I have now had a chance to read the Mount Vernon Statement through two times, having reviewed several passages even more than that. On the whole, am pleased with its direction. For such a short, succinct document, I do think it could have been better written.
Some of the lines sound downright clunky, more like a blogger hacking out a piece in the middle of the night to provide fresh content for his readers than writers crafting a document to define a moment in American conservatism. Expressions like “the priceless principle of ordered liberty” sound more appropriate for a MasterCard commercial than in a statement defining “constitutional conservatism” for the current generation.
That said, I’m pleased that the document focuses on unifying conservative principles and largely eschews divisive social issues, paying them lip service with references to morality, religious liberty, faith and virtue. Gay people are capable of living moral and virtuous lives while practicing our faith freely and respecting the right of others to do so a well. We can thus embrace the document as have a number of social conservative.
I particularly like that it strives to unite “all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles”:
It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
The document then delineates five core principles of “constitutional conservatism,” among them: honoring “the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.” I do like that emphasis on liberty–and free enterprise.
I expect I’ll sign it. It does seem a step in the right direction, but could use some language drawn from the Gipper’s first inaugural:
In short, the statement could use a little more Reagan, his ideas as well as his rhetoric.
When I first came to this country, i was told, “when you become a U.S. Citizen, you have to vote Democrat.” I asked why and they said, “because they give you free money.” Now that I’m older I ask, where does this money come from? Oh yeah, it comes str8 out of my taxes. But here is the kicker, when I was unemployed I did not qualify for unemployment, food stamps, medicaid NOTHING, yet, I’ve been paying taxes since I started working at 18. Thanks Big Government!!
You should be especially happy with this part:
After posting the link to the Mount Vernon Statement on my facebook page, my oldest son (college junior) commented that ‘firm defense of the family’ is code for discrimination against gays.
Glad he’s paying for his own education.
My response was ‘GLBT who have or want family may find common cause with conservatives’ in defending family (and all the rest).
Interested in your take on whether there’s anti-GLBT code in the statement, and on the defense of families, etc.
To Tony Perkins, yes, those words are probably code, but I don’t see how a normal person could read them as anti-gay. Do they really believe gay people want to undermine families, communities and religious institutions.
To be sure, some radical gay activists do want to do that. But, most gay people want to be part of their families, their neighborhoods, their communities, both secular and religious.
I’m sure many of the social conservatives who sign this are against gay marriage. Some would probably like to keep DADT in place as well.
Sort of sounds like our president who is working in a very circuitous manner to abolish DADT, and still states that marriage is between a man and a woman.
On the other hand, I’ve yet to see any blow back to Cheney for his comments about repealing DADT.
Well, you know, a lot of gays really DO want to undermine families. A lot of gays want to promote a sexual liberationist agenda which undermines monogamy and tradition.
How many gays know how to build a family? How to choose a partner and be loyal and faithful to that partner? How to raise children? How to support their elderly parents? How many gays know anything about building a family beyond “I got all my sistuhs with me?”
Don’t we see this very argument in the comments here frequently? You may qualify it as “radical gay activists”, but A) that’s not what people hear and B) Ashpenaz proves the point with his comment.
I’m hesitant to say it, but it would seem half of voting Californians agree.
Polls repeatedly show that conservative Republicans oppose same-sex marriage and antidiscrimination meausres the protect lgbt people from discrimination. I think your son is right — and “family” values has absolutely been used as an antigay slogan in the past. I have no doubt that Ed Meese does not believe that gay families are part of the families this document seeks to protect.
How many straight people know how to build a family? It is the biggest OJB training you will ever get
Are DA/DT and Gay Marriage the cornerstone issues of being a Gay Patriot?
Eh, this is the same kind of mushy vague nonsense I’ve seen from the left. It’s so vague and lacking in substance that just about everyone regardless of whether they are conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat or whatever could sign it. Yes, Tony Perkins undoubtedly thinks that the statement means SSM is anathema, but that’s not what the document says and I do not know many folks who oppose defending the family – whatever such “defense” may entail in their view. I far prefer the TEA Party-inspired “Contract from America”. It’s not that I agree completely with everything in that document but there’s enough there to have a serious engagement on the issues and for serious reform. The “Mount Vernon Statement” is all fluff which the American people have had enough of while the “Contract from America” is the substance we need to get the ball rolling – even if not everything in there is the best idea.
Yes tony, like all those evil conservatives in CA who voted for Prop 8.
Oh wait, facts getting in your way again.
Dan, you’re kidding right? Few opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 64 came right out and admit they were racists. Instead they had “rational” reasons for opposing the change, and used language that on the surface didn’t directly espouse racism, but it was there all the same. Points 1 and 2 are confirmed by Maggie Gallagher. Point three is validated by the push to include language in the gay marriage bills that exempt churches from honoring, or having to perform gay marriage.
Anyway, I’m with Brian Doherty @ Reason on this one. When I heard about this yesterday, my first thought was…. man, this is so trite. It’s been done to death. It’s the “Contract With America: Pt VI” or something. All this is doing is offering platitudes to appease the base, yet there is no concrete policy contained in the pledge that leads me to believe that the Republicans, once they have a majority again, will do much to actually shrink the size of government, or make the drastic cuts needed to bring the fiscal house in order.
Got to go have breakfast now.
To Tony Perkins, yes, those words are probably code, but I don’t see how a normal person could read them as anti-gay. Do they really believe gay people want to undermine families, communities and religious institutions.
To be sure, some radical gay activists do want to do that. But, most gay people want to be part of their families, their neighborhoods, their communities, both secular and religious.
Wow, that’s a pretty remarkable statement. There are some radical gay activists that DO want to undermine families and communities? Can you give some examples of who you’re talking about and the things that they’re saying? In all my life I’ve never heard a gay person argue that they want equal rights or gay marriage or anything for that matter so that they could undermine civilization.
I’m in full agreement with Jacob Sullum on this:
Wow Levi. I can’t think of any gay activists who declare they are superior to others and seek to drag ‘families and communities’ into their bright and shining future and fascism of the government ‘competing’ with business.
For those of us in reality, we know that the government ‘competing’ with business is actually the goverment destroying business.
So in other words, Levi, since your stated goal is to ‘drag us into the future’ and civilization is ‘the culture characteristic of a particular time or place.’ Look in the mirror and you’ll see someone trying to undermine and destroy civilization.
Wow, that’s a pretty remarkable statement. There are some radical gay activists that DO want to undermine families and communities? Can you give some examples of who you’re talking about and the things that they’re saying?
Yup.
To have our government define as “legitimate families” only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?
My personal favorite on that list:
Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner
Close behind is their argument that “marriage rights” should be given to single parents.
This all, of course, dovetails nicely with the Obama Party and its legal arm, the ACLU’s, beliefs.
The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults.
To Levi and the “progressive” movement, they just want benefits. They don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to “marry” whoever they want, or not even have another person involved, in order to receive societal benefits and recognition. It’s the classic case of bratty, spoiled children who want all of the perks without any of the responsibility.
NDT, you come off as the bratty, spoiled child. You’re building the same old strawman: “all the perks without any of the responsibility”. It’s obviously not true. These people want the perks AND the responsibility. Just because you can pick out a few nutjobs on the fringes doesn’t invalidate the core of the argument. The ACLU is dead on.
DRH, the ACLU loses me when they call marriage a right.
I know a couple stable poly homes (I know a lot more that fail, but that’s not relevant to the discussion). I also know that they have the right to associate as they please. They don’t have the right to demand the government recognize and carve out benefits for their plural lifestyle.