Conservative manifestos are provably false

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 11:23

The recently-signed Mt. Vernon Statement--a specifically anti-Obama document--is but a pale echo of the 1960 Sharon Statement, but they do share things in common, chief among which is that both are provably false.  The Mt. Vernon Statement, for example, claims that:

We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding.  Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

The most obvious lie here, of course, is that the Founders sought to "maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government."  This would be easily correctable if they had merely added "for white male property owners, or the equivalent as determined by the governments of the several states."

Jack Balkin has something to say about "The Mount Vernon Statement and the Declaration's missing word",  specifically:

That word is equality.

It is hard to speak of fidelity to the Declaration and to the Constitution without once mentioning equality as a central value behind the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration's most famous passage announces the self-evident truth is that all men are created equal. The framers of the Reconstruction Amendments specifically added an Equal Protection Clause to the Fourteenth Amendment to enshrine this value in our Constitution and to wipe out the legacy of a system that justified the enslavement of human beings in the name of limited government and states' rights.

From the Mount Vernon statement one would never know that a "new birth of freedom" occurred following a devastating Civil War, fought over the right of states to keep people in chains. This was a struggle over the very meaning of the nation which ultimately led to our country's Second Founding and the creation of three new Amendments that dramatically changed the nature of our Union. The central point of that Second Founding was to make the Declaration's promise of equality a central feature of our Constitution.

But conservatives don't really believe in equality, so it's altogether fitting that they ignore the "new birth of freedom" declared by Lincoln.  After all, the Southern-centered GOP and their conservative base no longer regards Lincoln as their favorite President. Ronald Reagan is more their style.

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.

And what is more, they went on to give Congress the power to do just that (Article 1, Section 8:):

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Conservatives really don't like that part of the Constitution, but it's obviously quite central to the whole purpose of having the Constitution in the first place.  And so they do what comes naturally to conservatives: They lie.
The Sharon Statement-the founding statement of the so-called "Young Americans for Freedom"--was much better written, but equally clueless.  Adopted on September 11 (I kid you not), 1960, it gave no hint whatsoever that it was written in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement that would soon finally achieve an end to legalized subjugation of black people in America.  The "freedom" these young conservatives celebrated was the slaveowner's freedom, not the slave's.

That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

What they mean by "economic freedom" is not that people are free from the barriers of economic oppression-being held in chains, being deprived of an education, being discriminated against, etc. Overcome those sorts of barriers is what the slave's freedom is all about.  No, the "economic freedom" the conservatives speak about is the slaveowner's freedom, to be left alone to do whatever he pleases with his property.  But history has clearly shown that the slaveowner's freedom is a great impediment to the freedom of others-not just in the prototypical case of slavery itself, but in all the similar forms that it takes, subordinating the general welfare-the promotion of which is an explicit Constitutional purpose-to wishes and whims of a few powerful individuals.

Moreover, by the 1870s, British liberals had become quite aware that their previous understanding of economic freedom was a hollow joke, producing vast legions of downtrodden urban poor, and so they began seeking another way to think about freedom, closer to that which slaves have always understood-freedom as a gaining of power for those at the bottom, not to be dominated from above, but to be lifted up by collective support for one another: in short, the New Liberalism of Britain, which 60 years later arrived in America in the form of the New Deal.

This is what the "Young Americans for Freedom" stood against.  It is what Grover Norquist stands against, with his wet dream of shrinking the government till it is small enough that he can drown it in a bathtub.  This is what the conservative movement opposes with all it's heart and soul-at least so far as the rhetoric goes.

As the Sharon Statement goes on to affirm:

That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation; that when it takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

History, of course, has decisively proven this wrong.  Market economies inherently tend to concentrate wealth, fail to employ all who wish to work, and ultimately tend to crisis and collapse. That is why there are no market economies anywhere in the world.  All economies are mixed economies, the only question is the nature of the mix.

But it's not just that an historical fact that conservatives would like to forget when writing manifestos. It's also something that conservatives themselves realize, when they are not writing manifestos. Consider some very telling questions among those asked semi-annually or more often by the General Social Survey since 1972.  Here are a set of four of them that deal broadly with the nature of some basic social needs and the role of government:

Text for 'HELPPOOR'

309. I'd like to talk with you about issues some people tell us are important. Please look at card BC. Some people think that the government in Washington should do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all poor Americans; they are at point 1 on this card. Other people think itis not the government's responsibility, and that each person should take care of himself; they are at point 5. a. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this?

Text for 'HELPNOT'

310. Please look at card BD. Some people think that the government in Washington is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private busienss; they are at point 5 on this card. Others disagree and think that the  government should do even more to solve our country's problems;  they are at point 1. a. Where would you place yourself on this  scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this?

Text for 'HELPSICK'

311. Look at card BE. In general, some people think that it is the responsibility of the government in Washington to see to it that people have help in paying for doctors and hospital bills; they are at point 1. Others think that these matters are not the responsibility of the federal government and that people should take care of these things themselves; they are at point 5. a. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this?

Text for 'HELPBLK'

312. Now look at card BF. Some people think that (blacks/negroes/African-Americans) have been discriminated against for so long that the government has a special obligation to help improve their living standards; they are at point 1. Others believe that the government should not be giving special treatment to (blacks/negroes/African-Americans); they are at point 5. a. Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you made up your mind on this?

So, who, exactly, lines up with the conservative philosophy of these manifestos, when asked the questions above?  It turns out, not a lot of people, except when race enters the picture:

And if you create a combined scale for all four questions, the number of people who say you're on your own in all four situations comes out to be just 2.4%

That's some powerful movement, no?  But even that is an over-estimate.  Because when you start to ask about specific issues in a battery of questions, support for things like "improving & protecting environment", or "improving & protecting nations health" are extremely robust. So robust, in fact, that even including the highly demonized term "welfare" in an index of six items-along with support for " improving the conditions of blacks" produces very high levels of support.  The other two items are " improving nations education system" and "solving problems of big cities".

How many people think we're spending too much on all six programs?  According the GSS, just 0.6%

Clearly, there is virtually no one who actually believes the conservative manifestos.  They all know the manifestos are lies.  But they're comforting lies... at least for those who find comfort in them.