Posted by
DecoNservAtiVE on Monday, November 10, 2008 2:41:36 PM
The party of Abe and Reagan is at a crossroad. Some left leaning me too Republicans, moderates who followed the migrating herd of Democrats during the Reagan years, feel that John McCain, the ultimate moderate, didn't reach over far enough. Are you serious? McCain completely alienated the Conservative base and compromised principles to attempt to appeal to moderates. Conservatism is not just a buzzword in politics. Conservatism is built on ideals and principles that while they evolve, never die in the end. The prospects of limited government, low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility are principles that will always be in demand. In fact, conservatism is as strong now as it has ever been although you may not know it. More Americans than ever are looking for a gateway to the principles of our founders. The first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln (1860-1865) however, conservatives can trace the roots of their political identity back through the Whig Party and further still to the Federalist party and even back to George Washington who is often identified as a Federalist, but was a politically unaffiliated President. Conservatives from what became the Federalist party believed that the local governments and municipalities ought to have control over their own tarrifs and taxes as well as other aspects of life such as religion and press. the King of England was eager to bring these budding revolutionaries under control and while imposing tea taxes, sent troops to ensure the safety of his tax collectors. We all know what happened through years of escalating violence and a revolutionary movement that never compromised their principles. Once America won its independence, the question arose, what do we do now?
Americans turned to the constitutional convention with delegates appointed from each of the 13 states. Without going into too much detail on a process that was complicated due to the many unique desires of each state, the delegates reached a compromise on how the government should be formed. They decided on a limited federal government charged with the purpose of levying taxes on citizens in order to provide for national defense including an Army and Navy, foreign policy decisions, and foreign commerce. The constitutional convention far from ignored other important issues. Indeed much debate centered around issues that all states could not agree on (slavery was one of these issues). It was decided that the limited federal government powers shall be the ultimate rule of law within the boundaries of the constitution. State governments we given the broad authority to decide for themselves how their states would provide for all other needs of its citizens. Early in the process of most state constitutions, the model was similar to the federal government constitution. State governments generally limited their own power to infrastructure, public safety, a militia and commerce between the states. Local municiplities were given the broader powers to define social conditions for their own people. The idea was to provide as much power to indvidual citizens, by placing the government as close as possible to them, while maintaining an ordered structure. The idea was to allow the citizens to ultimately govern themselves through the election of their own local, state and federal government delegates and to grant as much of the power of government to the lowest level of government, placing most of the power as close to the people as possible. The founders were hoping to foster the principles of limited government, low taxes, states rights and individual responsibility.
These ideas have been perverted over the years with arguments like, "Well if it isn't in the constitution, the founders just couldn't envision it." This argument usually comes up with regards to slavery. Actually, slavery was one of the most hotly contested social policies that divided the Consitutional convention. In fact, slavery was purposely NOT referred to within the U.S. Constititution or the Declaration of Independence. Words were actually edited to ensure that slavery could not be considered a national doctrine. Most northern states were opposed to either the expansion of slavery or slavery itself. Many of the delegates to the convention owned slaves and even among their ranks they felt opposed to it. One of the great ideas of the conventions that drafted first the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution was to include the ability of future generations to correct the injustices of the time. At the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Indepence, the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", was actually "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and property". Contrary to popular belief, Thomas Jefferson did not draft the Declaration of Independence entirely on his own. He was aided by editors who brought up the idea that slaves were considered property at the time and that the Declaration of Independence, a document they know would be the rule of law until a constitution was created, could be interpreted to ensure Ameica would be a slave nation. So the word property was removed and the phrase "the pursuit of happiness" was written in place. It was a genious move and set the stage for correction of one of the worst attrocities in human history. Why didn't the convention just abolish slavery at the time? As I mentioned, the issue of slavery was hotly contested and stayed at the forefront of American politics until President Lincoln officially abolished the barbaric practice with his Emancipation Proclamation. It was so contested that a consensus agrement could not be reached. Slave owners argued that abolishment would result in total ruin especially of southern states who relied heavily on the unpaid workforce to tend the massive fields that grew their crops and provided their only sources of income. The north had less acerage and and more people so it was therefore was more conducive to the new industries that were cropping up in a fresh nation. The abolishment of slavery would have torn apart an already fragile group of states and put in jeapordy everything they were trying to create. The founding fathers placed country before self and agreed to leave the question of slavery out of the founding documents. The issue of slavery however, was not left out of politics. It was left to the states to decide their future and decide it they would.
While slavery was left out in one form or another from the two major founding documents, religion was not. Religion was a debate that offered little resistence. Most of the citizens of America were of one Protestant denomination or another, fewer were Catholic and so the decision of religion had to be decided. The founders learned from the mistakes of England who used the Church of England to commit many criminal acts not the least of which was murder. They realized that their primary reason for coming to America in the first place was to establish new colonies outside of the control of the Church of England and wanted to ensure that America would never make the same mistakes as England. With this in mind, the founders created the seperation of church and state that is so often misrepresented. The idea was never to remove references to religion in politics, but to ensure that no one religion would be forced on Americans. Citizens of this new nation we to be allowed choice of religion. In fact, the founding fathers were richly diverse in terms of relgion. Quakers, Protestants, Catholics loyal to the Church of England, and Deists were most common. Benjamin Franklin is often referred to as having tried many different flavors of religion. This belief comes from his willingness to donate to many different religions in Philadelphia. The most likely cause for his investments in these houses of worship was his belief that any religion which taught moral values was inherently a positive and deserved his support. For some time Franklin was a follower of Deism. Deists believed that there was a single creator and that the creator influenced the creation of the Earth and all creatures on it. Where it differed from traditional religions is that the Deist God did not trouble himself in daily affairs and in fact, was not able to do so as his plane was different from our own. Deism largely died out as religious persecution either converted followers to Christianty in one form or another, or labeled Deists as Atheists. The Deist religion did nothing to answer many of the questions of the world that were offered by early man who had not the scientific skills that exist today and also relied heavily upon reason and morality to guide its followers in the ways that tradtional religions use the commandments and the bible, so it was considered flimsy and unrealistic. The idea of the seperation of church and state has sense been distorted, especially recently, to mean that religion has no place in politics. In fact, religion has always played a role in politics serving as an idea of the moral compass of the individual candidate. Conservatism as presented by the founding fathers would take no particular position on relgion much to the chagrin of modern day liberals who commonly use the the term "the religious right". Generally conservatives are religious people, but it is by no means a necessary badge in the historical sense of conservatism.
Conservative principles at their roots can be applied today with as great an impact. More people consider themselves conservative than ever before. The number is nearly 2 or 3 times that of people who consider themselves liberal. So why is the message not catching on? Check back for my next edition which will chronicle Ronald Reagan's conservative message and how it could be applied today.