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.
No comments:
Post a Comment