There’s a
question I’d like to ask candidates—presidential candidates have our attention
now, but it’s a question for anyone who asks to be allowed to lead us. I’d like
to ask: Are you conservative—and, if so, what is it you want to conserve?
Any typical
conservative is likely to say, “Yes, I’m conservative.” They may even believe
they’re conservative. So what we need is how they define it.
The GOP Presidential Candidates, including Perry and Walker, who have withdrawn from the race Image found here |
In
the Spherical Model, what we want to conserve—or, in large part, to restore—is freedom,
prosperity, and civilization. Let’s look at the specifics of what is conserved
in each of these spheres.
Political Sphere
We want to
conserve our freedom to live our lives, free from oppression. Government serves
that purpose only if it is limited to the specific tasks the people ask of it.
Otherwise government becomes the oppressor.
Our
founding documents give us some specifics. The Declaration of Independence
summarizes freedom this way:
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.
So our
life is protected, our freedom from coercion or slavery is protected, and our
choice to pursue a livelihood or live our lives as we see fit. This last
includes our right to own property and protect it.
The
Constitution outlines a government that would offer these protections. The
Preamble lists this limited government’s purpose:
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.
The body
of the Constitution spells out how a government can go about these limited
duties. But the founders believed it was necessary to spell out some of the
God-given rights in the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments, in case there
came a time when they weren’t quite so self-evident. Here are a few of the
rights government is particularly denied the ability to abridge, because in
their experience other countries regularly denied these rights:
·
Right
of freedom of religion
·
Right
of free speech
·
Right
to peaceably assemble
·
Right
to petition government from redress (sue the government)
·
Right
to bear arms
·
Right
to freedom from coercion to quarter soldiers
·
Right
to freedom from illegal searches and seizures
·
Right
to refuse to incriminate oneself, and to be free from double jeopardy
·
Right
to life, liberty, and property except following due process of law
·
Right
to just compensation for private property taken for public use
·
Right
to a speedy, public trial by impartial jury
·
Right
to freedom from excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment
·
Rights
enumerated to government are still retained by the people
·
Rights
not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the
States or to the people
If we’re
going to conserve our liberties, that means government does nothing to infringe
on our God-given rights. So government has no business involving itself in what
we believe or what we say, with the specific exceptions of when something we do
infringes on the God-given rights of others. What we need is to conserve our
Constitution, in its real form, not some penumbras invented by unelected
judges.
When these government powers are translated into current issues, the government should be seeing to the
strength of our sovereignty, the security of our borders, the limitation of
immigration to those who will contribute to our society and adopt our beliefs
in freedom. Our military should be strong, to protect us and our interests, in
a world in which enemies would rejoice in our ruination, and would gladly use
nuclear weaponry and terrorism for our destruction.
If
you’re listening to candidates, see if they have a commitment to
conserving/restoring our Constitution, and can enumerate some of these limited
duties of the proper role of government.
Economic Sphere
There’s a
simple way to prosperity: those who earn wealth get to decide how to spend it.
Government
doesn’t have much business being involved in the economy, except to protect our
property. Government duties do require some money. For the first century and a
half, that didn’t require any income tax. At first, doing all government needed
to do took $20 per person (modern dollars). And during war time, only a few
hundred a year. If the federal government did only what it is granted
enumerated powers to do, a flat rate of 10% would probably be far beyond
adequate.
Every
dollar government spends is a societal expense. Government can’t spend more
money to help the economy. When we have downturns in the economy, and everyone
says government has to do something—that something should be to get out of the way and let the recovery happen.
The budget
should primarily consist of military budget and FBI and other federal law
enforcement. Infrastructure is arguably a federal duty, so there could be some
budget for roads, dams, bridges, etc. Government offices and staffing could be
much much smaller than current levels. And, after my recent visit to Washington,
DC, I’m not against maintaining our national monuments and museums.
Charity
isn’t a duty of government; charity isn’t even possible by government.
Government charity is better labeled coercive taking of income from some to
give to others—or theft. Charity includes various helps for the poor: welfare
food and housing, health care, student grants, social security, and more.
Conservatives
don’t mean for these helps to be eliminated. But in a civilized society, those
in need receive help mainly locally, by those in contact with them, such as
churches and local nonprofits, from those who freely give. Charity means love;
it is entirely unrelated to forced income redistribution. If there is one thing
conservatives need to speak more clearly on, it is this better way to help
those in need. Our way is better for giver and receiver, and leads to greater
prosperity, rather than more poverty at the cost of lost freedom.
So, a
conservative not only wants small, limited government, but limits spending to
the proper role of government, leaving the largest portion of income to the
people who earn it.
This
conservative approach to the economy is the engine behind thriving prosperity
and unlimited innovation. A conservative gets out of the way of a productive
people, and does nothing more than protect the people’s wealth and their
freedom to pursue their work.
Social Sphere—Civilization
Elected
officials have power mainly over the political and economic spheres, but there
is also important work they can do in the social sphere—if they understand what
civilization requires, and they live those principles in their own life.
Civilization
requires a people accountable to God. Such people value family, innocent human
life, property rights, and truth. Such people respect one another and generally
live together in peace despite differences in belief and culture.
It’s
possible to live in a civilized society without believing in God, as long as a
person values the same things as the typical religious person. But civilization
(my definition) can’t grow and thrive without a critical mass that sees the
source of our rights as God, and sees our obligation to live God’s laws. It’s
great if non-believing individuals choose to live good, civilized lives. But
depending on their gut feeling as to what is right is precarious at best. The
authority has to be something bigger than the changeable individual. It has to
be the arbiter of Ultimate Good. God is the only source for that.
So, it’s
possible, at some levels, for civilized but unbelieving persons to be
electable. But at the national level, electing such a person is a bad idea.
Electing someone based on their particular religious affiliation or claim to
religiosity is also unwise. What we need to see is a person who turns to God
for direction, daily and regularly, and knows what inspiration looks like when
finding answers to serious questions. And we need a person whose life shows us
their consistency in valuing family, life, property, and truth. We need a
person with integrity.
A
religious person missing other ingredients is better than a nonreligious person
missing the other things. But it’s better to have a religious person who
understands how religious values lead to Constitutional principles and economic
freedom.
A
civilized religious person knows government should not be interfering with fit
parents’ decisions about the care, education, and upbringing of their children.
Such a person would value adoption for children born to unwed parents—exclusively
placing those children in the homes of married mother and father, because every
child is entitled to a married mother and father. Such a person sees no role
for the federal government in education beyond providing a resource for new and
proven ideas, and providing government documentation for history. Even state
and local officials must recognize the parents’ supreme role in decisions about
their child.
Family is
formed when a man and woman are lawfully married, with a permanent covenant, so
that children that come because of the union are raised by their parents. There
is nothing better economically and socially, in the aggregate, for children. A
good leader recognizes this basic truth, and doesn’t yield to media, propaganda,
and pressure from the savage end of society.
A conservative
leader recognizes that religion is not just a tolerated quirk of some minority
of the population; religion is an essential institution helping us understand
what our rights are, and what our obligations to one another are. The question
about forcing Little Sisters of the Poor, or Hobby Lobby, or bakers, florists,
and photographers to act against their conscience would disappear, if our
leaders appreciated the religious view of family, life, property, and truth.
A conservative
leader lives a life that shows commitment to family. Such a leader would have
no sexual scandals coming up from the near or distant past. Such leaders would
be so consistent that all those who know him/her would stand up to defend
against such an accusation, because they would know such an accusation is
inconceivable.
A
conservative leader gives charitably, privately. He/she tithes (ten percent of
income) plus more, regardless of income level.
A
conservative leader is honest and consistent, so that his word is his bond, and
everybody knows it. He doesn’t make behind-the-scenes deals in darkness. He
doesn’t engage in crony capitalism, either receiving “bribes” or offering them.
He’s not beholden to donors; anyone who would donate to him does it with the
clear knowledge that as an elected official he will vote based on principle.
So, the
answer to what we conserve ought to include clear evidence of understanding of
the Constitution and its purpose, strong commitment to the free market and
property rights, and strong personal religious practice that values family and
marriage, innocent life, and truth. And the answer must come naturally, as part
of the basic vocabulary, because the person is a natural conservator of
freedom, prosperity, and civilization.
It’s a
high bar. No presidential Democrat candidate meets it. Several Republican candidates fail. I’m looking
at the others, and praying for the best we can possibly get. Because that is
who we need more than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment