The Purpose of the Twelve Points as a Definitive Statement of Conservative Principles

I am preparing for an attempt to set up a petition feature on this site, which will finally allow supporters of the Twelve Points to sign the document.  In the course of this preparation, I have written a few sentences that explain very effectively why the American conservative movement needs the Twelve Points as its definitive statement of conservative principles -- and why adopting the Twelve Points as a definitive statement of principles can actually be expected to work:

Many Americans, including many professed conservatives, do not have a clear, meaningfully detailed understanding of the conservative philosophy. This has resulted in practical difficulties, including political challenges, in implementing conservative reforms in the United States. The Twelve Points are an attempt to solve this problem, both by allowing conservatives to reaffirm details of the conservative philosophy and by helping to give those details a higher profile.

The desired outcome is first to demonstrate conclusively that American conservatives understand and support certain inconspicuous but important aspects of the conservative philosophy, and then second to use that evidence in continuing to spread this information.

We hope to influence our fellow conservatives, particularly other American conservatives, but also people of other political labels who share our philosophy of individual liberty and rights, personal responsibility, and constitutionalism, a philosophy that is set forth in greater detail in the text of the Twelve Points.

It is intended that the Twelve Points will be well-established within a year or two, but we will continue to promote them as long as they continue to be necessary and relevant.

The Latest News on the Twelve Points

If you were wondering whether I had been working on making changes to the website of the Twelve Points, the answer is, "Yes.  Of course.  That's why it is different, now, from the way it was a few days ago."  It is also where I have been spending my time instead of posting posts on this blog, for the past few days.  I am pleased with the way it has turned out, but please let me know what you think of the new design.

Before long, I will publish my thoughts on where the conservative movement now stands following the release of the Mount Vernon Statement.  I will also discuss how its release might affect the role of the Twelve Points as the definitive statement of conservative principles.  Finally, I have yet to publish a review of the Mount Vernon Statement, so you will see that here shortly, too.

One last thing -- Remember to tell conservatives about the Twelve Points!

No Changes at MountVernonStatement Dot Com

As of now, the page http://mountvernonstatement.com, unlike the official http://themountvernonstatement.com, still points to a white screen with red lettering stating the name of the web site, joking that even the "the" is conserved, and instructing curious parties to e-mail info@mountvernonstatement.com.  I point this out only for my amusement (and yours, possibly), since it is now perfectly clear that http://themountvernonstatement.com is the official Mount Vernon Statement website, but I still want to get to the bottom of this.

Since I received no response to my first e-mail to that address (in which I asked, "What is this?"), I sent another this morning.  I have not yet received a response to this e-mail, either.  It is a mystery.

Americans Still Have Responsibilities Under The Constitution

And now, I am about to post this as a comment under a different post on the Heritage Foundation's "The Foundry" blog:

I certainly agree that the Constitution is an amazing document, and I agree that it is our guide and the Supreme Law of the Land, but I do not agree with the comments (or the widely-circulated blog post by Michelle Malkin, last week) that the Constitution is the only guide that we need.  The Constitution ought to be followed inviolably, but even if it were, it would still leave a significant role for the Mount Vernon Statement (and the Twelve Points, too, I would obviously say).

We are in our current situation, in America, for a couple of reasons: First, the Constitution's language is very clear, for the most part, but not even the Constitution is so clear that the people who violate it cannot pretend that they are following it.  This is a weakness in language (and in people), not in the Constitution itself.  No wording could have been precise enough to prevent this.  To restore the Constitution and the rule of law, though, it is a problem that needs to be solved -- it is what the textualism/original intent v. "living document" issue is all about.  As a practical matter, it will require some sort of communication (such as the Mount Vernon Statement), or many communications, to get us back into compliance with the Constitution.

Second, as the Founders themselves recognized, not even the Constitution can hold back tyrants (or other evils) if too many of us want one or will not properly guard against one, and if too many of us are irresponsible in our own lives, no constitution could take us and shape us into a "great society."  We have the greatest Constitution, but it has not done all of our work for us.

The Constitution leaves us responsibilities that could never be fully defined by law.  It is our responsibility to see to it that the Constitution is interpreted honestly and applied faithfully, and it is, of course, our responsibility to live our own lives well.  To accomplish all of this, we will need to communicate with each other, sometimes through a Sharon Statement or a Mount Vernon Statement (or the Twelve Points).  If we want to live under the Constitution, we need to help enough of our fellow Americans to get this right!

The Idea of Conservatism, Which I Believe Is Well-Expressed by the Twelve Points, Too

I am about to post this as part of a response to one of the posts on the Mount Vernon Statement at the Heritage Foundation's "The Foundry" blog:

Concerning his first three criticisms (slavery, witch-burnings, and lynchings), though, I would like to acknowledge one thing: the purpose of our conservatism is not to return us altogether to the ways of another year or era, believing that year or era to be better than the present.  The Conservative Idea is to collect and value the lessons from throughout history, through the time of the American Revolution but also through the present, refusing to discard the best ideas and traditions simply because they came from an imperfect society or distant time, or because they would obstruct a self-important, ideological, hubristic modern conception of "progress."  It is not progress to make our changes by abandoning the most important advancements in the history of humanity, taking little interest in what their purpose ever was, else or casually dismissing the idea that they even had one.

Update To All Of The Posts Concerning Richard Viguerie And The Mount Vernon Statement

Now that the facts are clearer, I want to state them here:

Richard Viguerie's position on the Mount Vernon Statement is evidently that it should have been stronger than it is, but that even as it is, it constitutes a step forward for the conservative movement.  I agree.

After Monday's Washington Times article quoted Viguerie as referring to the Mount Vernon Statement as "embarrassing" and "pablum," I think it was reasonable for me to have concluded that he was not a supporter of it, but reasonable or not, my conclusion was incorrect.

Following the signing of the Mount Vernon Statement, a few writers criticized Viguerie for signing it, even though he had referred to it as "pablum."  (That includes "Right Wing Watch," a group that releases paranoid reports on conservatives and non-conservative "right wing" people and groups.)  I do not think that this criticism is well-founded.  Though the selection of quotes in the Washington Times article did suggest to me that Viguerie ultimately would not sign the Mount Vernon Statement, even though he had been listed as a supporter on the website of the Mount Vernon Statement, I certainly do not believe that there is anything remotely inconsistent or dishonest about him supporting a document that he believes should have been stronger.  He did not object that the Mount Vernon Statement would affirmatively inflict some kind of damage; the objection, in my own words, was that the Mount Vernon Statement did too little good.  Why should he not have supported it for whatever good it can do?  What could he have accomplished by opposing it?  Not a thing.

Responding to Michelle Malkin Regarding the U.S. Constitution as a Statement of Conservative Principles

I heard about Michelle Malkin's comment on the U.S. Constitution being the only statement of principles that conservatives need.  Now that I have seen the post in which she wrote this, I do not believe that this was actually her main point in the post, even though the title and conclusion used that kind of language.  In the post itself, I see a legitimate and reasonable point: these principles mean very little unless we act on them, and that will require us to stop supporting politicians who violate them.  (In defense of John McCain, though, he was one Republican who did vote against the 2003 prescription drug bill because of what it would cost taxpayers.  That is important!  Also, this is something that most Republicans did not have the courage to do.  Admittedly, McCain would probably get the credit he deserves for things like this if not for his repeated, notorious, inexplicable support for government (or internal Senate) action contrary to conservatism.)

But since she did include language stating that the Constitution is the only statement of principles that we need, I will respond: would the framers of the Constitution have understood the Constitution to be the only statement of principles that we need?  Did they believe that?  (Every other day, it seems, I find someone quoting John Adams specifically stating that the Constitution would be inadequate for use in the governing of a population that is not moral and religious.)  The Constitution is excellent, but it is only a governing document -- a federal governing document, at that.  Also, most of the statements of conservative principle that I have seen, including the Twelve Points, make a point of calling for a return to constitutional government.  This is something that needs to be done, and in order to accomplish this, the goal certainly needs to be stated in some sort of communication, such as a statement of principles.

I agree on the importance of the Constitution and the need to act on our principles instead of simply stating them, though.

"Why Didn't You Do This Under Bush"

One of the "signers" of the Mount Vernon Statement is "named" "Whydidntyoudothis Underbush."

REACTION #1: "Underbush" is a surprisingly plausible last ("family") name.  Further, I would even describe it as an excellent last name, other than in that it suffers (by incorporation, I guess) from the same well-explored frailties of the "Bush" family name.

REACTION #2: For the same reason, I assume, that they did not do this under Clinton, under the other Bush, under Reagan (well, there would have been a couple of reasons, for that one), under Carter, under Ford...

REACTION #3: Throughout the Bush administration, President Bush's policies frustrated many conservatives (including many of the primary signers of the Mount Vernon Statement, who vocally challenged and/or criticized those policies, and who were ignored), particularly as they related to individual freedom, procedural requirements that were instituted to protect individual freedom, the United States Constitution, economic freedom, and the rule of law.  (These categories overlap.)  So why was the Mount Vernon Statement not created until now?  Well, because President Obama's administration has been a focused, determined application of the thinking (so-called) behind most of Bush's objectionable policies.  I am not as interested in why they did not create this document under Bush as I am interested in what would be the best way to describe the relationship between the two Presidents: Bush as a Proto-Obama or Obama as a Neo-Bush.

Also, realistically (and admittedly, I would say, even though I do not speak for the committee of 80), political reality.  Why did President Obama's enthused 2008 supporters not make the same kinds of efforts in 2000 and 2008 (excluding those individuals who did, and those who would have been ten or fourteen years old at the time)?  Probably because, collectively, they were not upset enough, yet.  It is hardly scandalous that opportunity and viability would have affected a person or group's choice of timing.

REACTION #4: This does, nevertheless, leave some reason for conservatives to question whether this statement repudiates coercive, unconstitutional government action to the extent that it was practiced under Bush.  Some of the signers certainly would repudiate those practices, but is that repudiation a part of the agreement?  Without knowing the story behind the Mount Vernon Statement, I can only speculate (and my guess would be "no").

However, I can state with certainty, once again: The Twelve Points Are Different.  The Twelve Points are based on my attempts to write statements of conservative principles throughout the Bush administration.  It was in 2007 that I was inspired to create the Twelve Points, and it was in late 2007 that I wrote a plan to describe what they would need to communicate.  I completed the first draft in March 2008 and had substantially completed the Twelve Points by the end of the year (though I continued to refine the Twelve Points into 2009 as I searched for supporters).  The Twelve Points are meant to apply regardless of whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican and regardless of which party controls Congress -- a point that I believe is demonstrated by their content.

The Mount Vernon Statement is easily better than nothing, and if I had not already put so much thought into what a statement of conservative principles needs to contain, I cannot say with certainty that I would have any objection to it.

It does appear, however, that the Twelve Points have the advantages that I expected.

First Reaction to the Mount Vernon Statement

UPDATE (9:48 PM, February 27, 2010): This post concerns Richard Viguerie and his opinion of the Mount Vernon Statement, meaning that my catch-all update from a few days ago applies to it.  The original post is as follows:

So, are there two Richard Vigueries, or what?  Maybe he thought a stronger statement was needed, but prefers this statement to no statement.

The Twelve Points Are the Definitive Statement of Conservative Principles, Very Long Version

The "About" page now displays the text below, which I based on my original statement of purpose for project of creating the Twelve Points.  They explain why a statement of conservative principles is needed, what it needs to be able to do, and why the Twelve Points are the definitive statement of conservative principles:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If you were asked what conservatism is, what answer could you give that wouldn't be fundamentally at odds with the answer that a large number of other conservatives would have given? If you were asked to point to an authoritative, definitive statement of what conservatives stand for, where could you point?

Recently, conservatism has drifted, and conservatives have drifted apart. Conservatism itself, the philosophy, remains clear, but recent history has called into question what the conservative community at large understands conservatism to be -- what is popular conservatism? -- if there is any single, coherent, popular understanding of the word.

Conservatives lack an effective, prominent, and authoritative spokesman who convincingly articulates the conservative philosophy, and whose articulation of that philosophy might have helped to focus conservatives and their priorities. Conservatives also have no recent statement of conservative principles to which conservatives can point and around which conservatives can form a consensus, resulting in our present lack of a convincingly definitive (or deserving) expression of the present conservative agenda.

Further, though we do have inventive, enterprising conservative leaders among us, pitifully little of their recent intellectual contributions have reached the average conservative. Worse, ideas that had reached the average conservative in the past have been simplified and mutated until they were rendered patently false by the oversimplification.

Finally, political concerns -- both the selection of policy concerns to serve electoral goals and many conservatives' perceived need to defend the agenda of a Republican President and Congress -- have actively pulled conservatives in directions in which they would not otherwise likely have moved. Most often, this movement has been away from liberty, and it has not encouraged the kind of care, thoughtfulness, and candor that makes conservatism conservative. Those who did not abandon conservatism have been left behind, wondering how we allowed such a situation to come about, in which elected officials who are allegedly conservative not only fail to advance conservative reform, but actually implement policies that are starkly contrary to conservatism, and in which "conservative" personalities can win conservative support without demonstrating that they would do better.

The Twelve Points, as a step towards solving this problem, are not meant to be a policy program, a political platform, or a manifesto to sell conservatism to the public at large. (We need to reinforce our foundation before we build upon it.) The Twelve Points also are not meant to be used as a strict set of rules to be used to expel conservatives from the movement because they do not agree with these points completely. They would be unfit for these uses, since they were written to serve a different purpose.

Instead, the Twelve Points are intended to be a guide and a catalyst. If they were to win the acclaim of conservatives throughout the United States, Twelve Points will have provided conservatives with the chance to demonstrate, if true, that we still support the principles that first made us call ourselves "conservatives." More importantly, we will have affirmed those principles in such a level of definition that politicians could no longer win supporters by invoking the principles by name -- "Freedom," "the Constitution," or "Less Government," for example -- without committing themselves to the substance of those principles. (Not for more than one term, anyway.)

We would have the evidence we need in order to be able to confidently tell the command-oriented, intellectually anemic "conservatives," and those who spend most of their time obsessing over distractions, that conservatism does not belong to them. We will also have greater cause for confidence that those of us who claim to love liberty and the rule of law actually understand and have thought about their implications. With these boundaries, and with this foundation, we can then enter a bold, new stage in our journey to restore conservatism. We will push the movement, its spokesmen, and the politicians associated with it, along with the average American conservative, toward a destination where conservatism emphasizes a love for (and understanding of) liberty and is permeated by intellectual rigor and curiosity.

Rather than splitting the conservative movement, this will unite it. The principles discussed in the Twelve Points work best in concert, and most of them can be expected to appeal to most conservatives. With a renewed focus on universal conservative principles that have been temporarily neglected, conservatives may find themselves agreeing across factional lines, more deeply and more often.

Finally, the Twelve Points are intended to be used as a teaching tool and a memory aid on the topic of conservatism, providing a less direct yet indispensable form of guidance. Too few conservatives -- particularly new conservatives, who have not yet learned of the existence of high-quality sources on conservative philosophy -- adequately understand conservatism. If we, as conservatives, are satisfied to choose the right "side" and express concern with the right themes, never pausing to study and think about our principles and goals, our philosophical weakness will be reflected in our actions. It will impact policy debates, shape the tone and specific objectives of political action, and affect what "conservative" politicians believe we, as ordinary conservatives, will require (and tolerate) of them.

If we, as conservatives, cannot agree on vital, fundamental points of conservative principle, we will fail to rebuild the conservative movement -- creating, instead, a pointless alliance, fighting for the wrong policies and failing politically. We have, however, another option:

Adopt the Twelve Points.

Update Concerning the Mount Vernon Statement and Richard Viguerie

UPDATE (9:47 PM, February 27, 2010): This post concerns Richard Viguerie and his opinion of the Mount Vernon Statement, meaning that my catch-all update from a few days ago applies to it.  The original post is as follows:

Yesterday, I observed that Richard Viguerie is listed as one of tomorrow's signers on (what I believe to be) the website of the Mount Vernon Statement, even though the Washington Times reported that he thinks that the statement is "embarrassing."

Surprisingly, the Mount Vernon Statement site still lists Richard Viguerie as a signer.

Still wondering about mountvernonstatement.com

I still want to know why http://mountvernonstatement.com/ leads to a white screen with (what appears to be) a joke in red text.  No one has responded to my e-mail.  It's all still a mystery.

Fewer than 24 hours remain before the Mount Vernon Statement will be released.  People are starting to talk about it, now, and many of them are skeptical.  Where I had the opportunity to do so, I explained (as always) why I believe we do need a statement of conservative principles, but since I have not seen the text (and considering that Richard Viguerie was not impressed), yet, I can't speak in favor of the Mount Vernon Statement itself.  If the Mount Vernon Statement were to turn out to be too vague and toothless, the Twelve Points will be ready for use as a definitive statement of conservative principles.

So, Richard Viguerie is Not a Supporter of the Mount Vernon Statement

UPDATE (9:42 PM, February 27, 2010): This post concerns Richard Viguerie and his opinion of the Mount Vernon Statement, meaning that my catch-all update from a few days ago applies to it.  The original post is as follows:

Recognizing how convenient it must seem that my previous post placed so much weight on Richard Viguerie's alleged support of the Mount Vernon Statement, I preface the comments below by offering you my most sincere and solemn promise: I had no idea that Richard Viguerie is, in fact, against it.  I would never have guessed that what appeared to be the Mount Vernon Statement website would have claimed that he is a supporter of it unless he were actually a supporter of it.  (I assume that the website will soon be changed, if it is, in fact, the Mount Vernon Statement website, so here is a cached version.)

Assuming that this report from the Washington Times is accurate, Viguerie said of the Mount Vernon Statement, "If the people in the leadership of the conservative movement are going to put out pablum like this, the tea party people are going to make them seem irrelevant. And the tea party people are going to march to the forefront."  He also described the Mount Vernon Statement as "embarassing."

Before I write anything more about that, I want to pre-empt another potential error on my part by acknowledging it and addressing it in advance.  After reading the Washington Times article, I began to wonder whether http://themountvernonstatement.com/ even has any connection to the creators of the Mount Vernon Statement.  As I investigated, I learned that a http://mountvernonstatement.com/ also exists, pointing to a page that is blank, aside from a message in red text, "Conserving even the 'The,'" and an instruction to guide inquiries to info@mountvernonstatement.com.  I directed an inquiry to that address asking, "What is this?"  We'll just have to wait and see whether I get a response.  The fact that a potential alternate address is in use gives a little credibility to the possiblity that the other address is not legitimate.

As for that http://themountvernonstatement.com/ site itself, I believe that it is legitimate, but I am less certain of this than I was about twelve hours ago.  First, I am surprised that it is coded in the way that it is.  (That is my weakest reason for questioning its validity.)  Second, I was able to find very few links to it, even from articles referencing the Mount Vernon Statement itself and even from sources that I would have expected to have posted links.  Third, the web site's claim that Richard Viguerie is a proponent of the Mount Vernon Statement is a surprisingly large error to find on a website connected with 80 people of such stature.

To confirm that http://themountvernonstatement.com/ actually is the official website for the Mount Vernon Statement (and that it was not created by someone as a prank), I "Googled" the contact information at the bottom of the page, which eventually led me to Twitter accounts apparently belonging to the contact people named on the site.  One of them points to http://themountvernonstatement.com/ as the true, official site for the Mount Vernon Statement.  My searches also indicate that people by those names exist, at least, and work for a PR company that evidently does a lot of work for conservative organizations.  For privacy reasons, I will not re-post all of this information here (even though it's just ordinary internet information that Google searches quickly returned).  I will offer my opinion, however, that unless pranksters created Twitter accounts in the names of these two conservatives and dispensed conservative content for months (at least) in advance in order to credibly use the identity of one of the two conservatives to link to a fake website for a document whose existence no prankster could have foreseen, then http://themountvernonstatement.com/ probably is the real website for the Mount Vernon Statement.  (The only other explanation is that a couple of people who speak for conservative organizations for a living created a fraudulent website for a document created by 80 prominent movement conservatives and then placed their names and contact information on it.  I do not consider that to be very likely, either.)

So anyway, the plot thickens.  Considering the advantages that the "Committee of 80" will have in promoting the Mount Vernon Statement, I still hope that the document to be revealed on Wednesday will be, as intended, a proper sequel to the Sharon Statement.

The fact that it (reportedly -- a word that I will need to use more often, from now on) does not have Richard Viguerie's confidence, however, worries me a little.

But if it does not work out, the Twelve Points will be ready to go.

The First Point

The purpose of the First Point, other than to state certain ideas that would have been missed if they had been absent, is to accomplish the following: 1) explain the relationship between "equality" and "justice," 2) explain the meaning of equality as it is meant in competent discussions of justice, and 3) to state that by the acts of forming a government or electing representatives, people do not surrender their rights, and that governments are instead obligated to respect and secure those rights.

One reason why it was necessary to write about this is that too many conservatives have accepted and adopted liberals' misuse of the word "equality."  In this use of the word, it is an aspirational but imaginary and unattainable right to equality (or less inequality, in the short term) in terms of wealth or some other measure of material well-being.  This gives us a false choice between freedom and "equality," since a right to this mock-equality would be used to justify the use of force to transfer wealth to some of us at the expense of others.  As a result, instead of recognizing that equality does not reign unless individual freedom is maintained, a conservative who is confused about this would claim that we, as conservatives, favor freedom over equality.  Both for rhetorical reasons and because a proper understanding of equality truly is the foundation of everything that we believe about justice, this mistake needs to be corrected.

A similar mistake is often made when discussing the impact of the institution of government on our natural rights.  Depending on what the speaker means by it, it may be true that we have surrendered a portion of our "freedom," giving the government the authority to make certain decisions for us.  However, the only authority that we can justly entrust to a government is an authority to discover and keep (in practice) the just, natural boundaries of our rights, creating laws that recognize and trace those boundaries as precisely as possible.  We do not change those boundaries.  In error, however, many people claim that our supposed (involuntary) decision to surrender our freedom is a justification for invasive, coercive government policies.  (As a bad excuse, it is not quite as bad as the blanket justification that "there are limits to freedom," but it's still a pretty bad excuse.)

We have to understand justice to understand how to properly apply our other principles.  These are simple concepts, but they need to be reviewed, from time to time.  As President Reagan pointed out, this knowledge is not inherently passed from generation to generation.  It has to be learned, and it has to be taught.  If too many of us begin to forget it (or never learned it properly in the first place), then it should be obvious why we have failed to hold our representatives to these standards.

Another Thought On The Mount Vernon Statement

UPDATE (9:42 PM, February 27, 2010): This post concerns Richard Viguerie and his opinion of the Mount Vernon Statement, meaning that my catch-all update from a few days ago applies to it.

UPDATE (11:45 PM, February 14, 2010):  According to an article in today's Washington Times, Richard Viguerie is not a supporter of the Mount Vernon Statement after all.  He is reported to have described the document as "embarrassing."  My complete reaction to this can be found here.  The original post may be found below the line of dollar signs:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The fact that Richard Viguerie, in particular, is able to support the Mount Vernon Statement should give us a little more confidence that the statement not only accounts for the "major elements of the conservative mov(e)ment – economic, social and national security," but also the more inconsistently recognized constitutional element and freedom element, which are both invoked more often than they are treated as actually representing a distinct principle or consideration in the conservative movement.

When the Bush Administration's policies departed from or directly conflicted with the principles of conservatism, more conservatives than we may have noticed at the time did criticize this.  (This criticism was ignored by the administration and most GOP congressional leaders, helping to demonstrate the consequences of too many conservatives having too limited of a grasp of the principles of conservatism.  Why should our politicians expect us to act on such issue-specific disapproval so long as ordinary conservatives throughout the United States do not agree that 1) these are issues of conservative principle and 2) these issues matter?)

My impression, however, was that popular "conservatism" and conservative leaders alike too readily dismissed certain limited-government, conservative concerns about due process and numerous other invaluable rights protected by the American Bill of Rights.  The reason for doing so certainly was compelling -- the purpose was to prevent terrorism -- but conservatives believe that "'The greatest good for the greatest number' is a high-sounding phrase, but contrary to the very basis of our nation, unless it is accompanied by the recognition that we have certain rights which cannot be infringed upon." *  Most people would probably agree that whether the violation of a right may be tolerated, in practice, in the interest of national security ultimately "depends on the body count." (This quotation is actually from a libertarian, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, in an interview with Reason.)  Even so, I cannot even imagine a scenario so apocalyptic that it would make it appropriate to casually dismiss anyone's natural or constitutional rights, which should instead be treated as overwhelmingly compelling and made secure in practice.  Viguerie was one of few who spoke up about this during the Bush administration, which gives me reason to hope that the Mount Vernon Statement will remind conservatives to give these rights the attention that they deserve.

* This quotation is from Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech, "A Time For Choosing."

The Twelve Points and the Mount Vernon Statement

Until the Mount Vernon Statement is released, it is, of course, impossible to make any meaningful commentary on its content.  Like the rest of the American public at large, as I write this, I have no idea what it states.  We'll find out on Wednesday.

It is possible for me to comment on the difficulty of the task before them, however.  In a way, I may actually be in the more enviable position in creating and promoting the Twelve Points than they are in creating and promoting the Mount Vernon Statement.  As a young, lone, unknown conservative, my success (if any) in leading the conservative movement has no bearing on my reputation or career.  If I do not succeed in this, I will not be defying anyone's expectations; they do not know that I exist.  Additionally, I did not have to overcome misunderstandings or the obstinance of others  in determining the content and wording of the Twelve Points, nor did I have to address substantive disagreement concerning the meaning of conservatism -- whatever I believed conservatives needed to know, I wrote.

Surely, this was not also true for the committee of 80 as they created the Mount Vernon Statement (whatever the process was, for writing it; I consider the fact that the document exists to be conclusive proof that the 80 of them did not draft it together).  Most or all of the people constituting the committee of 80 are doubtlessly genuine in their committment to these principles and in their desire to revive the conservative movement.  In attempting this, however, they do have something to lose, regardless of their motives.  Their ability to influence the conservative movement for the better depends very much on their credibility and on the approval of donors, activists, and allies.  Signing a document that such supporters might see as a betrayal  jeopardizes that credibility and approval.  Assuming that the Mount Vernon Statement will turn out to be something at least deserving of the name "conservative," as I believe it will be, the signers should be commended for their willingness to commit their names and reputations to this for the benefit of the movement.

In assuming that the statement will be "deserving," I have considered primarily the identities of these eighty ("80") conservatives (at least those whose names I know), who are known not only for their reliability as conservatives, but also for their good judgment.  (I have given a little consideration to the fact that I sent copies of the Twelve Points to several conservatives out of the eighty, last year, unaware that they were working on this.  I have no reason to believe that they were influenced by this, however, aside from my confidence in the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and quality of the Twelve Points.)  There will be no way to know for certain until Wednesday.  Though I am confident in the 80, however, I do not believe that the conditions under which they had to create the Mount Vernon Statement were likely to have been favorable.  The conservative community is angry, right now, but though this carries with it the benefit that conservatives are energized and eager to take action, it carries also the disadvantage that conservatives, regardless of the type, may be less willing to accept compromise, at this point -- particularly with respect to a statement of principle.  Considering the magnitude of the philosophical rifts that we have seen in the conservative movement, particularly over the past decade, it would be difficult to create a statement of principles that gives the conservative movement what it needs, right now, but that established conservative organizational leaders would also be able to sign and endorse.

The clarifying statement of principle that the conservative movement needs as of 2010 could not succeed without several key qualities.  First, its content must be genuinely faithful to the conservative philosophy without bending to accommodate defective, less deserving variations on it -- something that I worry that a committee of 80 people representing different parts of the movement would be unable to create.  If the 80 disagree on the meaning of conservatism, then the final product either would be seen by some as a compromise of principle or it would be a toothless "consensus" document.  Second, while being faithful to the conservative philosophy, it would also need to be enterprising and visionary, in that it recognizes the confusion in today's conservative movement and addresses it, not by adopting vague assertions (with the goal of winning general approval), but rather by adopting clear and correct assertions, based on the principles of conservatism (with the goal of leading, offering direction that many of us do not yet have).  Such leadership would work to build a consensus based on our common principles -- principles that one faction or another (depending on the principle) has perhaps compromised in practice, but in which we all still believe and that might yet be able to persuade the many conservative constituencies to support a common, conservative agenda.  Third, would need to be possible to actually create and popularize such a statement, which would have been difficult for the committee of 80 for the reasons discussed above.

Though the committee of 80 certainly has the advantage in visibility, resources, and reputation (in that its members have reputations), I share an advantage (at which I hinted, above) with the many other conservatives who have written statements of principle over the past year or two: each of us, individually, was not bound by responsibility to anything already established within the movement.  Each was able to rely on his own judgment and offer precisely what he believed to be needed.  For writers (such as the committee of 80) with only a single "shot" at it and that must avoid failure, that might have been too risky, even if it were not necessary to split editorial control between representatives of different wings of the movement.

Hopefully, these disadvantages have not prevented the Mount Vernon Statement from becoming a document worthy of its creators.  We will find out in three days...

...and if we do not like what we learn, the Twelve Points will be ready and waiting.

Another Statement of Conservative Principles, the Mount Vernon Statement, To Be Released at CPAC

When I first began work on the Twelve Points, in early 2008, I searched libraries and the internet alike to find any existing statements of conservative principles that I could use for inspiration.  Other than the Sharon Statement and a list of principles written by Russell Kirk (and, in a different form, a number of classic National Review articles available through the NR website) there was very little to be found on the internet.  In libraries, predictably, the information took the form of books, not concise statements of the philosophy, observations, or objectives of conservatism.  Fortunately, this gave me a reason to read volumes upon volumes of writing on both conservatism and the American Revolution.

However, it also meant that this information and these ideas were locked away where, realistically, most people would never find them.  It also meant that an important step in writing the Twelve Points would be to extract those ideas and prepare them for delivery to conservatives across this continent.  As months passed, my note-taking rapidly consumed the pads of lined, yellow paper on which I recorded the ideas that I read, along with ideas of my own that my reading inspired.  When I was satisfied with the information that I had found, I integrated the notes into my March 2008 First Draft of the Twelve Points.

As 2009 began, I still was not satisfied with my latest drafts of the Twelve Points.  I still was unable to find conservative statements of principles on the internet, but I did find information on the American Revolution that I had not been aware was even available.  Using the website of the Library of Congress and Yale's "Avalon Project" collection of historical documents, I was able to closely examine the writings of America's Founders, other contemporary accounts of the Revolution, and information on the constitutions and forms of government that had been used in the Founders' own recent history (of which they would have been aware as they worked to shape what is now our own history).  At some point, I had previously assumed that now, in the Twenty-First Century, we are left with relatively little first-hand documentation of the Revolutionary Era, but for my purposes, the amount and the types of the information were so rich and complete that I couldn't have found much more of value if these events had been only a few decades ago!  (For example, I would not have suspected that the journals of the Second Continental Congress are available to be read -- but they are.)  This study, too, had an impact on the Twelve Points, and I am glad that I was given a reason to find and study that history.

I finally completed my work on the Twelve Points on July 2, 2009, but it may not have been soon enough.  Now, in 2010, a Google Search for "Statement of Conservative Principles" returns no shortage of results.  I have also learned that next Wednesday, on February 17, 2010, a group of 80 prominent conservatives will release a statement of their own, the Mount Vernon Statement, intended as a successor to the Sharon Statement.  I have known about this for a few months, but since it has not been released, yet, I have not had the opportunity to read it.  Knowing what I do about a few of the people behind it, I suspect (and hope) that it will be an excellent statement of conservative principles.  Nonetheless, the possibility that it will fill the void that the Twelve Points were meant to occupy means that I may have to re-think the role of the Twelve Points.

Though nothing is certain, yet -- we have not even had the opportunity to read the Mount Vernon Statement, after all -- I have not forgotten that the Twelve Points are a part and a product of a larger project for the reclamation of popular conservatism.  Over two years ago, I made a list of projects that I thought were needed and that I intended to pursue, and writing a "'Seven Points' -like list concerning the main points" was only the first item on my list.  After completing the Twelve Points, I have consistently acknowledged that popularizing an appropriate statement of principles would only be a beginning; if we do adopt an adequate statement of principles to focus the conservative movement, we will still have to answer the question, "How can all of this be done?"  The statement of principles will only have told us what "all of this" actually is -- an important step, but still only a beginning.

I also have not forgotten that the process of writing the Twelve Points has left me with so much extra material that if I were to decide to use the Twelve Points as a foundation, building something larger and more elaborate upon them, I will already have done most of the work that would be needed.  One draft of the Twelve Points was twice as long as the final version, and as my editing involved the continuous addition and subtraction of sub-points, the Twelve Points are far shorter than the collection of material that was "cut" from the final draft -- material that I wanted to include but that just wouldn't fit.  Additionally, I made notes on many ideas that I never attempted to introduce into the Twelve Points.  I have no shortage of conservative ideas that I have already drafted, and I had already intended to put it to use in the future.

Regardless of what we learn on Wednesday, there will be plenty of work left for us in restoring the conservative movement, and the Twelve Points will be ready to help.

On Conservative Principles, the Twelve Points!

In addition to the blog post to which I have linked for the past eight months, the Twelve Points can now also be found at http://the12points.com/p/twelve-points.html.  It's a shorter web address than the other.

Another Discussion of the Division of Conservatives

At In The Agora, a post by Josh Claybourn quotes and links to a recent post by Jonah Goldberg (at NRO's "The Corner," of course) concerning whether division in the conservative movement is a strength or a weakness. The many fissures of the conservative movement are a problem that, as you know, I think jeopardize the potential of the conservative movement to actually achieve its goals. As a result, it doubtlessly would not surprise you to learn that I posted a few comments on the post.

I have thought about this issue a little since I posted my initial comments at In The Agora, and my thoughts on this are a little more well-developed, now: I do agree with Goldberg's theory, to some extent. He believes that the division in the conservative movement is a sign of its intellectual health, or possibly a cause of its intellectual health:

"For more than a half century now, modern conservatives have been debating and redebating the question of where to the draw the lines between freedom and order, liberty and virtue. And because that line continually needs to be redrawn given the evolution of attitudes, changes in technology, etc, conservative intellectuals (though not necessarily conservative activists, politicians and the like) are constantly revisiting first principles and philosophical assumptions or are at least capable of acknowledging the good faith of their philosophical opponents)."

For the best, most complete and accurate statement of his point, just read his post.

For an indication of how I would elaborate on his point and attempt to turn it into an argument for the Twelve Points as a definitive statement of conservative principles, just read this:

If we, as conservatives, were to somehow settle every issue with a set of cold, unyielding, ideological decrees, the result would be that we would, unnaturally, no longer have anything to discuss.  As an alternative to that, I certainly am glad that there are people among us who are able to independently consider and then debate the precise meaning of the most fundamental ideas of conservatism, and then how to apply those principles. It is also a credit to our movement that we generally encourage this, and also that so many of us care enough about these ideas that we would doubtlessly continue to think and speak for ourselves, even if others were to attempt to discourage it.

In addition to being a sign of intellectual health, the variety of conservative types making up this movement is a cause of intellectual health. Though we are (or I am, anyway) well-aquainted with the idea of groups of people as being highly prone to join in crazes and panics, it may just be easier to overlook their far less aggravating tendencies. Groups of people can certainly achieve great things by organizing and intentionally acting in concert, but conservatives often have also recognized (and marveled) that large groups of free individuals, acting independently, can collectively behave so intelligently. Adam Smith's "invisible hand," which is popular with conservatives, is an example of this, as is Edmund Burke's observation (as paraphrased by Russell Kirk) that the "individual is foolish, but the species is wise" (meaning that humans are not so clever that we can effectively invent or reinvent society altogether at once, but that little changes, tested through time, can produce and have produced something magnificent). Similarly, when a group of independent individuals think about the same issues and discuss them openly, the resulting variety of opinion can help each person in the group to recognize his own errors and to correct them.  For that reason, the fact that the conservative movement is divided into what we might call "specialists" in particular principles is potentially an asset to the movement. It may not be possible for every one of us to master and properly integrate every thread of every principle as we think about the issues, but whenever we fail to give a particular idea or principle its due consideration, the presence of these "specialists" means that the error will be noticed and can (theoretically) be corrected.

I described this as a "potential" asset for a reason, however. We will not have these benefits if each group of specialists isolates itself and refuses to trust or talk with the rest. No explanation is needed to show why that kind of behavior would prevent us from helping each other to find our flaws and work to perfect our understanding of these ideas and the world.  "Specialization" may have benefits, but not if the specialists have put too little thought into their shared principles to be able to consider the possibility that the arguments of the other specialties even have merit!

Additionally, in addition to being only a merely "potential" asset, this division is an actual threat. The portion of the conservative community that thinks and cares about principle the most is divided into pieces that have too little in common with each other to work together in any coherent way.  Under these circumstances, how is it even possible that the conservative movement could have a coherent, reasonably long-term plan for government reform -- a plan that active conservatives generally understand and support, and that conservative leaders are prepared to develop and implement? How could conservatives possibly coordinate as to the specifics when there is such confusion as to the meaning of our most fundamental principles and to our ultimate goals?

Well, that isn't possible, and that is bad for the movement. We need a plan.

I hate to be trite and end with little more than a sales pitch and a link, but the Twelve Points can help us to solve this problem. They will resolve the confusion, demonstrate and (ideally) reinforce our common principles, and produce a conservative movement composed of more conservatives with a greater familiarity with the conservative philosophy than ever before.

This outcome is not impossible, is it?  If not, then what else other than effective communication can possibly forge this conservative consensus and spread this information throughout the conservative movement?

It's a rhetorical question, and the answer is obvious.  Let's use the Twelve Points to deliver these ideas to every person who is prepared to receive them.

Moving Up -- the Twelve Points as The Defining Statement of Conservative Principles?

As of Saturday evening, a Google search for the words "Twelve" and "Points," without quotation marks, returned our Twelve Points as the ninth result. Two weeks ago, the Twelve Points were 199th in the same search.

We still have some work to do, but the Twelve Points are well on their way to becoming a defining statement of conservative principles.

Small Government Conservatives and Conservative Principles Survived

On Saturday, while looking for an In The Agora post that I thought I remembered from 2005, I came across this, which calls attention to the conservatives who disagreed with President Bush during his presidency.

This is important as another example of how confusion has produced division (or part of such an example, anyway). Libertarians are disgusted with conservatives who abandoned the freedom-defending, constitutionalist, "small government" positions that they had claimed to support. Unfortunately, it is true that a lot of conservatives did abandon those positions. They have found it easy to oppose spending and budget deficits during the presidency of a liberal, but many of the same "conservative" politicians failed to take that position during the Bush administration, and they leave us with no reason to trust that they would take that position if returned to power.

Usually, at this point, I would explain how popularizing the Twelve Points could help to solve this problem. In this situation, however, ensuring that as many self-described conservatives as possible actually understand conservatism (and giving all conservatives evidence that their fellow conservatives actually do believe in all of this) is only a beginning. Nevertheless, I cannot think of a solution to this problem that does not involve conservatism becoming better-known throughout the conservative community, and I do believe that the Twelve Points can make this happen.

Concerning small-government conservatives, though it may have been hard to find us over the past decade (we certainly haven't been running the government and engineering legislation), the conservatives who have not abandoned all of those positions still exist. This includes not only those who do genuinely want less government spending, less debt, lower taxes, and freedom from the restrictions and requirements of unjustifiable laws, but also those who do care about the rights protected by the Bill of Rights, even when respecting those rights would somewhat limit our options in pursuing as legitimate and compelling of an objective as national defense.

True conservatism is small-government conservatism, and we haven't given up on our fellow conservatives or our country -- nor will we ever.

Misunderstandings Concerning the Conservative Position on the Judicial Branch

This issue has turned up repeatedly, so it is worth addressing: the question of what the conservative view on constitutional interpretation actually is.

In an article published at Reason.com a few days ago, Damon W. Root criticizes "judicial restraint," suggesting that the conservative position is that judges and justices should be reluctant to intervene in the cases that come before them, allowing the executive and legislative branches great latitude in deciding how to act without being bound by the Constitution. This is not the first time that the conservative opposition to "judicial activism" and "legislating from the bench" has been interpreted this way. As Root points out, many liberal critics criticize the application of constitutional restrictions that they do not like as judicial "activism." (Root agrees with their characterization of such decisions as judicial activism, but not with their conclusion that such "activism" is a bad thing.) Additionally, Root himself has criticized this understanding of "judicial restraint" before.

I want to address this issue here because this is an example of how ambiguity in the substance of conservatism can fracture the movement. The relationship between conservatism and libertarianism is well-known, but confusion and misunderstandings have deepened the divide between self-described conservatives and libertarians. To libertarians who think that conservatives have adopted a general rule that judges should avoid limiting the discretion of the other branches or the states, conservatism must seem alien and irrational.

The conservative, however, does not oppose "activist" judges for acting; he criticizes them for disregarding the Constitution in deciding whether and how to act. As a result, while a conservative should oppose courts in imposing contrived rules of law, as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade (though it had already more or less invented that "right" on a previous occasion), a conservative should not applaud courts in ignoring constitutional violations committed by a state or by the other two federal branches, as it did in Wickard v. Filburn.

Additionally, the conservative position that certain issues should be left in the control of the more democratic branches is not based on the mistaken view that voters are generally more wise and just than judges. Rather, it is based on two important observations: 1) when there is no constitutional provision or valid Act of Congress to apply, it is unconstitutional for a court to apply a novel, extraconstitutional standard, and doing so also exceeds the legitimate authority of the court; and 2) When the courts do create and impose novel, independent rules of law (whether or not they bother to include an implausible, token explanation of how the rule actually is based on the Constitution), we can only correct them by amending the Constitution or organizing a sustained political effort over the course of a generation or more to alter the composition of the Supreme Court. Either of these would be too difficult to accomplish to be a meaningful defense against the courts' arbitrary exercise of power. Such a check on the power of the judicial branch is needed for the same reason that it is needed on the power of the executive and legislative branches, especially once it has effectively assumed the power to legislate!

There are doubtlessly self-described conservatives who do not quite understand the conservative position or who misapply it. In this way, too, confusion over the substance of conservatism is dividing natural allies and scrambling the conservative movement's sense of direction. This is one of the reasons why it is so important to make conservatism better known and more clearly understood.

Conservatives are not always clear in our communication of these views, and some of us are not even clear in our understanding of them. In writing the Twelve Points, I made a point of stating them clearly, hoping to help all conservatives to understand and communicate them better. As a result, unsurprisingly, this issue points back to a familiar conclusion: If you think that something needs to be done about this, spread the word about the Twelve Points!

More than a beginning

The Twelve Points will not teach a conservative everything that he needs to know. For the sake of brevity, I had to remove a lot of sub-points that I do believe that a good conservative ought to understand, and there is no complete substitute for a long-term study of these ideas. (Ideally, this study would be centered around the reading of books that were written for a purpose other than to excite and anger the reader. It is in disregarding and discarding facts, logic, and proven wisdom for unsound reasons that liberals have mutated their philosophy into the grotesque spectacle that it is. A conservative cannot be a strong conservative unless he is learned.) In their current form, however, the Twelve Points contain conservative principles, observations, objectives, and other ideas in the most concentrated form I can imagine. They'll jumpstart the philosophical educations of many conservatives while filling in the gaps in others' knowledge and understanding of conservatism.  They are not the final cure for all of conservatism's problems, but they are more than a beginning.

A Better Web Address for The Twelve Points

From when I first posted the Twelve Points on this blog, last June (when I had only nearly finished writing them), it has bothered me that I could only direct people to the text of the Twelve Points by sending them a long web address (initially, http://guidebookonconservatism.blogspot.com/2009/06/twelve-points.html, but later http://the12points.com/2009/06/twelve-points.html, which was a bit of an improvement).  I have finally found a way to point http://the12points.com/ directly to the text of the Twelve Points without abandoning this blog, so don't be surprised when the change takes place.

Once I make that change, the rest of the pages on this blog site will have a "blog." subdomain added into their web addresses.  For example, the main page of this blog is now simply http://www.the12points.com,/ but it now can also be reached at http://blog.the12points.com/.

This will allow us to more easily show the Twelve Points to others by simply directing them to http://www.the12points.com./

Hey, now that I've brought it up, why don't you go ahead and send http://www.the12points.com/ to people who you think would like the Twelve Points?  I intend to return to the speaking circuit to promote the Twelve Points, this month, so this would be a great time to generate the momentum that the conservative movement will need the Twelve Points to have.

In other words, as I have often written here before, "If you like the Twelve Points, then Spread the Word!"