“A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.”
The phrase “Constitutional conservatism” is an interesting one. These people laud what they call the “conservatism” of both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Apparently, they’re unaware that the Declaration was a revolutionary document and that it and the Constitution set out a radical new way of approaching governing. They also fundamentally distort the reality of the creation of the documents, implying that the authors would never—ever—want anything changed. That’s plain crazy.
But it’s by invoking “morality” that they indicate where their ideology is. Point four of their Agenda says, in the same convoluted style their entire document is written in, “A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.” … “It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.”
That all means that one cannot be a conservative unless one also embraces a far right christianist agenda, too. That’s some pretty stinky hubris they have there.
So, does this matter? Of course it does. It’s endorsed by some of the biggest biggies in rightwing American politics. It indicates what these movers and shakers intend to be the litmus test for all Republican candidates. Conveniently, it’s also a document many of the teabaggers will be happy to endorse.
However, the problem for this rightwing cabal is simple: They can’t enforce it. A Republican running in a liberal district cannot hope to win running on this agenda so there will continue to be “moderate” Republicans. No matter how much these folks want to force ideological purity onto the Republican Party, they simply can’t.
But if they’re even partly successful, the people calling the shots in the party, both elected and in leadership positions, could very well endorse the entire agenda. If so, that’d mean that the demise of the Republican Party would be inevitable. And if this statement is the cause, then the party deserves to die.
Real conservatives would never worship the founding documents as if they’re holy writ, while at the same time using those documents to deny freedom and liberty to others they don’t like. We’ll see if the real conservatives can save their own movement from the imposters seeking to define it.
2 comments:
First principles... is that code for the Ten Commandments?
I can't help but think that having such a blatant manifesto is a first step for totalitarian regimes, am I right in thinking the Communist Party in the USSR had something similar? Maybe I'm forgetting my high school history, but it sets off warning bells for me... but I expect you're right, it doesn't sound very realistic.
The "First Principles" refer to something or other in the document, but it would take too much effort to translate it into English.
Which reminds me of the best joke I heard about this: "The 'Mount Vernon Statement' sounded better in the original German." Apart from the obvious dig at the inherent fascism of these people, this is funny because their writing is so bloody awful that I'd swear it was a literal translation from another language, probably German. Put that joke in the "funny because it's true" department.
The Soviets probably did have manifestos of their own (apart from Marx's writings) but it reminds me the most of Nazi documents. Hitler himself said similar things in similar ways. Still, I hesitate to mention that because of Godwin's Law.
It absolutely should set of warning bells because these people are trying to take over America and export their authoritarian conservatism to the rest of the world.
Post a Comment