The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Constitutional Conservatism

Text Size

Ed Kilgore explores Michele Bachmann's self-proclaimed "constitutional conservatism" in The New Republic, and determines that it's a ploy to radicalize the mainstream Republican Party by introducing far-right social and economic views through code words.

With all due respect to Rep. Bachmann, it's pretty clear that she is not the standard bearer for constitutional conservatism (although it's understandable why Kilgore would like her to be for the purposes of his essay, given the susceptibility of left-leaning folks to believing conspiracy theories about her).

No, that would be Rand Paul, who also describes himself as a constitutional conservative. What the label means, in Paul's case, is that he has taken his father's libertarian politics and packaged them for a wider conservative audience. That means an emphasis on observing the Constitution and the rule of law while pursuing traditional conservative values. Although Ron Paul is responsible for introducing this style of politics to the Republican Party, his appeal has been, and continues largely to be, limited to ideological libertarians and younger folks. Rand, on the other hand, has been successful in uniting both libertarians and more traditional Republicans.

In practical terms, Rand Paul tends to be among the most fiscally conservative and least interventionist of the Republican caucus. But a look at his voting record doesn't reveal radicalism or a plan to restore some lost utopian vision of the U.S. In fact, an even more scrupulous constitutionally conservative member of Congress would just vote no all the time. Insofar as Michele Bachmann supports ideas and policies that would radicalize the Republican Party, she's less of a constitutional conservatives than the Pauls and other likeminded members of Congress.

View all comments (19) | Leave a comment

Publius| 7.6.11 @ 10:34AM

A look at his voting record also reveals the insertion of earmarks in bills that - once passage is assured - he votes against.

Fiscally conservative? Meh.

Al Adab| 7.6.11 @ 11:08AM

Constitutional Conservative might lend itself to varying definitions, but, with all due deference to Marvin Olasky, it's preferable to Compassionate Conservative.

Wayne | 7.6.11 @ 11:43AM

Is paying off the national debt radical? Is getting off of Keynsian economics radical? Are decisions based on the Constitution rather than years of left wing judges (like Roe vs Wade) radical? Is having a country "of the people, for the people and by the people" radical?

I think we need more "radicals" like Bachman.

Kingofthenet| 7.6.11 @ 12:28PM

Michelle wants to 'take the Country Back!' ....to the 1800's, what's worse it's not like she wants to do what the 'Founding Fathers' intended, but her fictional idea of what they wanted. She actually believes, they didn't (Really) want a Church/State separation, she also confuses the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. But what do you expect from someone 'channeling' a Serial Killer.

Dixie Pixie| 7.6.11 @ 1:02PM

KingoftheNet .... you really need to improve your “Psychic” skills.
I don't know who you are mentally “channeling”, but I doubt you are reading Michelle Bachmann's mind.
Are you using the right mental wavelength?

Al Adab| 7.6.11 @ 1:46PM

Dixie,
Where you been? I'm not sure what KOTN is trying to say but its clear he should spend some time reading the debates on the Constitution, maybe the Adams-Jefferson letters and some others.

Warrior| 7.6.11 @ 2:01PM

You obviously have not read and/or are incapable of understanding the Constitution. I suggest you turn off Nickelodeon for an hour a night and pick up a book. Separation of church and state is a liberal generated myth. Doesn't exist in the Constitution and never has. I don't know what to expect from useful idots like you, but I do know what to expect from another 4 years of having a Marxist in the oval office. Michele Bachmann must be scaring the daylights out of the establishment Republicans and everything to the left of them.

Conservative View| 7.6.11 @ 12:43PM

WHAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVISM?

Some of us seem to have a problem decerning the meaning of the term Constitutional Conservativism. It really isn't that difficult to understand. A Constitutional Conservative is one who firmly believes that in a contest between social rights and individual rights, the rights of the individual are superior.

Let me give some examples. Some states are right to work, and some states are not. The right to work states have passed laws that a man does not have to join a union to hold a job. If a man is a hotel worker, he can work in a hotel without joining SEIU. This is Constitutional conservatism. The rights of the individual trumps the rights of the group, in this case the Unions.

This idea of Constitutional Conservatism is the bane of liberal existence. In the liberal mind set, matched by their agenda, the rights of the group must always trump the rights of the individual. For the liberal social rights of any group can not be gained until and unless group rights trump the rights of the individual.

There are problems for both. I doubt intergration would have come about in the manner in which it has if group rights did not trump the individual rights of parents protesting the bussing of their children. Constitutional Conservativism has it's limits. That we have taken this concept of group over individual to the extreams that we have shows the tyranny of liberal thought. With group rights trumping those of the individual a man has clear ownership of nothing, his meals may be regulated by an all intrusive government, what kind of car he may buy is at the whim of a faceless and nameless person in an office deciding how far it must go on a gallon of gas.

Given the choice, social rights or individual rights, I hope that most of us would chose the individual over the group. Our Constitution was designed to that very purpose, the protection of the rights of the individual. There are some, and to listen to the clamor in the news one might suspect many, who believe that the good of the group out weighs the needs of the individual. For me, that is classical Marxism at it's very best. The fact that Marxism has never worked in history is lost upon the liberal mind.

So here is the question to be asked of anyone running for president. "Do you believe in social rights over individual rights, or the other way around?" If you want a true Constitutional Conservative, listen intently to the reply.

Dan Phillips| 7.6.11 @ 2:23PM

CV, you are reading your philosophy into the word, not letting the word speak for itself. Clearly constitutional conservative is a reference to an actual document, the US Constitution, not an abstract philosophy. Your philosophy may or may not result from following that document, that is for a different discussion, but you are putting the cart before the horse. A definition of a constitutional conservative must contain some reference to the Constitution, not just abstractions. See my definition below.

Conservative View| 7.6.11 @ 5:21PM

Dan, you raise an excellent point and I applaud your for it. Indeed the term Constitutional Conservative must reference the Constitution as a document. The question arises perhaps is that document a philosophical statement or a social contract between the governed and the goverment? Can it be both? Clearly (at least I hope clearly) I believe it to be both and the two inseparable.

The term conservative is in my limited view a philosophy, and any discussion of Constitutional Conservativism must rest on a philosophical foundation. Absolutely true as you point out in your two posts that the Constitution as a document must be referenced as well, something I failed to do. As a teen might say, "my bad."

Again, thank you for your posts. I think that we are both on the same page on this subject, just that I really do need a new pair of glasses.

Wayne | 7.6.11 @ 6:36PM

I know, I have been waiting for a long time to explain to me where a corporation has any status in the constitution. It seems to me we have individuals and we have partnerships - period.

Brett| 7.7.11 @ 5:53AM

Something worth mentioning to your comment. In law, corporations and individuals are both considered persons. This is where the manipulation starts. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Code even acknowledges that our government is a corporation and only artificial persons can possibly interact with it. So, from the perspective of government - we are all corporations.

Have you considered| 7.6.11 @ 5:22PM

Put another way to paraphrase Ayn Rand..

You can not do something good for "society" that is not good for the individual, for what is "society" but a group of individuals?

Clint| 7.6.11 @ 1:18PM

Ronald Reagan:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

Kingofthenet| 7.6.11 @ 1:58PM

THIS is what I always suspected, that MOST Hardcore Conservatives REALLY like Libertarian philosophy, but are 'Republicans', because they would rather WIN than keep their ideology pure. Shame you people are so willing to heavily compromise your beliefs for the promise of power.

Warrior| 7.6.11 @ 2:05PM

Jackass, what you are calling Libertarian is actually republicanism. I hope you have enough intelligence to see the capitalization of certain letters and understand the significance, but I truly doubt it.

Dan Phillips| 7.6.11 @ 2:13PM

In my mind, constitutional conservative and constitutionalist are essentially the same thing because a constitutionalist is by definition attempting to conserve something, the constitutional republic the Founders left us. I guess one could make a distinction between a libertarian constitutuionalist who embraces constitutionalism in furtherence of libertrain ideology vs. a constitutionalist conservative who actually wants to conserve the constitutional republic of the Founders for its own sake, but the actual political implications are the same as long as the libertarian is an honest broker and doesn't try to read libertarian ideology into the Constitution where it doesn't belong. But a constitutionalist is someone who wants to follow the original intent of the Founders when the Constitution was ratified, and the sine qua non of constitutionalism is enumerated powers doctrine,. Meaning the federal government can only do those thing it is specifically authorized to do. By this standard, Ron Paul is the only constitutionalist at the national level unless and until some of these new guys develope a track record.

Andrew Cochran| 7.11.11 @ 11:45PM

How can Rep. Bachmann claim to be a “Constitutional conservative” when she is a co-sponsor of a bill that Ron Paul, Tea Party Patriots’ Mark Meckler, and Profs. Randy Barnett, John Baker, and Ilya Somin say is unconstitutional? Read my website, it’s all there. Tom Coburn disagrees with Bachmann on this issue.

yisong| 10.28.11 @ 2:19AM

Slewing ring may be used for slewing conveyer, welding arms and positioners,light,medium duty cranes,excavators and other engineering machines. http://www.1stbearing.com