The Mount Vernon Statement
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
What is there to say about this statement, which is being called a new conservative “manifesto”? Someone might object that Russell Kirk said that conservatives do not have manifestoes, but that would be entirely too quaint and old-fashioned. What is one to make of the organizers’ selection of the site of George Washington’s home for a statement that refers to a foreign policy of “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world”? I would say that it is in extremely poor taste, but then this statement is not directed at people like me.
My admiration for Washington comes partly from his rejection of the sort of militaristic Caesarism that fuels the modern cult of the Presidency in which so many conservatives indulge. I agree with his advice that we should “observe good faith and justice towards all nations” and that we should “cultivate peace and harmony with all.” Most modern conservatives today embrace antagonistic, confrontational policies either informed by a hubristic nationalism or inspired by a misguided fear of vastly exaggerated threats. I also agree with Washington that “[t]he great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” It would amaze me if most of the signatories of the Mount Vernon Statement would endorse this view. After all, how can we exhaust our resources “advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world” if we do not enmesh ourselves deeply in the politics of every other continent?
I cannot object to the statement that the “federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.” This is true. However, I have no idea why the organizers of this gathering think that anyone will believe their professions of constitutionalism after enabling or acquiescing in some of the most grotesque violations of constitutional republican government in the last forty years. If constitutional conservatism means anything, it has to mean that the executive branch does not have wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the President’s (temporary) military role. It has to mean that all these conservatives will start arguing that the President cannot wage wars on his own authority, and they will have to argue this no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.
Until we see these basic demonstrations of fidelity to constitutional principle from the would-be constitutional conservatives of this Mount Vernon meeting, we should assume that this is little more than a new ruse designed to rile up activists and donors during a Democratic administration in order to breathe new life into a moribund and bankrupt movement.
Update: As Dave Weigel reports, Richard Viguerie declared the statement to be “pablum” just days before signing it.
Filed under: politics
What you have written here is all so true. And the truth leaves so little room for hope that the American ship of state can ever right itself. Foreign entanglements, preemptive war, political aristocracy calculating the borders of torture in the bowels of the White House, this is conservativism? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. So sorry our…, I mean the drone killed the bride, but drones are, well, drones. Hey Amigo, will you take a hundred bucks to make it right?
Conservatives? Sticks, stones, and worse than senseless things.
They can take their manifesto and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
First, this is an Ed Meese deal? Oh, my. I can’t think of anyone more of an old white guy than Meese. And I still chuckle at his name after all these years. Party of ideas, eh? 1980’s ideas, sure.
Second, speaking of old, the Conservative Action Project’s website sure is spiffy. Just a few of the funnies:
“A look back in time to the early 1920’s will show us a free market, supply-side plan that does work,” and “One of Ronald Reagan’s favorite presidents was Calvin Coolidge.” Thank goodness they had the technical know-how to include a YouTube video – wait, it’s called “Fred Thompson on the Economy.” Oh, well.
More goods on the Conservative Action Project.
But back to the Mount Vernon thingy. At the end of the TAS article is this gem: “We’re hoping this will be picked up by the Tea Party activists as a framework,” says Congressman David McIntosh (R-Ind). “To have an impact, it must come from the people.” So, you got together a bunch of retreads and issued a manifesto. Good luck with that.
Whoops, google error, shoulda known better. First link is to a local AR group that opposes Mike Ross. Still, it’s funny.
The “real” Conservative Action Project, doesn’t have a website, but is related somehow to the Center for National Policy. Second link is still good.
OK, I’m officially impressed. Mr Larison hit the nail right on the head. Unfortunately, “old fashion” conservatism is quaint, since corporatism and authoritarianism is the way to political power, the apparent true motivation of modern conservatism. With the recent US Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate funds to be spend on political advertisement (uber-judicial activism by conservative judges stacked by Republican administrations), the Republican party can expect a political zenith. More pre-emptive invasions, curtailment of civil rights in the name of national security, and a pro-corporate/anti-regulatory/anti-consumer environment. George Washington is turning in his grave (along with those genuine “old fashion” conservatives). Ironically, fascism in conservative clothing.
[...] for bridging the gap between libertarians/paleocons and neo-conservatives on foreign policy (see Larison for a more fully developed argument on this point), nor does it provide any guidance as to how one would determine whether a particular policy fits [...]
[...] I was going to make fun of the whole Mount Vernon nonsense, in which all the same frauds who brought you the last eight years got together and wrapped themselves up in the Constitution then went out for filets and drinks, but Daniel Larison seems to have it covered ok: [...]