Is the Constitution a Statement of Conservative Principles?

I could hardly be a bigger fan of the United States Constitution, but I disagree with one of the most frequently repeated responses to the Mount Vernon Statement: that the Constitution is the only statement of conservative principles that we need.

This was started by Michelle Malkin on February 16, and she clearly had the right idea, at least.  Specifically, she wrote, "if the signers of all these new documents support political candidates who brazenly undermine the grand principles they put forth, what's the point?  Anyway, isn’t the [Constitution] the only statement of guiding principles we need..."

Her premise that the Constitution is excellent and indispensable is absolutely correct, and she is right to point out that these words are meaningless unless they ultimately influence our actions.  However, I do regret that her last sentence has been adopted by so many other people as their own reaction to the Mount Vernon Statement.  After all, the Constitution is not a statement of principles at all -- it is the "Supreme Law of the Land."  The Constitution is rich in valuable principles and wisdom, but it does not discuss, explain, or even reference the philosophy or reasoning behind it.  Instead, it states what "we, the people" have decided to enact as an entrenched, binding body of law.  As we work to return the Constitution to its proper place, we will need the support of other Americans.  Wouldn't it help us to be able to make arguments for it based on justice, freedom, efficiency, or effectiveness?  Also, where the Constitution actually does grant power to the federal government, it does (to an extent) leave the use of that power to the discretion of the appropriate federal branches.  The Constitution does not offer instructions on the use of this discretion.  However, don't we, as conservatives, nevertheless have principles that guide us on its use?  The Constitution says very little about policy on the state and local levels, but don't we, as conservatives, have principles to guide us there as well?  Finally, as great as the Constitution is, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had little time to rewrite and edit it to ensure that it would be respected or correctly interpreted by future generations of Americans.  The delegates did not have the opportunity to correct the misunderstandings and unconstitutional traditions that developed in the 222 years following the convention.  The delegates certainly were in no position to insist that the Constitution is still relevant as of the year 2010 or to insist that by the will and consent of the American people of 2010, the Constitution remains the Supreme Law of the Land.  They couldn't have made the Constitution so complete that it stated everything that would ever need to be said.  They couldn't have written a constitution so complete that it would have relieved us of our responsibilities.

In summary, the Constitution is a body of law, not a statement of principles.  It is our responsibility to uphold and defend it.  To do this, we need to communicate with each other and with all Americans.  To do this properly, the content of those communications should not be limited to quotations from the text of the Constitution itself; instead, they should include brief documents such as the Mount Vernon Statement and the Twelve Points, along with longer documents (in the form of a book or books).  We will need to be prepared to talk about ideas that are not written out in that text.  The ideas that we can find in the Constitution are not the maximum of what we can be expected to know -- they are the minimum of what we, as conservatives, can rightly expect ourselves to know.

Definitive Statements of Conservative Principles: the Text, Not the Test

I believe I have made this point before, but I want to repeat it periodically in order to prevent the Twelve Points from being misused:

The Twelve Points are not meant to be criteria for deciding who is a conservative and who is not.  They are meant to spread certain conservative ideas (in HD!).  Though it might be said that they promote some sort of conservative "purity," the Twelve Points would do so by expounding conservatism and causing others to agree with us instead of by marking those who disagree with us and sending them into political exile.  The Twelve Points are meant to promote excellence in conservative thought, not to mark and punish inadequacy.

If I had intended simply to write a document to set forth minimum standards for use of the term "conservative," it could not have been nearly as detailed or ambitious.  For example, in stating, "[T]he myriad of small but unjustified government expenditures cannot be separately defended by pointing out the relative insignificance of each of them alone, as the dollar is no less valuable when it is counted in pennies," I do not attempt to excommunicate all conservatives who have shrugged off certain spending items because of their relative inexpensiveness.  Instead, my intention was to point out to them that "the myriad of small but unjustified government expenditures cannot be separately defended by pointing out the relative insignificance of each of them alone, as the dollar is no less valuable when it is counted in pennies," with the expectation that once that point had been properly brought to their attention, they would not make that mistake as easily in the future.

Similarly, the Eleventh Point, Contemplation and Prudence, is meant to remind conservatives that we may do more harm than good unless we remember to stay calm, think, and be inquisitive and candid.  I could have written it to identify and condemn groups of conservatives that might violate this principle, but it would not have made sense to choose that option, at this point.  Why should we declare them our enemies when we might still be able to successfully encourage them to become better (wiser, more firmly conservative) allies?

That is the logic behind the Twelve Points.  We could purify the conservative movement by identifying and purging bad conservatives, but wherever possible, it would be a better option to help them to become better conservatives.

Even if it's just between us

(Just between us, if you prefer to have it that way...)

Realistically, we do all agree that the 2010 and 2012 elections can be expected to take place as scheduled, don't we?

Of course, though "all men are created equal" and entitled to be free, many people do not have in fact the freedom that they are owed by right.  As a result, those of us who are fortunate enough to have that freedom, to the (substantial) extent that we have it, and to live under a Constitution designed to protect that freedom, should stay alert and guard against all threats to that freedom and Constitution.  Additionally, it is perfectly realistic to suspect that some liberals will willfully bend or break rules in order to win this election or the next.  However, if only for practical reasons, let's try to stay within shouting distance of reality, here.  The likelihood that the national Democrats will somehow prevent free elections from taking place on schedule in the near future is so minute that it should not be taken seriously.

We still need to make certain that enough of us understand what we should do once we regain power.  (The fact that it is legitimately questionable whether "we" have been "in power" before should help to demonstrate the need for conservatives to confirm that we agree on our beliefs, priorities, and objectives.)  Last time the people who many of us supported were in power, we quickly realized that "we," ourselves, were not in power, in any meaningful sense.  They may have been unfocused or they may have actually disagreed with us, but whatever the problem was, we know that they disappointed us.  We must not allow this to happen again!  Let's not make the mistake of overlooking real dangers in order to fight off something fantastic and contrived.

From the Twelve Points, the Second Point -- Governments wielding arbitrary power are unjust

"[B]eyond its proper role as a guardian of our rights, and regardless of its laudable objectives or humanitarian purposes, little of the work of government justifies its characteristic use of threats, commands, and forceful intrusions -- and their use, when unjustified, is injustice."

From the Twelve Points, the Fourth Point -- Life

"Concerning LIFE:

"That all human life is sacred, and that intrusion on the right to life is the most complete, absolute, and irreversible form of coercion conceivable, denying another human being even the modicum of freedom to be left to continue to exist;

"That as all humans possess a right to life, the task of defining 'personhood' must be confronted, not indefinitely deferred for its perceived difficulty;

"That in considering the status of the unborn, the danger lies not in the possibility that we will be unduly generous in recognizing their humanity -- the humanity of members of our species, separated by mere months from universal recognition and the protection of law -- but in the possibility that we will be too stingy; that personhood, which indisputably begins well before birth, should be recognized from conception...."

At least we are not unusual in that respect

I do not have a link to an example of one of these, right now, but surely you have seen one yourself: a survey or study demonstrating that astonishing percentages of Americans are relatively unfamiliar with the United States Constitution.  One such study, which I remember from over a decade ago, reported that a surprising percentage of respondents identified "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" as a line from the Constitution, which, of course, it is not.  (I have no reason to doubt these studies, but since their reliability is irrelevant to my point, I will not bother to track down a specific one.)

Commentary on these studies usually characterizes this widespread ignorance of our Constitution as being discouraging and/or ominous, which it is.  However, I found it amusing to read that Americans are not alone in this regard.  In England, concerned citizens (or are they still calling themselves "subjects"?) worry about widespread ignorance of the Magna Carta.

From the Twelve Points, the Fifth Point -- Economic Security is not a Right

"That this right to pursue material security, independence, and happiness deserves special care, but no person is owed the involuntary assistance of others in this pursuit, or in place of it...."

Attentive Conservatism

Fellow Conservatives,

To explain why we need the Twelve Points, I have approached the question from many angles.  This time, let's look back to the way Republican governance played out last time around:

House Republicans, worried about political fallout from the high-profit figures that oil companies are expected to release later this week, will demand that companies pour those profits into refining more oil for the U.S. market in order to lower prices.  At a press conference today, Republicans led by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert will tell the companies to explain why they are making so much money and what they will do to bring down the cost of gasoline. "Big Oil needs to do its part. Increasing capacity and improving refineries will do much to boost supplies so that consumers do not feel such a big pinch," Mr. Hastert said in prepared remarks obtained last night by The Washington Times.

This was from an October 25, 2005 article in the Washington Times.

Our most urgent need is not for new policy proposals that apply conservative principles.  As valuable as those may be, we had quite a few of them already by the beginning of the Bush administration, yet our supposed representatives would not implement most of them.  By that time, attentive conservatives also had a strong grasp of how a conservative should look at the kinds of issues that current events or public opinion will inevitably raise during a party's tenure in power (such as the causes of high gas prices and what kinds of demand could be appropriately made against oil companies).  As this article suggests, however, some number of D.C. Republicans (whether or not that number includes our former Speaker himself or other GOP leaders) must have cared too little or understood too little about conservatism as it is understood by those of us who pay attention.

What would prevent this from happening again next time the GOP controls Congress and the White House?  How can we prevent it without causing those "attentive" conservatives to increase in either number or influence?

Fortunately, we do not have to answer that question, because the Twelve Points can increase the number and influence of "attentive" conservatives.  If properly publicized, the Twelve Points would draw the attention of all conservatives back to principles and accumulated wisdom of conservatism, presented in the most wholesome, concentrated form that a person can read in only five minutes.  Then, in addition to their direct impact, the Twelve Points would have a ripple effect, as their influence would be spread by the words and actions of those who had been influenced by them.  This must be accomplished somehow; if not through the Twelve Points, then how?

From the Twelve Points, the Ninth Point -- Permanence and Coercion

"[R]egardless of its professed humanitarian motives, the powers of government are founded in force, and even the best governments pose a substantial threat to the very rights that they are instituted to protect;

"That government programs, once established, tend to remain, regardless of whether they remain effective and regardless of the harm they come to inflict."

From the Twelve Points, the First Point -- We Do Not Surrender Our Rights

"[W]hen individuals unite to form a government, they do not surrender their rights, but instead grant their government the qualified permission to ascertain and keep the just boundaries of their liberty, which are to be defined by law, by their elected representatives, and in accordance with their constitution;

"That in every government rests a sacred and immutable duty to secure and respect the rights of the governed, to guarantee equality before the law, and to preserve the rule of law...."

From the Twelve Points, the Second Point -- People who have done nothing wrong should not be punished

"[O]nly criminals should ever be treated as such."

From the Twelve Points, the Ninth Point -- No End

"[A]s there is no end to the promised benefits of government intrusion, there is no enterprise or personal sphere of freedom that is not ultimately at risk of being bled of its value or driven from existence;

"That the government cannot control an economy without controlling people, and that in controlling people, 'it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose';

"That freedom and its benefits are most endangered when Americans are severally bribed into selling not only their own freedom, but also that of their neighbors."

From the Twelve Points, the Third Point -- the Right to Constitutional Government

"[U]pon entering into association to form a government, the governed take a valuable right to constitutional government, and that to ignore the Constitution for the sake of convenience violates and squanders this right."

Thus Far Shalt Thou Go...

"[I]t is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and controul the power and impulse of each party, and that says to all parties, THUS FAR SHALT THOU GO, AND NO FARTHER.

"But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party, and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle." -Thomas Paine

From the Twelve Points, the Tenth Point -- An Issue of Justice

"[T]axes are, however, also an issue of justice, as taxes are obligatory and collected under the threat of harsh penalties, and these taxes ought not to be levied to fund government expenditures that cannot justify such threats;

"That while some government functions deserve the support of all Americans, primarily in the provision of security and the securing of justice, to fund other legitimate, constitutional governmental functions, taxes should be designed to charge the willful beneficiaries of a government expenditure in proportion to the benefits that they receive from it."

Sign the Twelve Points, a Definitive Statement of Conservative Principles

For those of us without an IT department or a PR firm, satisfactorily setting up a new feature on a website can require patience.

Fortunately, no further patience will be required with respect to the new signature feature of the Twelve Points!  Finally, conservatives who want to confirm and declare that, Yes, This is What We as Conservatives Believe, can do so -- just scroll to the bottom of the page for the Twelve Points or jump to the signature form.

Then, please also send the link to everyone you know.  Tell them that you like the Twelve Points, and tell them that they should, too!

The Seven Points

I have posted an image depicting "the Seven Points," before, but I do not believe I have ever posted their text.  The Seven Points could be seen as an early draft of the Twelve Points.  In 2003, Grand Old Cause (an Indiana University conservative student organization) and I created them for use as the GOC's guiding statement of principles.  In 2007, I realized that a modified version of the Seven Points could be useful to the conservative movement on a national level.  In early 2008, I began to make those adaptations to the Seven Points, which quickly became the Twelve Points.

Now, from 2003, the following is the text of the Seven Points:

The Seven Points

I.

EQUALITY AND UNITY. The foundation of all of our beliefs is the understanding that “all men are created equal,” and that this understanding is inconsistent with the arbitrary use of force by a person in or out of government against his equal. This understanding calls for equality before the law, for all people to be held to fair, appropriate, and equal standards, and for unity instead of division of peers over insignificant differences in physical form, culture, or origin.

II.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. The Constitution is an important obstacle for those who would use the government to violate our rights.

It explicitly guarantees vital specific rights, including those indispensable to a free society, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, fair trials, and the Bill of Rights as a whole.

This document should be strengthened, as it has been in the past, by amendments enhancing the constitutional system and extending rights to those who deserve them but have been denied them in the past.

It must not be weakened by ignoring it for temporary or fantasy gains, which weakens its ability to restrain those who would violate our rights.

III.

LIFE. Life is the right on which all others depend, and destruction of the right to life is the most total and irreversible form of coercion there is.

IV.

FREEDOM. General freedom is a basic and essential right, and restrictions on liberty, other than to prevent arbitrary coercion, which itself destroys liberty, including unjustifiably causing injury to a person or his possessions, should be avoided and prevented.

V.

PROPERTY RIGHTS AND CONSERVATION. Property rights are fundamental to both the preservation of freedom and the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of the earth. The government's most important role in protecting our natural resources from abuse or destruction is the enforcement of property rights.

Private property enjoys better stewardship than public property, and so the private protection of resources is preferable to public ownership and management. Where private ownership is not practicable, public policy should hold individuals responsible for the effects of their actions on public and private property.

Conservation for these purposes, and based on sound science, will enhance property rights and even liberty, promoting the economy and quality of life. Measures enacted without regard for the effect on property rights, the economy, and liberty will eventually harm all three.

VI.

ECONOMIC GROWTH. Economic prosperity and well-being are not rights, and must be worked for within the boundaries set by the fundamental rights of man, not assumed as entitlements. However, economic growth lengthens lives and improves living standards, and governments should protect the economy by maintaining economic freedom through low tax rates, free trade, fiscal restraint, and avoiding unnecessary regulations.

VII.

PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.  The defense of justice, when all other options have been exhausted and often even as those options are still being pursued, depends on the ability and will to defend it with military force.

Lost post concerning equality as a conservative principle and the foundation of justice

I finally finished a post that I started about a month ago.  The post is about the First Point of the Twelve Points, Equality and Justice.  Because I began the draft of the post so long ago, however, it published with a date from last month where no one would be likely to see it.  Here is the link: http://the12points.com/2010/02/first-point.html.

It's a good post.  Statements of conservative principles can have many functions, depending on how they are written, but I thought it was important for the Twelve Points to ensure that conservatives who read it will properly understand equality; after all, it is the foundation of our understanding of justice.

I have a generally favorable view of the Mount Vernon Statement, but I was disappointed that it failed even to use the word "equality," even though it repeatedly paraphrased parts of the Declaration of Independence that originally were placed very close to its assertion that "all men are created equal."  The Left does not exalt the principle of "equality" -- it abuses it.  Also, if some of us are unimpressed by my argument that we need to properly understand the principle of equality in order to properly understand justice, then I hope that I can at least win them over with the pragmatic argument: people have a favorable opinion of equality, which we, the conservatives, support.  Let's get a little credit for doing so!

The Second Point

I wrote the section of liberty to 1) give readers a clear understanding of the right to liberty and how it works, and 2) to pre-empt the arbitrary justifications that people often use to limit the right to liberty.

They Are Not Conservatives

"If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or right -- those who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

"Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles.  If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice."

-Ronald Reagan, from his CPAC speech, "The New Republican Party," on February 6, 1977

Conservatives, talk to other conservatives

Conservatives, if you think other conservatives would benefit from reading and knowing about the Twelve Points, I suggest that you send them the link to the Twelve Points and tell them pass it on!

http://the12points.com/p/twelve-points.html

or

http://conservatism.the12points.com

Also, for those of you who believe the threats of those chain e-mails that threaten you with bad luck or some other nebulous consequence that you would face if you would fail to forward them, you should know that it is equally true that by forwarding a link to the Twelve Points, you will gain absolute, permanent, and retroactive immunity to those threats.

Of course, you should forward the Twelve Points because it is the right thing to do; this "immunity" is only a bonus.