The Mount Vernon Statement, A Poor Man’s Manifesto… Very Poor
by Warner Todd HustonA group made up of some of the biggest names in contemporary conservatism got together a few days ago and crafted what they are calling the “Mount Vernon Statement,” a manifesto of sorts meant to give direction to today’s conservative movement. Put succinctly, it fails to fill the bill.
Taken as a whole this statement is fine as a short history lesson. It explains pretty clearly what the founders had wrought when their basic work was done with the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. But as a statement of principles that might guide today’s discussion, I do not think the letter works.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that this effort is harmful. In fact, I think every young person should read it for its explication of our historically conservative American principles. The problem is that this thing doesn’t seem to speak directly to what we are facing today like a statement that perhaps aims to become boilerplate should.
Some of those involved with the statement said that the 1960 “Sharon Statement” served as their inspiration. The Sharon Statement, intended to give some ideological umph to Goldwater conservatives, is an effort that works much better as a rallying cry to action. Sadly, the Mount Vernon Statement falls a little flat in this respect.
Historically I have two minor qualms about the newest effort. First of all its name doesn’t resonate. Yes, George Washington was the indispensable man of our early republic. Without him the warring factions facing off in political battle during our early republic just might have strangled this baby in its crib. But, as steadying a force as he was, Washington was not really the ideological or intellectual father of our nation. He was the father that kept the kids from beating each other up, the father we looked up to as a model of comportment, the man we looked to as the solid rock of the family, certainly, but he wasn’t the idea man. For that we looked to men like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams among many others.
So, naming this letter after George Washington’s estate seems a bit odd. Better that these folks should have met in Independence Hall, Philadelphia and called this the Philadelphia Statement, the Independence Statement, or some such thing. The words “Mount Vernon” are obviously meant to lend historical heft to the document but they just don’t succeed as a meaningful ideological association. In fact, it’s sort of hollow. Are we naming our bedrock ideological principles for the man that didn’t craft them? That seems a bit odd to me.
Secondly, I find fault with this paragraph (my bold):
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 word “recognizes” is not the correct word to use for what the founders thought about the word “virtue.” They didn’t merely “recognize” virtue existed. They built their entire political edifice on the insistence that our political leaders practice virtue and that they base their every move on the need to be seen as civically virtuous. This is an idea about which few of our political leaders today have the slightest clue, not to mention that the public is generally ignorant of what the founders meant when they discussed public virtue. Sadly, this letter doesn’t help us regain a proper perspective on the founder’s idea of public virtue.
The Mount Vernon Statement missed an opportunity to better explain what virtue in government could mean as a rallying cry for today’s conservative movement.
The Mount Vernon Statement is a fine little history lesson but compared to the Sharon Statement, it just doesn’t seem to as immediately take on the issues that we face. Where is the discussion of the destruction of our educational system, where is the warning against our worst foreign threat, where is the assertion that our system of jurisprudence has been undermined? All these things are broadly implied by the Mount Vernon Statement, granted, but one wishes that today’s problems were more directly addressed.
While we don’t want a statement that names names or attacks specific policies directly — that would detract from the essential universality of such a statement of principles — still to my mind the Mount Vernon Statement is a bit too broad. I feel that we need something a tad more direct. The Sharon Statement was perfect for its mixture of what were then current issues and timeless conservatives principles.
Should you have signed onto the Mount Vernon Statement, or should you feel that you’d like to do so, I can find no harsh words for you. As I said, there is no great harm done by this effort. Unfortunately, there is also correspondingly little succor that this effort can lend to our cause. It seems like a nice history lesson but as a manifesto to rally around it is more like a staid assertion than a battle cry. It is eminently forgettable.
Part Two
Yes, it’s easy to criticize. Surely it will occur to the minds of many readers of my criticism here that I should offer solutions along with my criticisms. So I offer the following basic idea of what I’d consider a better “statement” than what resulted from the efforts at Mount Vernon, Virginia. I’ll call it the “Huston Statement” for lack of a better title and since, well, I’m the one writing the thing.
Remembering that I am one man, not a committee of 80 some high-powered conservative operatives, here are the ideas I thought of while reading the Mount Vernon Statement, humbly offered as a basis upon which to further the discussion:
The Huston Statement
Since our political climate has long since drifted from the first principles of our founding and since we now face a crisis threatening to tear down our American moral center we commit ourselves to re-establishing our American character.
We believe that our Constitution and the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence form the best guide by which to nurture our American character and provides a firm bedrock upon which to build a government.
We as Americans believe:
That as individuals we have the right of self-determination, to be free of overweening involvement in our lives by government at all levels from local, to state, to federal.
That as free men we must strongly assert that we are responsible for ourselves, our family, and our property and that others owe us nothing but to observe our rights as we observe theirs.
That our liberties depend on our civic virtue and that it is up to each of us to become informed citizens.
With these God-given liberties in mind, that our representatives must strive to keep government out of the lives of the people to the greatest extent practicable and that they should honor the principles of limited government as handed down to us from our founders.
And we assert that adherence to these principles will act as a beacon of freedom to the world, that we should actively promote them abroad giving succor to all those that would follow in our footsteps, and that we should not lend legitimacy to foreign bodies or nations that retreat from them.
We affirm that:
Private property is sacrosanct
The market-based economy free of government meddling must be preserved
Employees must be free of compulsory associations
Governments must be accountable to the voters not to judges and unions
Communities have the right to draft standards without federal approval
Education is a local responsibility solely under local and state control
It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion
And that our Second Amendment rights are God-given and cannot be infringed
Additionally, we as Americans also reaffirm that legislation is the rightful duty of our constituted bodies of representatives and not the venue of capricious judges. Ruling from the bench is no better than the ill-considered tyrannies from the throne from which we so long ago rebelled.
Finally, let us understand these principles to be an affirmation of our American character one that has made our nation the richest and strongest nation in human history. Any force, whether domestic or foreign, that wishes to materially alter this character is an enemy to our nation and one that should not be treated lightly but faced squarely and with resolution.
Well, this is how I see a statement of principles that are geared to today’s issues but are still the sort that attest to our timeless conservative ideals.
I hope this can serve to continue the discussion that the Mount Vernon Statement started.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
50 Comments
While the Mt. Vernon Statement does lack specific details, it still provides the guard rails needed to keep on the path to Conservative government. You need to start somewhere and we'd all love to see specifics listed as goals however in this case, the Conservatives need to initially focus more on just staying on the Conservative path (ie. working together in electing the best candidates, not splitting the vote with 3rd parties, etc) rather than focusing on end goals which can't be achieved unless we all work together at the beginning.
"The Mount Vernon Statement missed an opportunity to better explain what virtue in government could mean as a rallying cry for today’s conservative movement."
I couldn't agree more…
It's nice to see Conservatives going through the motions, but I would have to agree with you Mr. Huston, that it was a bit broad in it's scope. Not to mention a few unsavory characters in the mix, the document itself holds little water. It is a start however, and hopefully this spurns more in depth analysis on the topic. I know personally I would like to see the direction of this country headed back toward not just fiscal responsibility, but responsibility and accountability in general.
And, I also like your list as well. You make very good points that should be resonating in every Conservative at this time. We can only hope that this is not just a fad and will actually wake some up, if not to the history at least, but to the movement itself. Thank You.
“It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government”
Alexander Hamilton
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”
Barry Goldwater
Good ideas, Huston. Thanks! I signed the Mount Vernon statement. I encourage all conservatives to do the same. However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be improved. As a former writer of a political party platform, we were revising it quite frequently, so there is always room for greater clarity and more effective language.
Indeed, and a government cannot give, what it first must take. What a crazy notion eh?
"They have no damn right to interfere in our free right to do as we damn well please."
~ Barry Goldwater ~
Thats my favorite Goldwater quote. I like simple-speak, and detest Orwellian double-speak.
I totally agree with Warner and several days I posted my own 'statement' on Free Republic, which I called the "General Agreement", heh.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2454...
Mine is based on Individual Sovereignty and very very very limited government.
Mr. Houston, it seems always that you are ready to come against any that do something PRIOR to your having done so yourself.
I think that perhaps you have a 'tad' to much time on your hands and this seems to be your way of using it and being out here in the midst of solutions. Have you attended your communities city council this week? Your communities school board meetings? Your communities county board or other community meetings? Are you a precinct committeeman or serving on any boards? Perhaps beginning at home would be justified for all of us who are wanting to do more for community, state or Nation.
The good news our conservative “leaders” find it necessary to reaffirm their conservatism. The important thing is to not lull back into complacency believing these Washington critters have our best interest in mind…nothing could be further from the truth. We have Washington shaking in their government issued booties – - keep it up America real change is at hand!
Nationally and even in our own communities we need to remember these vital ingredients.
CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES should be adhered to.
•Fiscal Responsibility
•Lower Taxes
•Less Government
•States’ Rights
•National Security
Your statement makes good comments as does the Mr. Vernon document. I know a number of people who signed it and I say bravo for all that step forth and actually do the 'actions' that any of these require.
.Lets all just see that we stay focused and doing what is valuable as WE THE PEOPLE and to see that we 'get the vote out' in 2010 and the true CONSERVITIVES in office this year. We are the USA and not the USSA!
The enormous power of millions, billions of free individuals worldwide, pursuing their own life's passions, with faith in their passion's natural rewards, cannot be over-estimated.
Ultimately, the POWER of individuals' creating their own joyful. innate abundance is the only resource worth developing at this point.
Mr. Huston,
I've re-read your article several times. While I agree that the Mt Vernon Statement was intended to be comparable to the Sharon Statement; to be a rallyingcry for action. I read the Mt. Vernon Statement last week, and personally felt that it fell flat.. Although I personally believe that anythinbg is better than nothing, I did not sign it, simply because I am not a signer, or a "joiner".
With that being said, there is something that we have, that far surpasses and exceeds anything that current man could draft, or conceive. Something that was Divinely inspired. To put it simply, they are called:
The Declaration of Independence
The Bill of Rights
The Constitution of the United States of America
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Things don't get, or can't be much clearer than that.
I’d be interested to hear the spiritual basis upon which the Second Amendment is ‘God-given’. If you’re a devout Sikh, yes; they have a religious basis on which to carry a knife.
I don’t remember anything in the Bible, Koran, Mahabarata, Bahadvadgita, Tao or Ba’ahai scriptures which permits the carrying of a weapon in public. Exception for your ‘well-organised militia’ is fair enough; at the moment we need armed forces and police.
@Cowboy
Here, here! You honor Mr. AuH2O and his fight against the deceivers.
Mr Huston you are right-on. Your take is the same as mine. In fact, it closely resembles what I have on my TEA Party website
http://northalabamapatriotsteaparty.com/
Duh!
I had to go back in my mind to the perodic chart to decipher your post. Now that was cool! I never heard that before. I might borrow it.
Speaking of that topic, I am reading a good book.
If Regan came from Goldwater, who was responsible then for Goldwater? Where really did Conservativism come from?
Mr Huston you are right-on. Your take is the same as mine. The same theme is espoused on our website.
http://northalabamapatriotsteaparty.com/
I got this from one of our Colorado Tea Party members, Kim R. Grice. Maybe it will help…………….
http://files.meetup.c...
I'll try to fix it! I'll be back!!
Where's OUR BG????
PRAY FOR GRIDLOCK!!!
Amazingly, the origins and purpose of all this chaos are predicted and accounted for in the best selling, prophetic, political Conspiracy Thriller book, BLACK ROAD 2012, which I bought on amazon, and was a real goose-bumpy, totally absorbing ride: http://tinyurl.com/amazon-BLACK-ROAD-2012
my my – we live in an age where information flows so quickly and profusely.
no – it's not a document like any the founders put together, but it does serve as evidence to the resurgence of conservative principles. i'm glad it's out there – whether imperfect or not.
it's easy to be a QB on monday morning, i'm thinking.
I just wish they would stop dressing up in Revolutionary-era costumes.
"….I just wish they would stop dressing up in Revolutionary-era costumes……"
Fugit, how about Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater? Are they too old?
Read Reagan's "A Time to Choose" speech, 1964, and Barry Goldwater's "The Conscience of A Conservative".
If you can't find these two works, let me know and I'll get you links.
WHERE'S THE BEEF? None of them seem to be willing to stick their necks out too far. FENCE SITTERS. It's safer for them to hide behind general principles and avoid the specifics. I thought it NeoConistic for them to mention, "It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world…".
Want to know the principles of a CONSERVATIVE-LIBERTARIAN?
Go to: http://files.meetup.com/1407914/The%20Conservativ...
A great campaign ad from the south west. This candidate speaks to allot of what all of us are thinking and know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbZhb7JhaXM&fe...
The link has been posted below, see Kim Grice comment.
TewaC,
Once again here you are commenting after someone spent their time to make a long, detailed BG posting. Perhaps you have too much time on your hands? Instead of sitting there commenting on websites all day have you attended your communities city council this week? Your communities school board meetings? Your communities county board or other community meetings? Are you a precinct committeeman or serving on any boards? Perhaps making yourself busy in your community will shield the rest of us from your prosaic blather?
Are you reading Upstream, by chance?
Not to mention, the proposed "Huston" statement completely leaves out the idea of the sanctity of life. Regardless of whether you believe abortion/euthanasia/all related topics to be a state or federal issue, it's still a core conservative doctrine.
No.
"The Reagan I knew", by William F. Buckley. it was his last book. There is a forward by his son that states: "…..if it hadn't been for Buckley, there wouldn't have been Goldwater, and without Goldwater there wouldn't have been Reagan."
I like that.
Everything is relevant.
………..and leave those friggen tri-cornered hats at the target range……
Before you buy this Mount Vernon "stuff", read Michele Malkin's bio of Grover Norquist who organized the recent
CPAC convention. He is an open-border/amnesty enthusiast and a Muslim supporter. Her column made me
led me to decide that any politician who signed this would never get my vote or money.
The first War for Independence took 8 years. This second war for our independence has barely begun. The 'enemy' is called 'Progressive' and has had 100 years to infiltrate and dig in. The exorcism starts in November.
[referring to Kane's 'Declaration of Principles'] I'd like to keep that particular piece of paper myself. I have a hunch it might turn out to be something important, a document…like the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and my first report card at school.
Jedediah Leland in Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, 1941
I concur. Read Buckley. Some of it is tough to slog through for a mere mortal, but it is inspired reading. I Just read one on the founding of the John Birch Society. Very different from what you hear from the MSM.
Had me right up until, "It is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion." You would claim a freedom for yourself and deny me mine.
And the following line would be better as "And that our Second Amendment rights are [inalienable] and cannot be infringed."
You are free to believe they are given by a supreme being, but the mundane matters of governance are for us the mere mortals to deal with, not for us to rely on anything outside of us to provide.
"So, naming this letter after George Washington’s estate seems a bit odd."
Actually, it's very revealing that "The Mount Vernon Statement" is so named (and I rely on your earlier referencing to George Washington, about which, I agree — he was mostly the "father" of this nation who, like a father, "kept the kids from beating up on one another" but was not the "author" of the nation as it's written, not singly, not single-handedly, that is).
It seems the Libertarian influx into those who now demand and insist that they represent the current GOP and who and what "Conservative" is, is well explained in that naming (Mount Vernon Statement).
It represents a political movement that is — my experience, Libertarians I am sure will not like what I am going to write here — imposing upon terms and a voting interest to essentially continue the Leftwing-ism drift by the GOP, such that "Conservative" no longer means to be Conservative but it is being insisted today to mean a highly damning movement of Conservativism.
Libertarians don't represent the majority of the general Right of voters but they continue to be the loudest, most insistent, most imposing in the pushiest sense of that term, element — Ron Paul's followers of the college ages at "48%" of the audience at CPAC, and CPAC itself pushing to exclude (and so they did) Social Conservatives. CPAC actually bragged prior to the event that they considered "purists" something offensive, to be excluded as if that was a righteous deed (it isn't, it wasn't, it won't be).
Libertarians aren't the majority on the Right, they are simply the least considerate of others, in my experience. They're not Conservatives, either.
While I agree with much of what you say, I have to take issue with your characterization of George Washington. First, he was indeed a man of ideas. While he did not write such verbose manifestos as Jefferson or the others, he spoke his ideas plainly and he lived them with integrity. His ideas were simply yet amazingly complex. "Idea men," as you call them, are highly overrated. They often flit between ideas and projects like hummingbirds on cocaine. Jefferson the great idea man was a failure as Secretary of State and as President. Hamilton likewise saw all his political intrique end with Burr. Lord save us from the philosophers and give us more men like Washington who expound traditional values and live accordingly.
You as with all citizens are free to exercise your concept of religion, even if that means not exercising such. That's the essence of what our Right, Freedom of Religion, is about: believe and practice as you will, and if your concept of religion is to not believe anything or practice nothing, then you're "Free" to do so.
Right you are, and right Michelle Malkin is about Norquist. As also about the misbegotten mess that the last CPAC was and why.
There were many credible speakers and believable, supportable individuals who participated, but, the organization of the event has taken a bad turn as also those who do the organizing of it. You're right as to how you describe Norquist…
As also the Libertarian-overtaking of CPAC10. Libertarians for the most part (Ron Paul, etc.) want an end to support ("aid") to Israel, support amnesty, want "drugs" legalized, borders eradicated, support amnesty for illegal aliens (actually oppose many of the "legal immigration" reqs., is why)…all in all, there's little to distinguish current Libertarian demands from those of George Soros.
The Poor Mans Manifesto?
Oh well, C'est La' Vie.
Poor folks have poor ways.
The longest journey begins with a single step.
Something that was Divinely inspired.
Absolutely!
I am not saying that Washington was empty of ideas. I am saying that his ideas and principles were not the leading kind but the guiding kind. His comportment and manliness was a symbol. But he did not craft the Constitution or the Declaration or any of our founding laws and principles. We needed him immensely, yes, but not to create our nation, only to give it a certain character and seriousness of purpose.
I understand what you are saying but I still must disagree. One must not underestimate Washington's Farewell Address. Many still considered it a clear and concise statment of the principles that should guide foreign affairs. Second, the authority and credibility Washington brought to the Constitutional Convention and to the Presidency were exactly what was needed to "create" our nation. Otherwise, many of the abstract ideas of Madison and others might not have gotten beyond the planning stage.
Conservatism must strike a chord with the youth – the future generations. Younger generations probably have no clue what Mt. Vernon is and may even presume it refers to the New York city, aka, Money Earnin' Mount Vernon.
George Washington had little to do with the success of America. Most will agree that if not for Illuminati-member Ben Franklin, this new country would not have gotten passed go! Plus, Madison even had more to do in making the Republic work then George Washington! I will say that George Washington was the ultimate politician though, even to marry a very rich widow to enable him to become President! Without a doubt, without the scientist, inventor, and very charming Benjamin Franklin; America would not even got started and he certainly was no angel!
You're generally quite wrong about George Washington. He was no politician and he was the first to declare that as so, going so far as to not seek the Presidency and to have to be convinced that if he served as such, the nation would be appreciative. Washington was a soldier and a farmer and all-round independent man who was brave enough and courageous enough to serve when it was necessary and lead when he was required.
But he was no politician in the sense of what you've described. His marriage to wife, Martha, was one of love and devotion and I am sure would have existed and persisted as it did regardless of Martha's possessions or lack thereof. George loved her, that's a fact.
It's interesting to watch the dissection of The Mount Vernon Statement. One wonders what the motive(s) are of those who criticize it. Does it fail to address some specific issue that a critic wishes to see expressed? Does it fail to take a swipe at another group, ie, fiscal v. social v. national security ? I've seen some curious blogs and had some surprising discussions with friends, all of whom seem to focus in on a particular point, or lack thereof, to, in my opinion, the extent of being nit-picky.
Why take the document for more than what it is? It seems to me to be a sincere and fairly well thought-out statement of principles which we, as conservatives, can use as a reference. I personally prefer its generality and inclusivity to a more specific one which might be exclusory of another lline of thought consistent with the principle that governments exist for a very limited purpose and should interfere in individuals lives, in whatever context, to the least extent possible.
You must be logged in to post a comment.