Old white guys gather to sign The Mount Vernon Statement
February 17, 2010
The Policy Page - True/Slant
February 17, 2010
Recommitting themselves to the principles they believe will make America great again, a bunch of old white guys – and a lone, token paleo-conservative woman- have come together at Mount Vernon to sign a document they have subtitled, ”Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century“.
Except that it wasn’t actually at Mt. Vernon. The home of the nation’s first president refused to have them.
As I read through the document, introduced just in time for this weekend’s CPAC convention (being brought to you by The John Birch Society, the kings of conservative conspiracy theory) I strained to put my finger on why I was having such an allergic reaction to the document.
After all, I like the Constitution as much as the next guy .
But, I wondered, were the statements held in the Mount Vernon pronouncement really what the founders had in mind? Something felt amiss.
Taking out my trusty decoder ring, so as to better determine what these pillars of conservatism were really saying, I explored a few of the Constitutional tenents they put forth, such as how the Constitution honors the central place of individual liberty in American ?politics and life.
Nothing wrong with that one -except that there was something profoundly disingenuous about hearing this from people who would deny individual liberty to Americans who wish to pursue their right to whatever sexual orientation they choose along with the freedom to marry whomever they please.
Certainly, the first to sign the document, Edwin Meese III, who served as Attorney General in the Reagan Administration and is an outspoken critic of gay marriage, doesn’t truly believe in individual liberty – except when it applies to Americans of whom he approves.
In a recent New York Times opinion piece, Meese wrote on the Proposition 8 trial in California.
The entire premise of this litigation is disquieting — that traditional marriage is nothing but “the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing,” as David Boies, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, has written. According to the plaintiffs, there is just no rational basis for government to privilege marriage between a man and a woman. Thus, in their minds, Proposition 8, which was supported by more than seven million California voters, could have been adopted only as a result of “animus,” as the complaint puts it, toward gays and lesbians.
It’s disquieting that the trial is taking place in San Francisco, probably the venue most likely to support gay marriage. More than 75 percent of San Francisco voters opposed Proposition 8. That’s quite a home-court advantage for same-sex marriage advocates.
Via New York Times
Apparently, individual liberty only goes so far in the mind of Mr. Meese – and in the minds of many of his friends in attendance at the signing ceremony – leaving any sensible individual to wonder how Meese can defend his broad interpretation of the Constitution’s grant of individual liberty as he seeks to deny it to those who don’t live up to his image of how an American should behave.
Should you doubt this bit of conservative spin on a fundamental right, the document goes on to claim that The Constitution informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,?community, and faith.
I didn’t need my decoder ring for that one.
As a second year law student, I was forced to read the Constitution more times than I liked. And yet, I cannot recall ever seeing an Article or an Amendment that told us how our families are to be formulated. Never the less, here we find the nation’s most influential conservatives expressing their belief that this is what our founding document, the written record upon which we base the most fundamental principles of the nation, is all about.
The 21st Century statement of conservative principles goes on to claim that the Constitution encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and? economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
That’s odd. The only reference to how the nation conducts its economy that I can recall in the Constition is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 – better known as The Commerce Clause – which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes. The inclusion of this Article was an expression by the Founders that they recognized the need for the federal government to keep a hand in the economy in order to keep things fair.
While reasonable people can argue over whether or not the Commerce power has been expanded beyond what was intended by the Framers, there is simply nothing in the Constitution that expresses the Founders desire that our system be one of free enterprise which favors the individual entrepreneur.
I’m not saying that our Constitution discourages our free enterprise system in any way. I simply find it hard to avoid that the signers of The Mt. Vernon Statement are playing a little fast and loose in their interpretation in order to suit their own take on what is best for America.
While we can pick apart the various twists and spins of those who have gathered today somewhere in the vicinity of Mt. Vernon to trumpet their conservative manifesto, there is one factor that pretty much says it all – there was not one African American in attendance.
I can think of five African Americans – none of whom are politicians as politicians were specifically excluded from the signing ceremony- who are strict conservatives.
Where were they? Did every African American invited determine that this was not a document they could put their name to or were there simply no African Americans invited? I wonder if the organizers of the Mt. Vernon Statement can provide evidence that so much as one African American was asked to join in the event?
Because, if they can’t, and the signers of the Mt. Vernon Statement are correctly interpreting our Constitution, I’m not sure I can continue to count myself as a big fan of our founding document. A Constitution that serves only the interests of rich white guys who want to claim all the liberties they can for themselves while denying the same rights to others is not what I signed on for. What’s more, if their own statement of principles could not gain the support of so much as one African American in this large nation of ours, they might consider whether something is a bit askew.
While the drafters of the Mount Vernon Statement may not have gotten the memo, there have been a few changes in recognizing the civil rights of all Americans since the signing of The Constitution.
I think these fellows got the title all wrong. “Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 18th Century” seems to better fit the bill. Let’s face it, there’s absolutely nothing 21st century about it. [Link]