One of the local talk-radio wags was carrying on in the aftermath of Limbaugh trying to torpedo McCain as a danger to the Republican party. His name is Chris Core and he is on WMAL AM 630 here in the DC metro area, and on the internet. Conservative talk radio. The topic for the morning was defining conservatism. (Here's a link to what they came up with.) You can argue until you are blue in the face about a lot of things, and the local wag and his audience did a whole bunch of that. I started listening to him in the fall of 2000, when I moved down to Montgomery County, MD, right before the 2000 election. I stayed up all night the day after I started a new job watching election results. During the rest of the fall, the tapes of the Gore vs. Bush Supreme Court debate would be hot off the burner and Core would have them on. It was really fascinating stuff. I generally have to give Core some credit, as the discussions on his show are pretty lively, and he works okay with the callers.
There were two issues that had me wanting to chime in. The first, which did not make the creed, was "states' rights." "You gotta have states' rights on that list, Chris." "Oh, yeah, you can't be a conservative without believing in states' rights." He just made that statement when I dialed into the show - something I've never done, although I had a letter read on O'Reilly once - but got busy-signalled to death, then pulled into the doctor's office parking lot. (I mean, really, who listens to talk radio in the house??)
The second is the first bullet listed in the so-called conservative creed they came up with: the first responsibility of government is a strong national defense. Core kept trying to figure out the best way to talk about a strong military. You see just above what he settled upon.
Let's talk about "States' Rights" for a second. I'm going to go down this rabbit hole, because it's an important, pointy-headed Constitutional issue. First, only individuals have rights: the government has powers granted them by the will of the people, as enumerated in the Constitution. Let's all say "enumerated powers." Any issues with "States' Rights" are derived therefore from a discussion of power-sharing between levels of government. Neither local municipal, county, state, nor national governmental agencies have any rights, only powers. And, according to James Madison, the federal government - as delineated in the Constitution - operated directly on the individuals, with no intervening agency.
One can stop the argument right here, but let's go on, because I know what you'll say: but what about individual state sovereignty? Aren't the states sovereign, and don't they have some protection from the national government? Let's define sovereignty. Here's Wikipedia on Sovereignty: "Sovereignty is the exclusive right to complete control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other." Clearly, no state can match this definition, and, under our Constitution, can it. Here's Washington, writing during the period just before the Constitutional Convention of 1787: "Thirteen sovereignties, pulling against each other, and all struggling at the federal head, will soon bring ruin upon the whole." Surely, this most pre-eminent of our Founding Fathers must echo the intent for the national union.
The states were no longer sovereign once the Constitution was ratified. Under the Articles of Confederation, "each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence;" the Preamble the US Constitution states that "we, the people, in order form a more perfect union... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Within the national framework, our establishing document does not carve out a sovereign situation for the states. If one were to make a case, I would posit that any sovereignty implied in the Preable is shared at the moment of ratification only by the individual and the national government ("We, the people," and the "more perfect union," "the United States"). In 1777, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, speaking on Congress, declared that individuals, and not states, were the object of governmental care. He amplified that statement while a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, asking whether the government was to over men, or over imaginary conglomerations named states? The concept of "state sovereignty," he further declared, was "magic over logic."
However, there was a decades-long debate over the powers delegated by the people to the states by the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Any concept of States' Rights did not last past Reconstruction, when the national government made all of the rules for re-establishing state legislatures. Understand that at no time did the national government officially declare that any state had "left the union." The national government - Lincoln particularly - was adament that the states could not leave the union as they had no jurisdiction to do so: they had no sovereignty.
Let's cut to the chase on this one: the attempt to legitimize any so-called 'states' rights' was made by the SLAVE OWNERS in order to perpetuate OWNING HUMAN BEINGS. Any other entities that joined the SLAVE OWNERS did so from a narrow, interest group, perspective. The issue was resolved in the Civil War.
The modern discussion on "States Rights" is really an attempt by individuals, acting at times through state legislatures, to keep the national government from accruing non-enumerated powers to itself.
Phew! Ready for a break? No chance.
Let's remember a few things about our Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution. First, they were extremely capable political animals; Second, they understood a bit about grievances of the population and the recourse the people had in the face of governmental oppression; Third, they were breaking new ground in the face of foreign enemies who worked assiduously for their defeat - and knew it; Fourth they were guided by experience more than reason - they were extremely pragmatic; and, Fifth, they were mostly lawyers or businessmen who understood the power of words and contracts. Consequently, the document they wrote was pragmatic and explicit. Look at the Sixth Amendment: if the sum being contested was greater than $20 - $20! - then an individual had a right to a trial by jury. $20!!!! Washington's fortune at the time is estimated to be $500,000, making him one of the richest men in the nation. He and his bunch of revolutionaries dotted eyes and crossed tees in the Constitution to the tune of twenty bucks! Words meant a lot.
So, the second issue from the wags on the radio is that "a strong national defense is the first purpose of the federal government."
A strong national defense is not a purpose of our govenment, "providing for the common defense" is. "Strong" is an adjective not found in the Constitution. The Constitution is filled with nouns and verbs, Shalls and Shall Nots, not adverbs and adjectives. Neither is national defense the primary purpose of national government. The Preamble to the Constitution lists these as the functions of the national goverment:
1. Form a more perfect union
2. Establish justice
3. Insure domestic tranquility
4. Provide for the common
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty to [themselves] and [their] posterity
These fellows made a list in certain order for a reason. The First Amendment came first for a reason, and the Second for another, but that's fish to fry on a different day.
My beef with the wags on the radio was mostly about the fellow trying to explain why providing for the common defense was or is a critical function of the government, although my understanding of this being a cornerstone of conservatism is not very clear. Obviously, only a sovereign nation can perform those duties listed by the Preamble. Equally obvious is the need of guaranteeing such sovereignty, whether by crafty treaties or by carrying a big stick. So I would put on that fellow's conservative creed "Ensuring the sovereignty of the United States by whatever means available is an essential government function." The United States did not have a "strong" national defense at any time by world standards at any time other than, perhaps 1864-65; 1917-1918; or 1943 onwards. We were eyed as having a weak military throughout our history. In fact, during Jefferson's administration, we paid tribute to North African pirates!
Despite an always-strong military, the United States had maintained its sovereign status, with each President taking the actions required at the time, some more successfully than others, but all of them, in the whole, successful.
Which leads me back to my starting point, Conservatism, and what we call conservative today. Most folks seem to accept that "modern" conservatives are what used to "classically" be called "liberals." Whatever. Traditional conservatism means favoring gradual change and tradition. I don't see any need to go much farther than that.
"A political philosophy based upon individual liberty, property rights, national sovereignty, and a strict, textual interpretation of the Constitution. Specific policy for governmental action in such a philosoply would be limited to achieving the specific purposes of the government as enumerated in the Preamble to the Constitution, and in the Constitution's Articles and Amendments."
