THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Conservatives need to rediscover
their core beliefs
Part I
 Do
you ever ask yourself if you are a
Conservative? Do you think like a
Conservative?
Many of us view ourselves as
Conservatives because of our perspectives
on taxes or the size of government. For
example, if “I” am against
raising taxes, I am probably a
Conservative. If “I” am against
expanding government, I am probably a
Conservative.
But true Conservatives adhere to a very
specific set of core principles that can
be precisely delineated and from which
other “conservative points of view
“ originate. These same core beliefs
reflect the thinking of our Founding
Fathers as they carefully crafted a new
Constitution for our young republic.
These are the core principles of
Conservatism:
* A dedication to individual liberty and
the primacy of the individual,
* A government dedicated to the rule of
law (starting but not ending with strict
interpretation of our Constitution based
on the original intent of the Founders),
* A no-compromise stance in defense of
our most fundamental rights with
particular focus on our First and Second
Amendment rights, and
* An insistence that government
violations of our property rights be
substantially reduced through a radical
reform of our tax laws.
These four basic principles must serve as
the rigorous foundation upon which
decisions are made on other, less
fundamental, but still important issues.
Such matters dominate the daily political
babble, but rarely are they coherently
tied to essential principles.
It is not news that Conservatives have
failed to rein in the expansion of
government power. In fact, they have been
a major contributor to that expansion.
Now, those who believe in the classical
liberalism of our Founding Fathers need
to re-build the Conservative movement
from the ground up. Conservatives must
either reach a consensus on core
principles, or just splinter and go their
own ways.
To fully embrace the first and most basic
principle of Conservatism logically
compels acceptance of the others that
follow. Conservatives and Liberals break
ranks on the first test:
1. Conservatives, first and
foremost, believe in individual liberty.
This is a fundamental distinguishing
characteristic. Liberals believe in the
primacy of the state (it takes a village
or a commune) while Conservatives believe
that the only excuse for the existence of
the state is to protect individual
rights. The state is established to
protect the individual, not to be our
master.
When we speak of individual rights, the
modifier “individual” is
redundant. Only individuals have rights.
When we say, “We have this right”
or “We have that right,” we
mean that we have those rights as
individuals.
Members of groups such as “the poor,”
or “the disabled,” or “immigrants,”
or those of a particular race or gender
or sexual preference, derive no
additional rights because of their
membership status. They have their rights
as individuals, period.
Conservatives often debate the source of
our rights. Religious Conservatives
believe that our rights are God-given. In
support of this position they quote
scripture or religious statements made by
our Founding Fathers.
I happen to think individuals have rights
derived from our nature as human beings,
independent of any religious explanation.
But the fact is that the source of our
rights, while an interesting intellectual
topic, is not politically relevant. All
that matters is whether we have them.
I am perfectly comfortable holding hands
with religious Conservatives who share my
belief in individual liberty, and they
should feel just as comfortable with me.
Whether our rights come from a bolt of
lightning or from the nature of man, we
can fight side-by-side to protect those
rights. The next day I can go fishing
while my religious brethren can go to
church and pray. We are both free from
the steel boot of government; that is all
that matters politically.
So what is the next test of
Conservatism? It amounts to this: A
Conservative’s belief in individual
liberty must have substance.
You can’t claim to believe in
individual liberty while supporting
policies that let the government trample
people’s rights. A necessary
condition, if our rights are to be
secure, is that we live in a society
based on the rule of law.
Our Founding Fathers did a pretty good
job of putting the necessary institutions
in place to protect our liberties. They
gave us a constitutional republic with
limited powers having three branches of
government. Each branch was assigned its
own function (separation of powers), and
checks and balances were put in place to
ensure that one branch of government did
not run roughshod over the others or the
citizenry.
Unfortunately, our government routinely
ignores the Constitution by assuming
powers not granted and our Supreme Court
not only ignores these transgressions, it
becomes a partner in crime, literally, by
legislating from the bench. Conservatives
must insist that the rule of law start
with obeying our highest law – the
Constitution. Thus Conservatives insist
that:
2. Judges appointed to the Supreme
Court must be dedicated to upholding a
strict interpretation of our Constitution
as intended by our Founding Fathers.
While respect for previous decisions of
the Supreme Court (stare decisis –
to “stand by that which is decided”)
is a good practice when previous
decisions comport with the original
intent of the Founders, decisions that
directly contradict this intent should be
overturned without any reservation.
Initially, our Constitution’s
function was restricted to granting a set
of limited powers to our new federal
government. It was implicitly understood
that any powers not specifically granted
were retained by the states or the
people.
The historically justified fear that
government would exceed its legitimate
authority led to the insistence that our
most precious rights be explicitly
spelled out. The Bill of Rights lists
these critical rights (the first eight
amendments), establishes the fact that
this list is not exhaustive (the Ninth
Amendment), and ensures that powers not
specifically delegated to the federal
government are reserved to the states and
the people (the Tenth Amendment).
Maintaining these rights for ourselves
and future generations is fundamental to
the preservation of liberty. Therefore:
3. Conservatives must vigorously
protect our rights with special attention
to those outlined in the Bill of Rights
and not let them be diminished or eroded
at any cost.
Our First and Second Amendment rights
deserve focused attention because they
represent our two most important civil
rights: the right to express ideas (alone
and with the voluntary participation of
others) and the right to defend
ourselves. Only by guaranteeing open
intellectual debate and the sharing of
ideas through free speech can our rights
be secured and the need for violent
confrontation avoided.
These rights should be considered
sacrosanct and never be abridged for any
reason – certainly not for anything
as silly as “campaign finance
reform.”
The Second Amendment represents our right
to defend our liberties when our
government fails to protect them. Only by
reserving to individuals the right to use
force to defend themselves and their
families can individuals be assured that
those rights are truly protected. Having
a right to life when the police find you
murdered hardly constitutes a right.
Speaking of a right to life, your life
cannot be secured without the right to
property. Property rights are a logical
consequence of any claim to a right to
life. If you have no right to property,
your means of sustaining your life can be
taken from you. If you can’t gather
and utilize the necessities of life, you
can be deprived of the right to life.
Thus,
4. Conservatives must be
ardent supporters of property rights.
A right to property is the right to
determine how that property is to be
used, the right to any proceeds derived
from that property, and the right to
trade that property or its proceeds with
others, based on mutual consent without
interference.
Individuals earn the right to property
through trade with others, either trading
labor or intellectual property, or by
exchanging other property or rights.
Having the right to property means that
neither the government nor another
individual can be permitted to take away
your property by force or impose
restrictions, with the exception of
outlawing fraud, on your exchange of that
property.
If strictly observed, individual property
rights would prohibit all taxation and
the taking of property by eminent domain.
While I would welcome this conclusion,
such a strict prohibition might leave me
in a political movement of a few thousand
people and not the millions needed to be
successful. While the risks of
philosophical compromise are substantial,
under the present circumstances some
relaxation of this principle is
necessary.
The more practical test for Conservatives
is to ensure that there is agreement on
the direction of new policy initiatives.
The common goal should be crystal clear:
everything possible must be done to
substantially reduce the infringement of
our property rights by government.
First and foremost, this means a dramatic
reduction in the taking of private
property through taxation. In the process
of implementing such a policy, every
effort should be made to minimize any
infringement of individual liberties.
This goal cannot be accomplished by
tweaking the current tax code. Proposed
reforms must involve total elimination of
the current tax system and its
replacement with a revenue generating
mechanism that is substantially simpler
and less intrusive. Obvious candidates
are the flat tax or the national sales
tax that would replace the federal income
tax – including abolishing the
income tax amendment to the Constitution.
Note that current flat tax and sales tax
proposals are designed to be revenue
neutral. This constraint must be
vehemently rejected. Not to do so is to
ratify the destruction of liberty
championed by liberal politicians over
the last 100 years. Instead, the goal of
Conservatives must be to substantially
reduce the government’s taking of
private property.
Unfortunately, this leaves room for both
good ideas and bad ideas. But, if “substantially
reduce” is taken seriously (e.g.,
cut in half or more), even bad ideas
would be far better than the current
state of affairs.
To sum up, these are the core beliefs
that truly define Conservatives and the
Conservative movement. They are as
important and relevant today as they were
200 years ago when some brilliant
individuals gathered together to form a
new nation based on individual liberty
and the rule of law.
Next month, in Part II, I will connect
these basic Conservative principles to
the day-to-day issues that currently
dominate political debate.
Dr. Ormsby is a member of the North
Andover School Committee. He is a
graduate of Cornell and has a doctorate
from MIT. You can contact Dr. Ormsby via
email: ccormsby@comcast.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All pictures and
material are
(C) copyright, Valley Patriot, Inc., 2008
|
