The Mount Vernon Statement
The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
- It applies the principle of limited government based on the
rule of law to every proposal. - It honors the central place of individual liberty in American
politics and life. - It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and
economic reforms grounded in market solutions. - It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end. - It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.
If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010
Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan
Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America
Edwin Feulner, Jr., president of the Heritage Foundation
Lee Edwards, Distinguished Fellow in Conservative Thought at the Heritage Foundation, was present at the Sharon Statement signing.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
Becky Norton Dunlop, president of the Council for National Policy
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center
Alfred Regnery, publisher of the American Spectator
David Keene, president of the American Conservative Union
David McIntosh, co-founder of the Federalist Society
T. Kenneth Cribb, former domestic policy adviser to President Reagan
Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform
William Wilson, President, Americans for Limited Government
Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Kenneth Blackwell, Coalition for a Conservative Majority
Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring
Kathryn J. Lopez, National Review
We the undersigned join in our support of the guiding principles of The Mount Vernon Statement.
Current count: more than 15,500 signers. http://www.themountvernonstatement.com/.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by C. Jeffery Small on -
I previously posted my comments regarding this document here: Radicals for Liberty
In a discussion on another forum regarding The Mount Vernon Statement, I stated that I'm prepared to politically support anyone who is truly an advocate of individual rights and personal freedom, but that the Republicans and conservatives have, in the past, violated our individual rights repeatedly, whenever they were given the opportunity.
The document above hits all of the right notes, but I remain unconvinced that, as a group, these organizations are necessarily true defenders of liberty. In the past, while I do believe that everyone of the signers has voiced support for "more freedom" and "less taxes", when push came to shove, attempts to regulate people's choice to abortion (right to life), an altruistic drive to redistribute wealth to the needy and less fortunate (compassionate conservatives), imposition of regulations on banking, businesses, industries, and trade, and generalized attempts to institute "Christian virtues" as the law of the land instead of working to maintain a complete separation between church and state, have most often trumped an honest respect for the rights of the individual and the willingness to constrain government to its role as the protector of those rights. In practice, conservatives have become, in many ways, indistinguishable from liberals. For example, for years Republicans have been pushing for their own versions of expanded government control over health care, with Bush recently signing the prescription drug bill. You can't expand the scope of government and reduce its revenue source (taxes) at the same time. And this is just one specific example of many.
I would like to believe that conservatives are finally learning some real lessons and that the above document represents a real ideological change and a new, vigorous level of support for true freedom and full respect for individual rights. But, past performance makes me skeptical. Words, like the statement above, are meaningless unless backed up by real actions, and the conservatives have been letting us down for decades. Why should we believe them now?
I am passionate regarding this issue because I believe that we are at a unique moment in history. Never have the essential ideas of individual rights and strictly limited government been so openly discussed by so large a segment of the public. Because of this focus, and the participation of so many through the Tea Party movement, there is a real opportunity to inject into the political dialogue a much deeper understanding of what individual rights actually entail, and what they requires of us and our form of government. I do not want to see this opportunity squandered by simply electing a new batch of politicians who speak a good game but have no intention of actually following through in implementing changes leading to significantly greater liberty. We just elected a great orator, and look where it got us. It is critically important to remain aware of the difference between words and deeds.
So let me repeat what I concluded in my other piece:
Don't fall into the trap of signing up for the conservative's agenda. It is as much a failed strategy of the past as are these final gasping breaths from today's progressives. Instead, proclaim your independence by accepting the mantle of Radical for Liberty and help move this country towards a new and better future.
Regards,
--
C. Jeffery Small
http://go-galt.org/Galt_Pledge/
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on -
Mr. Small, I read and agree with you positions on all except when you expressed that you wish to maintain a complete seperation between Church and State.
The Constitutions does "not seperate" religion from the Public Square nor does it establish any one religion or faith as to what they were speaking too, the State shall not Establish a Religion. The Founders encouraged debate, political, religious or any speech in the Public Sqaure.
The idea that somehow someone believes that the Founders were speaking of Christianity would be obsurd. Those that profess this are incorrect but florish towards their own needs and agenda.
Resectfully, Smitty
-
Permalink Reply by C. Jeffery Small on
-
Hi Smitty:
I'm not sure I follow your objection here, probably because I may not be properly interpreting your use and meaning of the term "Public Square". If you are saying that individuals have the right to free speech and may discuss any religious ideas that they wish among themselves, then I am in complete agreement and fully support religious freedom for all individuals. My concern lies only with an attempt to mesh religious doctrine with politics, creating a theocracy of some form or another. We can see the effect of this all around us, and this is what I mean by a separation of church and state. I am not implying that every religious person is bent upon this goal, only that there are some who are. I would refer you to the Manhattan Declaration as one such example.
Again, if I have misunderstood you, please clarify your point and I will attempt to respond more appropriately.
Sincerely,
--
C. Jeffery Small
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
Mr. Small,
Your observation that there are some Christians who would incorporate and mandate their value/virtues into Law are the very thing the Founders feared. They also feared that the State, by adopting/establishing any one Religion could be used as a tool to control the population as in Europe, thereby corrupting religion as well. I agree with you.
However, you go on to say, ".......instead of working to maintain a complete seperation between Church and State." This was/is not the intent of the anti-establishment clause as some would have the people believe. (Judge Black)
Public Square means no boundries, in your home, in Church, in the Town Square (public property), at parties, in Schools or any where conversations are held as a matter of debate and Education.
I submit to you that, it is the lack of education and understanding in a deverse society that lends to ignorance of anothers Culture, History and even Religion. That discussing and exposing our children to all religions gives them a better sense of the world's differences and history.
I hope this clarifies my position,
Respectfully, Smitty
-
Permalink Reply by C. Jeffery Small on
-
Smitty:
We may be in agreement on this, and simply discussing semantics. I believe we concur that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibit the government from establishing, promoting or imposing any specific religion or religious agenda, while the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits it from interfering in the beliefs and practices of any religion - so long as those practices do not violate the rights of any individual.
With regard to the "complete separation of church and state", this is not a view I hold as a possible misapplication of the Establishment Clause, but simply a natural consequence of seeing the government as a constitutionally constrained entity, limited specifically to the functions and powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing more. When it comes to controversial past issues such as federal funding of religious organizations, school prayer, etc., these are non-religious issues for me, because I hold that the government shouldn't be financing any organizations, whether religious or non-religious, and should not be in the education business. If the government is restrained to performing its sole legitimate purpose of protecting the individual rights of its citizens, then none of these controversies would arise in the first place. Each is a creation of the government having stepped beyond its proper function.
For example, were all schools private, then each could set its own policy regarding religious teaching, school prayer, creationism vs. evolution, and so on. Every parent would be free to decide if these policies were acceptable, and choose whether or not to enroll their children in these institutions. This is the free marketplace of ideas in action. But when government establishes a virtual monopoly on education and forces citizens to attend, then it has already violated the individual rights of the people. Attempts to constrain the teaching or promoting of religious doctrine within these schools is then only a feeble attempt to stem the tide of rights violation. The problem can only be addressed by correcting the original constitutional breech.
If you read up on this issue, the idea of a total separation between church and state was the intent of some, of not most of the Founding Fathers. As a quick reference, if you look in Wikipedia under Separation of church and state in the United States, you find references to Jefferson referring to the intent of the First Amendment being a "wall of separation between church and State" and Madison of "total separation of the church from the state.".
I agree that any person may speak freely about their religious beliefs in their capacity as individual citizen, including within the Public Square. However, this freedom does not extend to government officials speaking in their capacity as government officials. This is why religious displays, prayers, etc. should be excluded from all government property,where it receives the implicit authority and support of the institution of government.
I hope this clarifies my position.
Regards,
--
Jeff
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
Jeff, I guess we're in agreement on some issues in this matter. Your referrence to Jefferson's writtings, the concern was, that it would be mis-interpreted as a wall, not that it should be.
I spoke of Judge Black, this man used the letters as a tool for political gains. There was a big influx of catholic imigrants at the time he was a Justice. Those catholics started to gain political muscle. He opposed such a swing in the political arena.
He used his position on the Bench to his favor. Real nice.
Respectfully, Smitty
-
Permalink Reply by C. Jeffery Small on
-
It is not my intention to turn this into an anti-religious discussion, but following up on the topic of maintaining a separation between church and state, you might be interested to look at this article in the New York Times, where Tim Pawlenty, who is preparing to run for the GOP Presidential nomination, states his position on this issue (quoting from the article):
But Mr. Pawlenty offered supportive language that was well understood by opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage, talking about “the sanctity of life” and “traditional marriages.” He also rejected any kind of secular view of government as he listed “four ideas that I think should carry us forward.”
“The first one is this: God’s in charge,” he said. “There are some people who say, ‘Oh, you know, Pawlenty, don’t bring that up. You know it’s politically incorrect.’ Hogwash.”
-
Permalink Reply by SimonJester on -
I would also like to refer you to this statement from jim DeMint http://twitter.com/JimDeMint/status/9242490327
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
Mr. Simon,
I'm not sure who were you speaking too. However, the first paragraph, forth line, establish true religious liberty............ I agree.
-
Permalink Reply by C. Jeffery Small on
-
Hi Simon:
Just to be clear, in general, I agree with Jim DeMint and, for the most part, support the Mount Vernon Statement, with the exceptions listed below. My purpose is not to challenge the meaning being expressed, but to caution people to beware of supporting a new crop of "conservative" or "Republican" candidates, who have jumped on the populist bandwagon forming around the Constitution, while having no real understanding of individual rights and limited government, and no actual intention of doing the hard work of cleaning the stables of government of its deep pile of abuses. If we are going to effect meaningful change in the coming election cycles, then it is imperative that we find, support and elect candidates who are true advocates of individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism, and strictly limited government constrained to the single purpose of protecting our rights. Over the past 50 years, the great majority of conservatives have not been supporters of these ideals, and they have demonstrated this with their actions. To find the right people for the job, we need to focus more on their past performance and not simply rely upon their words. That is why I do not find a simple statement in support of this document to be sufficient. I ask those who believe in these principles to demonstrate to me, through their deeds, that they understand what they say, know how to put it into practice, and have the integrity to actually do it!
While I agree with the majority of the Mount Vernon Statement, here are my issues:
1: As I said in my original piece, calling the enlightenment ideas of individual rights and constitutionally limited government a form of "conservatism" completely misrepresents the radical nature of these ideas, both 200 years ago, and again today. As many in the Tea Party movement have come to recognize, the conservatives have been as much a disappointment over the years as have been the progressives, and any attempt to move forward through an association with the conservative movement drags along all this past baggage. That is why I call for adopting the new mantle of Radicals for Liberty. There is a fundamentally new message here and we need to convey it loudly and clearly. Wrapping it up in conservative clothing is not going to get the job done. And nothing could make that clearer than recognizing that Barack Obama didn't get elected in 2008 so much as George Bush and the Republican party got tossed out on their ear. Obama just happened to be the alternative. The conservative baggage has become a terrible burden and it is time to shed it in favor of a new and more honest label.
2: The document states:
"The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively."
But it does not define what that job is! This is the problem I have with the entire political establishment, both left and right. They are content to spout euphemistic statements like this without ever being specific. This leaves the door open for any and every interpretation in the future. I'm not willing to support politicians who speak like this, and I hope to convince others of you to refuse to do so as well. I want to hear clearly articulated statements of principle, backed up with diamond-hard proposals for specific actions. For example, the statement continues:
"It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic."
Yes, that's true - and look how well that has worked out for us. So what are you going to do to set things right and make sure that these checks and balances actually work in the future to protect our rights?
If you want to hear a new type of candidate that gets to the heart of the matter and says what needs to be said in clear and unambiguous terms, check out Peter Schiff who is running for senator from CT. Now this is a candidate worth supporting, and every state should be so lucky as to have candidates of this caliber.
3: When they get to generalized policy agenda, it states:
"It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith."
Here is a classic example of what I speak of above. The damned government has no business promoting any of these things, so there is no reason to "inform" government with these issues. This demonstrates in completely unambiguous terms, why the conservatives can not be trusted to protect our individual rights. My family, neighborhood, community, and faith are all my business, and my business alone. No senator, representative or president has any business even thinking about these aspects of my life. This is exactly how we got the nanny-state we find ourselves smother by today.
So again, I hope this clarifies my position.
In liberty,
--
Jeff
-
Permalink Reply by SimonJester on
-
Don't confuse conservatives with RINOS And the word conservative may need an overhaul.
I am on the side of the republic form of Govt. Single issue's miss the point :-)
-
Permalink Reply by Smitty on
-
Jeff,
I certainly agree with your position.
One of the major problems/issues that need to be addressed are our schools. Taxes, individual rights, etc., are resolutions that need immediate attention, however all the work towards those ends mean nothing when we ignore the root of the problem. Recently one of the Authors on this site posted what the State and the School Board of (I believe) N.C. were proposing. Removing from the History Books every bit of history preceeding 1877. No Constitution, Revolutionary War, Civil War and certainly no Founding Fathers. This is Dangerous!
I read, see or hear very little in this area. We allow our children to be corraled like farm animals into a system of ingnorance. Politicians and psyhco bable asses that have dumbed down and feed drugs to children to control them. These are the New Slave Masters.
I personally am more concerned with this issue than any other even though there as important. I recognized this when my daughter was old enough to enter our educational system. My wife and I worked, took part time work to keep her in private education. It wasn't easy and we're happy we did.She now is in a Masters Program full time and has 2 partime jobs Teaching at two colleges.
I am not telling you this to boast, but no Parent[s] should have to go though this to give their children an education.
I do not see us as a Country growing in a positive direction unless we as a People take back our schools to resolve this issue.
Respectfully, Smitty
© 2010 Created by Eric Odom.
Powered by 
.
