A constitutionalist

I never intended to make any entries to this blog that were so specific in one ideology as to spurn the opinions of anyone, desiring rather to only opine the most simple of principles to promote a healthier understanding of political discourse. Today however I am breaking, at least slightly, with that objective to fully endorse a candidate for president in this upcoming election. I feel so strongly about this candidate and his adherence to the constitution that I hope you will forgive this one exception.

George Washington once said that “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

I am beginning to get frustrated, on the verge of exasperation, with the half hearted constitutionalist among today’s conservatives. On a time I was under the impression that conservatives were pretty well aligned with a respect for that founding document of our republic. I believed that it was the politicians, who promised to respect the constitution while campaigning but dismissed it once in office, was our real problem. I understood the founders to be regarded by conservatives for their insight on the forgery of an experimental government which gave us the liberty of self governance. I thought that the foremost tenant of conservatism was to preserve that precious republic, handed down to us by those generations that came before and to pass it on to the future, as a shining example of what individual liberty can do for a nation. Today, I am not sure if any of this applies to what has become known as conservatism.

Today I find myself in a sea of self described conservatives, patriots, and lovers of freedom who can’t seem to see the glaringly evident signs of hypocrisy within their own lines of reason. I am alarmed to see those who would claim a respect and even reverence for the likes of Thomas Jefferson but turn around and dismiss his abundantly clear positions on foreign policy, as fringe and dangerous. It concerns me for the future of our nation, those who will claim adoration for the freedoms and rights declared in the constitution but will, for the sake of perceived safety, succumb to championing such legislation as the Patriot Act which denies specifically the rule of law outlined in the constitution. My heart aches, when my biggest detractors these days, are those whom I had counted as likeminded defenders of our constitution as late as a year ago, now seem to be an army of piece meal constitution followers, putting their emotions in place of consistency. The ignorance that spurs this changeability has dampened my hope for this country, a hope I believed was nearing a true revolution in our revere for our founding. When I saw the rise of the TEA party, I had hopes that the giant was finally stirring. When all forms of literature, regarding the founding of this country, seemed to leap up in sales and distribution, I reveled at the idea that we as a society were once again ready to embrace to the notions of liberty as stated by the likes of Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Jefferson. With a great many seats gained in our government this last cycle, by people who unabashedly cited the constitution and rallied to defend it, I was convinced that the revolution had begun. I was mistaken.

I was mistaken that such narrow path could really be chosen. I was mistaken that a true understanding of what it means to be a republic had been recovered. What has appears to be little more than lip service, to the principles of the constitution, has proven worse than an all out assault from our known ideological opposites. My biggest fear is that this rift, among conservatives, will spell the final doom of the United States of America. It will be ours to lose, as we have been given the option to change course if we would only listen. This choice was presented to us before and we ignored it. In 2008 Ron Paul was introduced to many Americans for the first time. Though he has served in the United States Congress for over thirty years, his voice and name was only known outside Washington to his few constituents in Texas and a handful of libertarians across the country. While he did run for president in 1988, it was on a third party ticket which as we all know did not really get much mention in any media circles, so in reality his national debut was arguable in late 2006 when he entered the republican primary.

What does the introduction of Ron Paul, have to do with the divide amongst conservatives, you may ask. Well it has everything to do with it. I write this today as an ardent and passionate supporter of what Ron Paul does and says. I am what many call, disparagingly, a Paulbot or a Paultard.  I am convinced that he is the only candidate that represents the true pillar of our republic, the constitution and I stand firmly in my insistence that no matter what, he will get my vote in 2012. For this ardent and unwavering support, I find myself at odds with the group I have long since felt a part of. The left gives me less grief for supporting this known constitutionalist.  More than once, and once too often, I have been convinced to vote for the lesser of two evils when casting the only meaningful voice I have in our system of government and I will honestly say that I regret those votes. Principles do not waiver, political parties do.  I am sick of being persuaded to vote republican on the promise that government will be constrained but instead it grows more. That termination dampens the conservative spirit and so a Democrat takes over the next time around and so on and so on. Restraint on government never happens. Well no more, I am drawing my line in the sand and I will at least hold onto my honor by voting for my conscience and the constitution.

For those of you touting the moniker of conservatism but dismiss Ron Paul, I beg you to consider your own logic. The entire field of GOP candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, is made up of these same kinds of Republicans that each time, talks the talk but when it comes to governing, are too weak to walk the walk. Ron Paul has been consistent, from his first day taking office, to defend the constitution. He has never allowed political pressure to sway his opinions and always returns to the constitution to defend his positions. The particulars of his policies may at times seem odd but I only ask that you consider it against the design of the structure of our government. When Ron Paul surmises that it is not within our authority to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon, consider the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said “In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.” When Ron Paul states that power must be returned to the states for social policies like marriage or welfare, return again to this admonishment given by our third president, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Are any of the other candidates ready to challenge the status quo of these social programs and polarizing issues? There are in my opinion really only two types of politicians; those who bend and sway with the wind basing their positions on the latest polls and those who hold their principles on something more rigid. The constitution is what births the rigidity in Ron Paul and I for one will stick with him. I will settle for nothing less.

Divided States of America

There is much turmoil in the politics of today, there is little doubt. Turmoil driven by a divide in this country reminiscent of the late 1850’s when America was torn between two distinct factions. War was brewing and tensions were high between these two sides when in December of 1860, North Carolina became the first state to formally secede from the union, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. These Confederate States, while indeed proponents of the continuation of slavery, had many causes that led them to this separation. It was widely accepted in the south that the federal government, physically resting on northern soil, had become unambiguous in its deference to the interest of northern states, many charging that the abolition movement was just a ruse to keep the fast developing plantation states from gaining such power as to threaten the north’s long held position as the center of this new nation.  This paints a picture of the shear divide between citizens, families, and even patriots, who held firm in their conviction even to the climax of a bloody war.

In today’s political dialogue, there is a similarly huge divide in this country. The geographical lines are not so clear nor the ideology behind it but the chasm is there, plainly enough for any to see.  But what is this divide? Where does it come from and are there any alternatives to bloodshed? Before the latter can be answered we must define, as best we can, what it is that divides us. As previously discussed, http://bruteofmonticello.blogspot.com/2011/01/right-vs-left.html there is at least one seemingly clear division of “right” and “left” to describe this rift but with that delineation comes the further confusion of where either side is coming from or what their demands may be.  As mentioned before, these two sides are often changing in principle and direction and their only constant would seem to be their title. Republicans and Democrats are the two teams, both with ardent supporters that make up their base relying on a third group, the independents, to join their ranks during an election cycle. This is how it has been for some time now, though I would make the case that it has been magnified in recent years to an all out disdain when it comes to the two bases and even flowing into the independents, whichever team they join that particular cycle.

This is a particularly troublesome point, in that for most of the year this large group, calling themselves independent, has sense enough to put distance between themselves and either of the major parties and yet, when it comes time to make their voices count with their vote, they put that sense aside and play the game with all the other partisan sheep. Why doesn’t this large group of the electorate stand behind an independent candidate, perhaps someone like themselves, who does not correlate their principles with a party that has none? The accepted answer to this question would be that any independent candidate would just be “unelectable” and therefore a wasted vote. There is some truth to this assertion, especially when talking about the office of the presidency, as many third party or even “independent” candidates have pursued very prominent campaigns and yet none have even come close to winning the seat. The closest ever was Theodore Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party, who in 1912 received 88 electoral votes, more than the Republican candidate’s 8 votes but far less than Democrat Woodrow Wilson’s 435. As popular as it may seem, to be “independent”, when it comes down to it, to when it matters most, we fall back to the party hierarchy, Republican or Democrat.

So back to the question of whether or not we can close the divide that separates us; can anything, short of a bloody revolution, be found to unite again the bonds of America and her citizens?  Perhaps the South was right. Not for the issue of slavery and I do not mean to diminish the importance of such an issue but for a moment, if that issue was taken away, would it not seem that the Confederacy was fighting for the same thing the revolutionaries fought for, a generation before? They saw the Federal government as a growing tyranny, a threat to the liberty that was by right the States and people to control. I can only see two possible solutions to affect a change in our current political divide.

The first would be an abandonment of parties’ altogether; a novel idea perhaps but one of significant difference to our current method of painting, with broad strokes, the beliefs and persuasions of large groups and thus their respective candidates. George Washington gave us an example of this, though it has never been repeated. He was elected to the office of president twice, without party affiliation and even went on to warn us, as a nation, against the notions of party loyalty; decrying it as fire, quick to consume the entire process of representative government. In his day, it was the Federalist and Democratic Republicans, selling their propaganda for the people and while Mr. Washington could arguably be accounted as a Federalist, supporting many of that party’s platforms, he would never formally join. Even though he agreed with the Federalist’s general prescriptions of government he believed it important not to tie his name with them. A farsighted decision it would seem, an almost magnanimous act supporting the legacy of this celebrated founder; and yet a simple choice that can easily be made by every one of us today.

Surely it cannot be refuted, that both have played a part in the division but it is sadly a far stretch that we could see their demise in our lifetimes. Over the years they have amassed such power and control that it could almost not be expected that a movement could gain the traction as to wage a strong enough battle against the established parties. The other possible solution then would be to define them. Define them clearly and separately that the ruse of difference be washed away and leave a true choice in principle and governance. While it is true that political parties have almost always existed among us, it is their ability to change face that keeps us guessing; the Whigs of yesteryear would be Republicans today or the Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights legislation of the sixties are now the champions of Civil Rights. Well no more! In order for us to affect change we must define for ourselves what it is to be this or that in the seats of our government, holding individuals to account for their ability to uphold these principles. This is in my opinion the less attractive solution but likely the most practical.

But how then will each party be defined? Who should decide the definitions? An arduous task certainly but I recommend that we let history be our guide and let the hands that crafted our founding again be part of our reclaiming. Let us turn to the wisdom of our forefathers and see what divisions there were that we may glimpse the answer to assuage our present plight. Early on in the crafting of our founding documents a division arose between those who would have a large and influential federal government and those who would prefer to see the states retain more of the power of government leaving only the most simple and uncontested duties to the federal head. The Federalist and Anti federalist, as they came to be known, were perhaps the most clearly divided parties to ever exist on this continent and yet only one became an organized political party, the Federalist.

When discussing the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist it is important to note that theses names also changed in meaning and direction from the Declaration stages to the adoption of the Constitution in the time of our founding.  The original Federalist were those arguing for a central government and formal union of the different states as opposed to complete sovereignty and independent governance of each state. The Anti-Federalist feared any form of federal government, seeing it as the precise cause for the revolution against the powerful central government of England.  Federalist won the day, when in 1778 the Continental Congress opted for a completely new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation which gave basically no authority to any federal government and signed the Constitution of the United States of America. Then there was another split. The Federalist proper, kept up with all policies enforcing a stronger and stronger federal government until many who were accounted as Federalist before, found that they no longer fell in line with what was happening to the States authority. This divide is often considered a continuation of the Federalist, Anti-Federalist feud but it is important to note that what became of those not solidly behind the Federalist movement were not necessarily Anti-Federalist before. Thomas Jefferson for instance, was most definitely a Federalist in his belief that a strong union was mandatory in order for liberty to be secured but was also the first to split when after the union was established he saw too much power being granted to the federal head. It was actually Mr. Jefferson along with James Madison who established the new adversary party to the Federalist. Not wishing to be defined as a party existing only to be against something, Mr. Jefferson proposed dropping the Anti-Federalist title and opted for the Democratic Republican party, espousing more balance of authority between the states and federal governments.  All this to say that a party system defined on the central issue of federal authority would serve us incredibly better than our current indefinable and chaotic, party loyalty games.

Imagine a two party system that actually had two different solutions to any issue. Take any topic at hand and ask yourself if it may not be more prudent that each state form its own policy and let examples guide other states rather than experiments done at large for the entire country.  Of course there will be issues that can only be addressed at the federal level but I believe those to be infrequent and really the most obvious. The beauty of a Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist party system would be that there are only two choices, real choices; whether it should be Federal or State. In order to affect this kind of change we can start today, we can start right now. When asked what party you support, declare with pride that you are either a Federalist, seeking stronger influence of our central government or a Democratic Republican, looking for a more balanced approach to the governance of men by a limited and clearly defined role for the Federal government and a genuinely liberal approach to the individual States.