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."
No comments:
Post a Comment