There is a movement towards constitutional fidelity growing in the Republican Party. Some of it is rooted in the T.E.A. party movement and much of it is inspired by Ron Paul's Presidential campaign.
Yesterday, the limited government wing of the Republican Party scored the biggest win in local politics by winning 2/3 or the Executive Board seats for the Clark County (Las Vegas) GOP. Disregard the inflammatory headline and read the comments made by this activist:
"This is the grass roots taking a stand to change the direction of the party from the county level," said Carl Bunce, Nevada chairman of Paul's campaign and a delegate. "This is bigger than just Ron Paul. This is about liberty and openness and fairness and changing the party."
Bunce said Paul supporters share the same goal as the other Republican candidates: to defeat President Barack Obama in the fall no matter who becomes the GOP nominee.
Bunce's comments articulate what so many of us feel. Firstly, we know Barack Obama is the most dangerous threat to our future as an exceptional nation and we will work hard to elect whomever runs against him this November. More importantly, and what we continually remind those who would try to dehumanize us with terms like "Paul-bots", is that we are not the equivalent of the Obama worshippers. The Ron Paul Presidential campaign has nothing to do with the man and everything to do with the message.
The message is to return to the principle of fidelity to the U.S. Constitution whether it favors or restricts your particular cause du jour for government. This is not some radical idea. We don't think government is "evil" but we do recognize that people in government are fallible. As Lord Acton warned, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Again, this shouldn't be some sort of radical idea for Republicans. Republican President Calvin Coolidge affirmed the finality of First Principles in Philadelphia, to celebrate the Sequicentennial of the Declaration of Independence:
In his speech Coolidge said the purpose of our "national celebration" was not to "proclaim new theories and principles," but rather to affirm the permanence of our founding. There was a "finality" to the Declaration that Coolidge found "exceedingly restful."
Instead of spurning Jefferson's "conclusions for something more modern," the president urged his listeners to return to the truth of what Jefferson penned: "If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions."
Of course, there was idealism in America's founding. And of course Coolidge was right to point to it, even if that founding was also sullied by slavery. But Coolidge was also right about something else: "Governments do not make ideals; ideals make governments."
To be sure, "government can help sustain ideals, but by their very nature their source is in the people [who] have to bear their own responsibilities. There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government."
Keep in mind that Coolidge proceeded the New Deal, The Great Society, Compassionate Conservatism, The PATRIOT Act, and Obama's fascistic takeover of the banking and heath care industries. Republicans weren't always so indifferent to First Principles. In Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, he explained this idea:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwanted financial burden. . . . And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Goldwater understood the temptations of power and the danger of centralized power. Constitutional conservatives understand this and seek to ask the question "Should the government be in the business of collecting trash?" first--THEN, if it is decided that trash collection is a legitimate function of government, we seek to push it to the most local authority that we can.
Constitutionalists understand Americanism to be:
- Our rights come from God (not the State)
Government's job is to safeguard those God-given rights - Our government should be constrained by the limits placed upon it by the US Constitution
- We should have commerce with all nations and entanglements with none.
Americanism isn't some radical idea. It's an acknowledgement that America is an exceptional nation BECAUSE we recognize one simple thing; Our Creator grants us these "natural" rights. No king nor Politburo, nor bureaucracy can decide to take our Life or Liberty (without due process under the Law) nor should it interfere with our Pursuit of Happiness (as we define it) as long as we harm no others in that pursuit.
In the past, constitutionalists have long trusted Conservatives to "conserve" those First Principles and have found no reasons to mistrust their intentions. A methodic and persistent attack on First Principles has been underway, within the GOP, for the past 30 years. Neo-conservatives infiltrated Reagan's Administration, gained power under George HW Bush, and hijacked George W Bush's administration after 9/11. The result? Profligate spending on social programs, a misguided foreign policy, and more and more government.
Constitutionalists simply want to follow the document which puts checks on liberals and big government Republicans. If you elect us to serve on the San Diego County Republican Central Committee, we'll be the guys and gals who say "NO" when it's time to endorse candidiates who betray First Principles. If others "attack" us for "betraying the party's interests, we shall reply that we are "attending to Liberty" and we are doing the very best that we can.
Comments