope/change base" in the 2008 elections are probably familiar with this situation.)
Alan Brooks| 2.19.10 @ 11:34PM
CopyLeft doesn't get it that the Right is supposed to be hierarchical; the Left is not-- but they are anyway.
CopyLeft is such a transparent shill, I detest his smarminess as much as I thoroughly despise Toddard's very existence.
Tom| 2.19.10 @ 8:57AM
Since there is no national Tea Party organization any press release, email, or statement made by one group, no matter how large, is next to meaningless. The Tea Party Patriots represent a small fraction of tea party activists and there press release should be taken with a pound of salt.
tatosian| 2.19.10 @ 9:49AM
Well, according to their website -Tea Party Patriots- Official Home of the Tea Party Movement ( http://teapartypatriots.ning.com/ ) they are the official home of the tea party movement.
That would make them the de facto national tea party organization wouldn't it?
And why would any statement made by any tea party group be next to meaningless? Who decides that? You?
Their "press release", which is, as I explained, an email to its membership, should be taken with a pound of salt?
Why so?
Are the Tea Party Patriots such a mendacious or insignificant group that one of their emails should be so peremptorily dismissed?
"we are not associated with any attempts to form a third party... we believe that such efforts are unproductive and unwise" and "We believe that it is instead time for all Americans to rise up and demand appropriate reform within their own parties" sends a clear message.
But you're saying I should discount the message sent from "The official home of the Tea Party movement?
Because why?
MikeBee| 2.19.10 @ 11:13AM
Tatosian,
While I agree with you that this letter should not be taken lightly, I would hasten to point out some facts. First, that the Tea Party activists are not at all a national group which all subscribe to the same ideals, though most are similar in beliefs. Secondly, when was the last time you subscribed to a statement issued by the Republican Party of Jackson, MI? Yet, Jackson, MI, remains the official home of the Republican Party, where it first began. I think that, over time, the Tea Parties will have a huge effect on the Republican and Democrat parties, moving both back to the Right. The U.S. has been moving gradually to the Left since the beginning of the last century encountered the worldwide Communist/Socialist movement. The Tea Party movement is a start in taking ground back from the Left, and will affect all of America.
Louis Jenkins| 2.19.10 @ 11:48AM
That's more along the lines of what should be. The Tea Party shouldn't be considered a political party, nor should it join one. Thru the influence of its conservative ideas and principles it can shape the policies of both parties. The Tea crowd should remain aloof from campaigning and only tie itself to a candidate or candidates who are worthy of its recognition. To jump wholesale into bed with any party is wrong, for then it joins the pimps, prostitutes, shysters, and other unsavory types that are always present and pulling the strings. It would become no better than the parties it is criticising.
Tom| 2.19.10 @ 1:19PM
Perfectly said Louis.
WAKE UP| 2.19.10 @ 5:37PM
Yep. Just because 'Tea" is followed by "Party" doesn't mean it has to be a political party. Quite the opposite, in fact.
tatosian| 2.19.10 @ 8:18PM
I don't disagree- the Tea Party has had an enormous effect on the rhetoric of current officeholders and groups like CPAC etc.
But I believe that effect is a result of the organization's apparent commitment to remain distinct and apart, to refrain from the endorsement of any party as such.
This is an election year and we have seen this sort of "give the people what they want" rhetorical kabuki before. Recall the secure fence act of 06 - rushed through congress by similarly rattled legislators. 4 years later that fence is undone, the virtual fence, after more than 1 billion dollars, is a failure and napalitano has removed 300 or so members of the border patrol from our southern border.
Our legislators cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
You say the tea party will have a huge effect on both parties over time and that's no doubt true. But there's no reason to assume that effect, over time, will benefit rank and file Americans. Unions and various lobbies have a huge effect on both parties and what's that doing for us?
There is no reason to assume any political group, over time, will not sidle on up to the trough and feast on our hopes, efforts and dollars if allowed to.
We've seen this time and again have we not?
I believe the tea parties have a unique opportunity to give voice to the American people by running tea party candidates committed to the constitution and liberty.
That's right, third party candidatures.
You've either had enough of the lies, betrayals and loss of freedoms or you haven't.
You cannot hope to change the perverse state of the American government by supporting the parties that brought it about.
In plain fact, the American government does not represent me or mine.
If, as has been said here, the email I received is not representative of the tea parties in general, fine. We'll see I guess.
That said, my response to the email's "we believe that such (third party candidate) efforts are unproductive and unwise" is still- unproductive and unwise for whom?
Not for me.
Tom| 2.19.10 @ 11:47AM
So, if I start a website that claims to be the Real Official Home of the Tea Party movement you will believe what I say?
The problem with anyone claiming to represent the 'tea party movement' is it is very much a bottom up organization. It has not yet, and probably never will, coalesced around one group or leader.
And whether the TPP group sent this statement out to their membership or not does not change the fact it was also issued as a press release. Their membership, self reported, is about 59K. I hardly think a group has a membership that low has a truly national voice just because they claim to. A membership of 59K, which probably represents people who signed some sort of online form rather than actual active members, is most certainly insignificant on a national scale.
And no, just because they claim to represent the tea partiers does not mean they are the 'de facto' national organization of tea partiers. Repeating a claim without any factual basis does not make it any more true or useful.
tatosian| 2.19.10 @ 9:02PM
The email I received is self explanatory.
You may call it a press release, claim the apparent leadership of those 59k members to be unrepresentative of the tea party in general, allude to my gullibility, deride that 59k membership as " people who signed some sort of online form rather than actual active members" and whatever else you wish. none of that changes the content of the email does it?
That is of course, if I haven't made the whole thing up all on my own right?
What's the problem here?
If you disagree with the message contained in the email, say so.
If the email doesn't represent tea party strategies or tactics, say so and, more to the point, explain why that is and why I should give your opinion any particular weight.
Do you speak for the tea party any more or less than the Tea Party Patriots who sent the email?
And why denigrate that organization and it's membership?
If the tea party is a bottom up movement consisting of many groups of similar memberships, why is this particular group so readily dismissed?
I don't understand the hostility.
Tom| 2.20.10 @ 9:23AM
Number 1 - The fact you recieved it as an email does not change the fact it was issued as a press release. Sending email copies of press releases is common practice among many organizations.
Number 2 Can you show me where I denigrated the Tea Party Patriots or its membership? I simply stated they do not have any real claim of national representation of those people who consider themselves tea party activists.
Number 3 - I made my disagreements with the TPP's statement obvious, in case you missed it I will repeat: They do not in anyway represent the vast majority of tea party activists. Placing an overarching claim to such representation is at best wishful thinking.
Number 4 - I seriously doubt at this time there is a grand Tea Party strategy. The movement is still chaotic and largely driven from below. Until a charismatic leader emerges that catches the attention of a large plurality of tea party activists there will not be any grand strategy. And frankly that very well might not happen.
Number 5 - I did no dismiss this group. I dismissed your characterization that there statement indicated that the Republicans have already coopted the movement. Since the TPP does not have any real claim to speak for the vast majority of tea party activists, at best it can claim to speak for its membership, any statement they make is limited.
tatosian| 2.20.10 @ 6:13PM
Number 1- Some definitions of 'press release"- "A news release, media release, press release or press statement is a written or recorded communication directed at members of the news media"- "An official written statement that is sent to the media so that it can be publicized" - "A written announcement that seeks to draw media attention to a specific event or product launch." - "an announcement of news written in an editorial style and sent to the news media"
The email doesn't meet any of those criteria.
You calling the email a press release doesn't make it so.
Unless you have seen the thing in a press outlet somewhere of course. Have you?
Number 2- Perhaps it's a matter of perception but I found your "A membership of 59K, which probably represents people who signed some sort of online form rather than actual active members" a little insulting. I mean there's a place for, uh, active members as you put it and a place for those who do what they can when they can. Not for nothing, but I spent years attending anti illegal immigration/ amnesty rallies, but it was the great mass of Americans who (presumably having signed online forms) inundated recalcitrant legislator's offices with emails, faxes and phone calls that stopped the amnesties. They did their part, I did mine. (By the way Tom, did you happen to be involved with any of that or did it all pass you by?)
Number 3 - "I made my disagreements with the TPP's statement obvious." Well no Tom, you said the statement, issued by an organization with a membership of only 59k, wasn't representative of the Tea Party in general. You didn't say you disagreed with their advice to avoid third party candidates. Do you, in your elevated status as an active Tea Party member, agree or disagree with the statement?
Number 4 - The movement may very well be chaotic and largely driven from below and there might not be a charismatic face to the movement yet, but, every Tea party site I have visited has a contact email or number of someone at the top. How else to organize and coordinate rallies, demonstrations and strategic campaigns?
Number 5- I presumed the Tea Parties to be essentially stand alone entities committed to the principles of governance as laid out in the US Constitution.
Given the fact that democrats have successfully manipulated or ignored that document so as to impose their progressive agenda, and republicans pay it no more than lip service during the election cycles (thereby helping the progressives in their efforts), advising their membership to work within those degenerate parties is not co-opting , it's surrender.
Tom| 2.21.10 @ 7:19AM
Yes, I did find the statement on a news site. It was not hard.
Number 2 - My wife runs a small not for profit organization active membership is a small percentage of people who actually have 'joined' by signing up on the web site. This is pretty standard for any organization, the greater the effort involved in participation the smaller the number of people involved. And even assuming that there are 59K ACTIVE members the TPP is insignificant in national politics. If you find that denigrating so be it.
Number 3 - Point taken. What I should have said is I found your categorization of what the TPP statement meant clear. The statement does not indicate that the Tea Party movement has surrendered or been coopted by the Republicans. It does not even mean that those members of the TPP agree with the statement; it simply means that those leaders of the TPP have issued a statement disavowing any support for third parties. On a national scale it is meaningless.
Number 4 - Where did I say that it is a bad thing for groups to have contact information and websites? I think it is a good thing. It is my hope that there will emerge an effective face to the movement because otherwise it will die. However, untill there is such a face any statement by any group lacks national significance.
I agree with you that a large percentage of Republicans only voice constitutional arguments during elections; once elected they, at best, turn into democrat lite by seeking to limit democrat programs rather than drive the argument. Whether the tea party movement will drive Republicans to remember what their core beliefs are supposed to be or not is moot at this point. We will not know till we see the effects during primaries, Rubio is a good sign, and how those elected choose to govern. I am hopeful but not naive.
I believe at this point that any Tea Party organization that bows too much to the Republican party will quickly lose whatever support it has. While the disgust is much more pointed at Obama and the congressional democrats it is there for Republicans too.
tatosian| 2.21.10 @ 5:58PM
Number 3 - Perhaps the decision of the group's leadership is insignificant at the national level. I don't think so but time will tell I guess. (And how much time do you suppose we have?)
But why would any political organization committed to the Constitution remove the threat of running its own candidate against a (rightly) weakened and corrupt republican party that has no regard for that same constitution?
The decision doesn't indicate political independence but rather, indicates a willingness to reinforce the republican belief that they are the only game in town for anti progressives. That is, for Americans.
Okay, it's not surrender. It's more like giving some con man more of your money after he's already bilked you on numerous occasions. And all because he swears he won't rip you off this time.
What would we call that?
Number 4 - "Whether the tea party movement will drive Republicans to remember what their core beliefs are supposed to be or not is moot at this point. We will not know till we see the effects during primaries, Rubio is a good sign, and how those elected choose to govern. I am hopeful but not naive."
Look, no offense but this is the exact mindset that allowed republicans to accompany Bush on his journey into statist paradise.
Which led directly to Obama.
Hope? Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Tom| 2.23.10 @ 8:49PM
I do not think the tea party activists or organizations should limit their options by blindly supporting Republicans.
I take no offense, but honestly until legislation is proposed, voted on, and enacted we do not know. No matter what the rhetoric, no matter what the promises, the proof is the laws that are passed or better yet repealed. Whether it is a third party or a revived Republican party I am tired of promises that are not kept.
I will vote for the people I think are most likely to represent what I believe in. Unfortunately, living in NY that is next to a fools errand. If a real and vibrant third party was to emerge out of the chaos that is the tea party movement I would gladly support it. I just do not think it will.
Margie| 2.20.10 @ 8:03PM
That's basically the same thing Sarah Palin has said as well, and I happen to agree. 2 Party system in this country. I choose to work at restoring my party (Republican), by continuing to back true conservatives who are running. Just like we've been doing in VA, MA,and NJ. I say beware of third Partiers~ they are no help and will only serve to split the vote and we'll get Obama II.
But then, I've been saying that for a long time.
Stuart Koehl| 2.19.10 @ 6:57AM
What Quin describes as "Conservative Principles" apply mainly to American conservatism, which in its turn is really "classical liberalism", AKA Whiggery.
European conservatism, on the other hand, doesn't make much of an impression outside of the John Derbyshire household. American conservatism is optimistic and to a large extent individualistic. It stands for maximal liberty and freedom from government interference. European conservatism is profoundly negative, paternalistic and favors strong government control over popular influences. Pre-Disraeli Tories are the closest one can come to that.
Within American conservatism there seems to be a growing thread of Toryism, and the tension between Whigs and Tories within the conservative movement will have to be kept in dynamic balance if conservatism is to prosper.
MikeD| 2.19.10 @ 8:31AM
Good Morning!
First, I want to apologize for possibly hijacking the thread of conversation a little; but this piece is too amazing not to share. Michelle Malkin did a good column this morning about the wacko who flew his plane into the building in Austin. What I have added below is a comment that was sent to her in response. At first, I thought it must have been a joke or a very cleaver bit of political sarcasm. But, I found several other postings by the same person; so that indicates that it is consistent with other postings. We make fun of a few people who post the more ridiculous comments on American Spectator, but this is far beyond ANYTHING I've ever seen. This is what we are fighting against, and this wacko is more indicative of the 'far lefties' than any of us want to admit. It also illustrates the type of thinking that comes from obama and his Chicago thugs. We have to be very vigilant. Thanks for bearing with me:
The Tea Party Menace
"Ms. Malkin, thank you for highlighting just the most recent and one of the most violent right-wing attacks in this country. This attack perfectly illustrates the rapidly developing ideological threat to our nation and provides ample evidence of why we urgently need to shutdown the Tea Party movement and the other fanatical extremist right-wing groups in this country.
Through cable television, the printed press and the Internet, a small number of fascist ringleaders have managed to stir-up the most simple-minded among us with fairy tales of government takeovers, tax increases, and assorted other false allegations and mischaracterizations. Internet sites - such as this one – manage to attract the most uneducated and uninformed rubbish from across the country and whip them into paranoid-fueled frenzies. It’s no surprise these weak-minded dupes then fly planes into federal buildings or go out and assault homosexuals, intellectuals, African-Americans or undocumented immigrants.
To be fair, President Obama is not entirely blameless in this evolving menace. The true Americans in this country elected him on his pledge to establish a national civilian security force to deal with these domestic terrorists and their propaganda mills. I assume President Obama is just waiting for the most advantageous occasion to execute this plan, but time is running out.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this grave threat is the fact these right-wing ticking time bombs are often able to temporarily conceal their true nature and walk among completely unsuspecting and unguarded Americans. For the good of our country and for our own safety, President Obama should force these people to wear a brand on their forehead or some type of symbol on their arm."
Honest_Lib@Yahoo.com
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.19.10 @ 9:37AM
Quin,
Once again, thank you.
Louis,
I hear you, guy. Believe me I do. You are precisely correct about what I shall term "the danger".
I have thought long and hard about the tea-party movement, and I am active in it.
Question: Have you been to any tea-parties? May I ask how many?
I've been to three here in Houston. I have a "Tea -Party Nation" sign in my rear windshield. You would not believe the number of thumbs up and grins I get in traffic.
I'm 64, Louis, and I have NEVER seen in my life a movement with the raw power of "we the people" expressed by the movement. To my knowledge there has never been a movement like this in our history.
The closest equivalent I can find is the overwhelming national consensus following the attack on Pearl Harbor and the follow up of the entire country mobilizing to defeat Fascism.
Heh, having said that, I also noticed at the tea-party get togethers that it is like herding cats.
Man! You talk about a diverse crowd! Wow! (heh, have you seen the cat-herding TV commercial?) Everything from raving lunatics to CPAs, to bank presidents to bikers in leather and construction hands in work boots…well a pretty good cross section of Americans.
Heck, half the fun at the demonstrations is reading the signs.
Since early last spring, I have watched the “commonalities” coalesce, into some simple themes.
“Don’t Tread On Me” (don’t screw with me and mine), Quit stealing our money, Strangle the Bureaucracies , Keep the Jihadists off our backs, (we win, they lose), heh, audit the Fed, drill baby drill, Send the Greenies to Greenland. Tenth amendment rights and Second amendment rights get in there as close seconds.
So, what I see is the movement swamping the Republican Party….literally. I believe the sheer size and diversity and energy of the movement will make the Republican party difficult to recognize after November 2010. Even here in Republican Houston, tea-party members have taken over a BUNCH of Republican precinct committees. I understand the same thing is happening all across the country. That of course is HUGE in terms of the primaries season, nominating staunch “restorationists”.
Coinciding with all of this, I happen to zero into two observations. One, we are into the era of “TV-TEVO” (the habit of taping good TV shows so one can blip through the commercials and get back to the show.) Historically, the tons of money spent on political campaigns went mostly to TV adds.
Two, in the era of the internet, the millions of e-mail list names the tea-partiers have developed are going to be huge influences, not only in primaries, but in identifying great candidates up and down the ballots and recommending them for consideration.
With solid volunteers, this “social networking” is essentially free…with the push of a computer key.
I think, these two emerging realities are simply going to take the “big money boys” out of the equation to a large degree. (Stop and think about that a minute, Louis. This stuff can change the whole complexion of the coming elections.) (no pun intended).
The inherent corruption of “big money” contributors can be offset…a lot.
Finally, we just have to get to November…without election cancellations, (like martial law), or large scale fraud. We can cut down on the ACORN fraud…a lot. Hundreds of tea-partiers here have signed up as poll-watchers…and voting list screeners. “Mickey Mouse” will have a difficult time registering and voting absentee. Those local poll watchers will also know the address of the park benches and vacant lots.
Thoughts guys?
Louis Jenkins| 2.19.10 @ 12:04PM
Unfortunately I have only been to three and unable to attend the nationals, but middle America was well represented at the ones I was at. I'm in a no-man's land as we in the immediate area do not have a local tea party. Instead I have traveled one county over for the meetings. In addition, my e-mail stay hot with notices from them. Unfortunately, the e-mails often deal with very local issues (last one was an issue with the county dog pound). But they're active at the state and national level too and that's important to me.
Ryan| 2.19.10 @ 10:03AM
I'm thinking what we'll see is the ouster of just a handful of incumbents that people are tired of (already occurring with several Dems who are seeing the "writing on the wall" in their own races), and the possible semi-resurgence of what we were wanting out of conservatives in 1994.
The problem being is keeping anything else from happening until everyone is sworn in early December 2010; also, I don't know that we can really push Obama to the right as we could Clinton, who did it to save his job - Obama is far more an idealogue and less politically savvy to run to the right.
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 10:58AM
The American Spectator : What We Believe USA Cws links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Petronius| 2.19.10 @ 11:22AM
The lefties always talk of struggle between the haves an have nots. To them the world is a nursery school sandbox and the administration and congress they elected is mommy.
There will be a clash when the economy goes under; between we who produce and the libtard parasites who voted to bleed our country white. We don't need to redefine survival. There will be no real recovery unless and until those who refuse to roll up their sleeves and compete heads up with their neighbors are banished never to return. If they want to live in a perpetual kindergarten, they know how to get to Scandinavia.
Franklin| 2.19.10 @ 12:08PM
This moment in history is scary and exciting. We are all in a story yet to be played out. We are in charge of the ending and whether you like that ending or not depends on the amount of time and effort you put into the story.
You can sit on the sidelines and whine about “this” doesn’t go far enough or “that” goes too far; or you can include yourself in what is being done. If you don’t like this statement, find a group (or start one) where you can be involved in writing your own.
Find candidates that you can support and do so; or run yourself.
If we don’t get behind this movement to guide this country back toward its origins – Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – it will be no ones fault but our own. Not the Democrats, RINOs, Republicans or Progressives; but us.
As in US of A.
FawnridgeFarm| 2.19.10 @ 2:06PM
In yet another excellent article, Mr. Hillyer notes that it "'tis the season for restatements of the conservative creed". Indeed it is and, like he, I see that this is "a good thing".
I would note, however, that the very first comment regarding his article delineates a "simplistic" set of "Common Sense Principles" submitted by a man who feels that conservative principles, as articulated in such issuances as the Mount Vernon Statement, tend to "glaze over" the eyes of those who "inherently grasp the principles", "yet do not have the language to soar to the Conservative Heights of Mr. Buckley". To me, that statement spoke volumes.
I have long pondered the reason why the repeated resurgence of the leftist agenda occurs in a nation whose populace is largely right of center. During one of her recent visits to my home, I touched on this subject with Annette Kirk, widow of Russell Kirk and current administrator of the Russell Kirk Foundation. In our discussion, I pointed out that, in spite of Reaganism, the Sharon Statement and the Contract With America, our nation recently elected the most socialistic president in it's history.
So how can it be that a nation who so warmly embraced Ronald Reagan voted enthusiastically for Obama, a man whose political philosophy is diametrically opposed? The answer, I think, is simple, and can be readily seen in this rural, central Michigan area where both Ms. Kirk and I reside.
Like so many across the heartland of America, the people in this area are largely rural people whose lives are the very manifestation of conservative political philosophy. Typically, however, they vote for the Democratic Party candidate. One reason has it's roots in simple tradition - they tend to vote for the party their father voted for. Given the rather insidious nature of socialism within this country, and given their tendency to be apolitical people, they are simply not cognizant of the fact that the Democratic Party has changed to the point that it no longer shares the values which they continue to hold dear.
A larger reason, however, speaks directly to a failing of our conservative leadership. While periodic restatements of conservative principles are all good and well, I question whether they actually reach those who most urgently need to hear them. Many conservative-minded Americans just do not read conservative publications such as The American Spectator. They thus receive only such limited exposure to conservative ideas as can be found on network television or the pages of their local newspaper. To the contrary, many of the folks of whom I speak are employed in union jobs, and there they receive daily exposure to the leftist agenda of their union representatives. Lacking a clear, concise summation of "common sense" conservative principles, as suggested by the gentleman who commented on Mr. Hillyer's article, they are thus easy targets for the clever leftist sloganism they hear each day at work. Likewise, lacking simple, conservative "sound-bites" with which to refute their union's left-wing slogans, the dissemination of leftist perspective continues unabated in the workplace while, at the same time, the conservative perspective there goes largely unspoken. That the conservative message largely fails to reach the workplace is an inadequacy of communication that must be addressed by the conservative leadership if the backbone of leftism in America is ever to be broken.
The rise of the Tea Party movement can also be viewed as a failure of conservative leadership. Indeed, this grass-roots, leaderless movement has arisen in spite of conservative leadership as opposed to because of it. Resisting all attempts thus far by conservative leaders to lead and speak for this movement, the American people who, to quote Mr. Hillyer's commenter, "inherently grasp" conservatism's principles "yet do not have the language to soar to the Conservative Heights of Mr. Buckley", are, sans leader, taking matters into their own hands in an effort to combat the passage of socialist legislation. That, to me, is a beautiful thing, but less effective than it might be were a man of Reagan's caliber leading it's charge.
I'd be interested in hearing Mr. Hillyers thoughts on this perspective. Specifically, I'd be interested in knowing whether the conservative leadership who drafted the Mount Vernon Statement has specific ideas on how to effectively disseminate conservative ideology in the workplace. Should nothing be done to counter the Left's choke-hold on political information within America's blue-collar workforce, I'm afraid that the conservative resurgence we're currently seeing will, like Reaganism, one day be supplanted by yet another rise of the socialist / Marxist philosophy.
MikeBee| 2.19.10 @ 5:30PM
Fawnridge Farm,
Well written commentary, and excellent comments and questions. My first thought, though, upon reading your comments, is that the People of the U.S. should not need a leader. In this country, alone among the entire world and the entire history of the world, the United States Citizens ARE the leaders of this country. The President of the U.S. is simply the chief administrator both of our federal government and of our military.
It is natural for folks to look for a leader. It also may be a good thing to have someone who, like R. Reagan, would be an effective mouthpiece for our ideas. But, we can NEVER FORGET that we are the rulers of this country. Elected officials simply represent us, represent our sovereignty. What I truly hope to see with this Tea Party movement is both political parties (actually, even the smaller parties, as well) moving, in fear of their elected jobs, to the Right, and adopting what we, the rulers of this country want.
In fact, I believe that Newt Gingrich, as well meaning as he is, is following the wrong path. It is not for our elected leaders to draw up a contract with us that we will support; rather, we the People should be drawing up a contract to be enacted with any elected official who wishes to represent us. This would be a perfect function for the Tea Party movement. No matter what your party affiliation, if you don't want to sign onto our contract with you, we the People will not let you represent us, and will not give any money to the cause of your election.
Quin, a good start to some of the principles which should be outlined in how we will consent to be governed. But, first and foremost among any principles adopted should be the very simple statement that the rulers of this United States are, and remain, WE THE PEOPLE.
Tom| 2.21.10 @ 7:35AM
Mike,
While you lay out your thoughts well and there is much that I agree with I am not sure that the tea party movement does not need a face to it. Yes, of course, that face should represent the core beliefs of the movement but I think it must exist. It is simple human nature, not to mention the way our media runs, for one person voicing the concerns and viewpoints of a population to be able to get more done than a mass of people lacking real uniting leadership.
Quin| 2.19.10 @ 8:22PM
To Farmridge Farm:
Great comments! The answer to your last question is that different people in the conservative movement have different skills. Yes, there are people who work really hard to try to figure out how to effectively disseminate the message in ways that reach everyday audiences. Whether they are successful or not, though, is a different question. The problem is that so few elected officials, even ones who vote conservatively, have good skills or understanding related to communicating that it is tough to find good messengers even when conservatives figure out what the right, most effective message is. But all your comments are right. And all conservative activists need to take heed. Thanks.
darcy| 2.20.10 @ 1:50AM
Maybe John Adams can help here: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
People write books about how we got to where we are. But briefly stated it is this: we have become a different people. Not completely yet, but we're well on the way.
Science is the new god, religion is being expunged from the public square. Immigration from non-Western countries dillutes our American culture -- multiculturalism reigns. Tolerance the greatest virtue, that and equality of outcomes. Progressives have captured the universities and more recently our k-12 schools. Journalism schools champion sophistry and leftism, whose graduates go on to pummel the people with half-truths and outright lies -- the end justifies the means: to the brave new world.
Even our churches have abandoned their mission and embraced social justice as its aim, a perfect fit and tool for liberals.
A leader? Perhaps. But I'd rather see the people wake up and cast off the shroud about to envelope them. The new media, the TeaPartiers, Overreacher himself -- these the people understand. And we're on the move, and very wary. Better that a handful of statesmen exert themselves, now, in the knowledge that we've got their backs and are finished being led around by the nose by bureaucratic "experts" who think they know better than we do how to live our lives.
Read Sowell and Voegelin. Dump RINOs. Term Limits at the ballot box.
cuban pete| 2.20.10 @ 8:31AM
Very well said and in the wee small hours of the morning! Have a great weekend.
darcy| 2.20.10 @ 3:10PM
And a pleasant weekend to you, too, cuban pete.
I came across this just this afternoon, believe it or not; it seems to reaffirm my assertions above:
"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry." Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
(Hat tip to nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice).
Tom| 2.21.10 @ 7:39AM
FawnridgeFarm,
I know that the country consistently polls as center/right but I have always been uncomfortable saying it is so. The nation consistently elects leftists into office, and if you track congressional majorities you will notice that the leftist always have larger majorities than the right does. Imagine what Reagan could have done with a fillibuster proof Senate majority.
David| 2.19.10 @ 3:47PM
No to a third party. They lose. The Perotistas didn't earn Ross Perot one electoral vote, but they ensured the election of Bill Clinton two times. It didn't happen with George Wallace.
The problem is that most voters don't pay enough attention to politics until the general election, but by then it is too late. That is why we end up with so many RINO's as candidates and in office. Voters should get involved during the primaries and ensure that we end up with true conservatives running against the liberals of the democrat party. That's a recipe for success.
A good example of this is the senate race in Florida. People paid attention early and Rubio has a great chance to beat RINO Crist despite his backing by the republican establishment and his big bucks.
That should be the situation in every race in every election cycle. People need to pay attention early, back the conservative, and the RINO's will be gone via attrition.
There are always going to be some places where conservatives just can't win such as in much of the northeast. I suspect Scott Brown, although much preferred over a democrat, is going to be a disappointment on several issues. But, by paying attention early in the primaries, voters can keep the RINO's to an uninfluential handful.
DatsunMark| 2.19.10 @ 4:07PM
A government which can sell it's peoples grandchildren into servitude to bankers who've been granted special powers to inflate the money supply will eventually lead to our ruin.
William 5| 2.19.10 @ 4:25PM
Mr. Hillyer - I'm finding this to be both an interesting article and an interesting topic.
I find I have little problem with the following statements, however, which morals/standards are we living by? Who will be defining these morals and standards?
"We conservatives are for personal responsibility and autonomy, enforced by self-restraint and community standards."
"A constitutional conservatism… reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government"
"Rededicate the conservative movement to the good, the true, and the beautiful as inseparably linked under the general concept of the good society…. Freshly commit to individual human liberty as society's prime moral end after goodness itself and therefore a major conservative political doctrine."
I don't mind a return to the simplicity (and rather genius) of the Founding Fathers, but wasn't it infinitely easier to have such all-encompassing statements when the population of the country was much smaller (both in size and in breadth of beliefs)?
Petronius| 2.21.10 @ 11:38AM
The honest citizens of the this country are in thrall to all the predators, perverts, and parasites in our midst. You, Wm 5, and the rest of us are paying for the results of their behavior; in treasury, property, and blood. And we will not be free until these people are gone.
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 5:06PM
How Do You Decide What To Believe? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.19.10 @ 8:43PM
Beliefs and Ideology - I Believe that ... links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Mike| 2.20.10 @ 9:40AM
I would urge everyone to take some time and read the material from the Peterson-Pew Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
If our politicians don't get their acts together soon these discussions about who is more patriotic or who possesses the greater wisdom will be moot.
Pingback| 2.21.10 @ 7:39AM
Final Stop – Lisboa – Lisbon, Portugal Travel Blog | Portugal Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
martin j smith| 2.21.10 @ 8:06AM
The Tea Party Movement should be exactly that, not a separate political party. Its influence which has many conservative ideas can help keep this country from falling into the abyss--which the Democrat Left intends. I suspect if I had to pick out out two issues most TP folks agree on it is these: On Domestic: Stop the bleeding deficits in government spending and create jobs ( in the private sector ). On Other issues: fight a war on terrorism, not civilian court cases against the Capone Mob. Take your oath of office to defend this country against enemies domestic and foreign seriously.
The TP movement can help defeat Democrat Left and Rino Repubs in primaries and real electi0ns.
For me, it is quite straight forward: I want my country back. Send Obama back to Berlin. He can the prez of the EU. They deserve each other!!!!!
Oldefarte| 2.21.10 @ 10:24AM
In reply to Quin's [usual] excellent article [and Farnridge's,etc comments], I'd say that the problem does not revolve around the conservative message [with an excellent history of proclamators such as Buckley, Will and Quin]; but rather a failure of conservative elected officials [and conservative citizens/voters] to effectively fight the liberal base of this country. For example, Reagan successfully reduced taxes [which spured economic growth], but in doin so, he lowered governmental REVENUES [and he was not successful in correspondingly decreasing governmental EXPENSES, partially due to his increasing them via necessary military expense increases]. Liberals in Congress [who command the monetary purse strings of the nation's budget] are the problem; and if and until voters are able to elect conservative congressmen that will PROGRESSIVELY lower governmental expenses [and correspondingly lower our deficit and debt], conservative presidents' actions will be negated. As to the thesis of people voting for Democrats, that's mainly due to the daily brainwashing resulting from their readings of their local liberal newspapers [what is needed here is for people to begin cancelling their newspaper subscriptions as a signal to these liberal writers/editors,etc that their slanted messages are not desired]!!!!!
Pingback| 2.21.10 @ 10:33AM
Sayonara Tokyo! – Tokyo, Japan Travel Blog | Japan Traveling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Dave | 2.21.10 @ 11:50AM
1776 Redux?
Only if the knees hold up
Sitting here this morning, the state of California is about $20 billion dollars in a spending deficit hole with no posse on the near horizon. About a week ago, and I passed along the news report, our legislature's Democrat majority in Sacramento made the move to try and push through their own state mandated health care reform plan at a cost of (please have a seat) $200 billion dollars. That's billion with a B.
All this from the same slime who whine - "Oh, well ... now, we can't make any more government jobs cuts, reductions, or even think about cutting entitlement payments or reducing any other taxpayer funded benefits in order to balance our books. Especially when those cuts and reductions might impede our ability to get re-elected. Or as Mel Brooks bellowed in Blazing Saddles: "Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs."
Back to the health care mandate requiring citizens to purchase coverage...like it or not!
Apparently, some states are standing up and shouting - NO, HELL NO! But will it work? Don't know. If history is an indicator and the payoffs are fat enough, most any politician can be bought. Meanwhile, Obama's Blair House Farce is coming up Thursday (2/25). I'm hoping, among other things, they have a doctor on call in order to catch any Republicans who might collapse during the so-called debates due to ... weak knee stress.
Anyway, thanks in advance to these other states geographically located across our union of The Great Shrinking Constitution. Or as the radical Left like to sing: "What-is-it-good-for? Ab-so-loot-lee NOTHIN' - HUHH!"
Below is an update on a pair of free standing states that have yet to buckle under the previously diagnosed ... weak knee stress.
- Dave, Ca.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/.....03286.html
darcy| 2.21.10 @ 8:14PM
Hey, Dave,
I (a former Montanan) read the dailyinterlake, too.
They've got a first rate (conservative) editor in Mr. Miele! Glad to see other people appreciate him.
Pingback| 2.22.10 @ 1:40AM
Believing in Oneself is a Daily Commitment links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
lisa | 2.22.10 @ 1:55AM
Nice post!
Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 2.22.10 @ 9:46PM
Mr. Hillyer,
Beautifully said!
zxcvzxc| 5.6.10 @ 11:03PM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
edw
Puma x Alexander McQueen | 8.12.11 @ 11:38PM
is good