Professor Robert George of Princeton University is leading an effort to enable Americans to reaffirm the principles our country was founded on:
The American Principles Project
The United States of America does not need new principles. It needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These are timeless principles: truths that we hold, in Jefferson's immortal words, to be, "self-evident." They are, moreover, universal principles, not the historically contingent beliefs or customs of a particular sect or clan or tribe. They are rooted in the nature of man as a being who, by virtue of his God-given dignity and rationality, owns the right to participate in the great project of self-government as a free and equal citizen. Whatever others may say, we at the American Principles Project and all who join with us reaffirm the truthGo to their web site and join in. Posted by Ron Hebron at June 26, 2009 09:06 PM | Email Thisthat each and every member of the human family is, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."If these timeless principles are to be restored and our national commitment to them renewed, then a new voice is needed in American politics, a voice that is unafraid to stand up for what is right and speak out against what is wrong. Indeed, that "voice" must be nothing less than millions of American voices raised in unison in defense of political liberty and economic freedom, the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, and the sovereignty and security of our nation.That "voice" must be an informed voice. We must speak from an ever deeper understanding and appreciation of the blessings of freedom and the moral and political responsibilities that freedom entails. The American Principles Project has been created to help every citizen who truly wishes to be part of what our founding fathers called this great, "experiment in ordered liberty," to be an informed citizen, and thus someone empowered to make a difference.
Are we conservatives? You bet we are, if by a "conservative" one means a believer in the rule of law, democracy, limited government and respect for civil liberties, private property and the free market, equality of opportunity, the sanctity of human life, the protection of marriage and the family, and the defense of our nation's sovereignty and security. For us, these convictions are not platitudes. We are convinced that the renewal of our nation and the flourishing of our people vitally depend on making these historic ideals and commitments once again operative in the laws and policies by which we govern ourselves.
Our ancestors came from Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America . . . and from all over the globe. We practice many different religions. But we are united as Americans in our commitment to the wisdom and goodness of the principles upon which the United States of America was founded and in our willingness to act on these principles and defend them in the public square. We believe that the way forward, economically, politically, and morally, is to rededicate ourselves to those timeless self-evident truths.
What's not to like about that? So, I wandered over to the site to have a look.
And, of course, all I found was the same old tired right wing talking points and the same old partisan attacks. I really liked the piece on "Law and Moral Purpose", where the professor explains how government needs to stay out of our lives, except when we choose to live our lives in ways that aren't acceptable to him. I just love being lectured on morality by the same folks who gave us Foley, Craig, Vitter, Ensign, and Sanford!
And then there's the highly principled piece explaining why we can't close Gitmo. I mean, principles are important, but we also need to maintain a gulag beyond the reach of those principles of justice and universal human rights.
I guess yet another wingnut website won't hurt anything -- but I doubt if it's going to make the right wing more popular, or more electable.
Posted by: scottd on June 26, 2009 10:40 PMWhat makes you think that I care what you give a rip about?
Posted by: scottd on June 26, 2009 10:57 PMI'm dreaming of course...
Posted by: Jack Turk on June 26, 2009 11:16 PMOf course you are. You believe this is about the feeeeling of life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness and not the reality.
Your party gave away an immense amount of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness yesterday. Why wouldn't you be happy?
BTW Jack Turk, make a contribution more meaningful than what you profess to abhor or buzz off bozo.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 27, 2009 07:22 AMthis is a waste of time.
We have spent way too much time and squandered way too much credibility pointing fingers at the opposition for their sins while ignoring the problems in our own house.
For example, IF we truly believe in the sanctity of human life, then how do we ignore the culpability of Republican politicians who led us into a war in Iraq on false pretenses?
For example, IF we truly believe in the importance of marriage why aren't Republicans vociferously protesting the adulterous behavior of Ensign and Sanford?
Or why is it that the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich is viewed as a 'leader'?
Leadership on principle is not about holding your opponent accountable, but by holding your own accountable and modeling the principles in all we do.
We don't need another 'project' to restore American principles, we need to be principled in our own house.
The damage done by our repeated ignorance of the hypocrites in our midst does more to erode the principles which make this country great than Pelosi, Reid or Obama ever could.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 27, 2009 08:30 AMAs for telling Newt to shut up, will you issue the same call to Pres. Clinton? Or, for that matter, Sen. Kennedy?
We all do stupid things. We all fall short of our principles. We're all whitewashed graves, fresh and clean on the outside, but packed with corruption within.
I like the core idea of the website referenced. I would acknowledge, however, IMO it would be better if it ditched the attacks on "liberals" that are there from the onset.
How about standing FOR something, without at the same time TEARING down someone else?
That's my key point "amused" - I don't have a problem standing for traditional values and conservative principles. I would like to see more people do so and at the same time truly walk that talk.
I'd also like to see it done with compelling arguments and grace -- not bile, name-calling, and tedious bush-pelosi-chimp-commie-nazi retreads. And I see this over and over again from both left and right.
If we're going to discuss the original founding documents, how about working a little harder to produce some original thought?
Posted by: Jack Turk on June 27, 2009 09:12 AMMikeBoyScout does us the favor of illustrating accurately the nature of our national problem.
Those who continue to bang the idiotic drum of lies and inanity that MikeBoyScout has posted certainly prove Robert George's thesis; the United States of America does not need new principles, it needs renewed fidelity to the principles set forth in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Starting with simple truth telling would help, but that is well beyond us now.
MikeBoyScout is an aberration who has credibility only because our media has championed his brand of patently dishonest nonsense as a significant thread of discourse in America. He like many Americans, he lacks intellectual talent and is thus a follower. The media feeds him by lending his derangement credibility and encouraging his perversion. Those who lead him don't believe their own nonsense, but that doesn't bother him at all because he can be a part of the popular "progressive" movement whose definition is emptiness and the subjugation of human freedom in favor of "social justice and equality."
He cannot think rationally for himself so he substitutes endless talking points for reasoning, the only purpose of which is to equivocate and thus destroy meaning, subvert facts, and control people through the celebration of ignorance and fear. It gives pause to realize that MikeBoyScout's brand of rank inanity elected Obama and he is currently using this intentional stupid deceit to run America.
Clearly a large segment of our culture is as commonly perverted as MikeBoyScout; a sign of coming problems that will make the recent past pale in significance.
Thanks MikeBoyScout, I couldn't possibly have illustrated America's problems better.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 27, 2009 09:28 AMCorrupt conservatives
"Mr. Sanford's fall is not simply a Shakespearean tragedy. It is a reflection of the moral collapse of the conservative movement. The American right is permeated with sanctimonious hypocrites who talk like traditionalists but live like libertines. At its core, conservatism is not simply a set of beliefs; it is a way of life - one that is anchored in the natural moral order centered on faith, family and freedom. This is the conservative holy trinity. And it is now being defamed by its own high priests."
SOURCE: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/27/corrupt-conservatives/
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 27, 2009 09:29 AMSuch radical words! Where is the reliance on Government, where is the subservience to those in control of your life, where is the elevation of the select few over the masses? Clearly this cannot stand...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 27, 2009 10:03 AMhttp://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/
A fine website promoting traditional and conservative values based on the model of Edmund Burke:
The Institute is named after the illustrious 18th-century parliamentarian, writer and orator, Edmund Burke. Burke is commonly regarded as the founder of modern conservatism. In his speeches and writings, he articulated the concept of an organic society: a social order that is sacred, natural, historical and traditional. He believed that social change was best achieved when eschewing abstract thought divorced from experience; instead, he favored renewal of the polity in harmony with a regard for individual liberty, respect for the accumulated wisdom within existing institutions and a concern for the greater good of the community. His political theory can best be summarized by his most famous phrase: "Society is a contract between the past, the present and those yet unborn."
Sacred. Liberty. Respect. Tradition. Greater good.
Good stuff all. Thanks again for the link!
- Diane Feinstein
- Harry Reid
- Charlie Rangel
- Chris Dodd
- Barney Frank
- Roland Burris
- John Murtha
- Barack Obama
- Todd Stroger
- Tim Geithner
- Tom Daschle
- Nancy Killefer
- Kathleen Sebelius
- Hilda Solis
Need I go on? Those Democrat government officials with SELF-ADMITTED tax and law problems from just this year.
Now, you want to get back to the root of the discussion about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness or do you want to try to sling some mud? Because I can guarantee you it will not be pretty...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 27, 2009 10:11 AMIf conservatives want to hold an honest debate regarding the role of government and the direction of its policies, and if they can do so without questioning the morality or patriotism of those who disagree, then, more power to them. We need that kind of debate.
But that's not what Robert George presents. Go check out the site and tell me how it represents a "new voice". It's just the same old divisive right wing BS -- and it's not going to help the conservative movement win at anything.
Posted by: scottd on June 27, 2009 10:14 AMThe point is that it is NOT a "new voice"; rather it is a return to the original voices that built this nation.
What specifically do you disagree with? Do you believe in the sanctity of life? Do you believe in the absolute right to free association?
How about one concrete issue and we can start from there.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 27, 2009 10:37 AMthen a new voice is needed in American politics
And yes, Dan, I do believe in the sanctity of life -- I don't think I know anyone who doesn't. Conservatives would do well to stop implying that those who disagree with them don't respect life.
Posted by: scottd on June 27, 2009 10:45 AMThen what about abortion? How does that square with the sanctity of life?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 27, 2009 11:08 AMLiberals certainly do believe in the sanctity of life of the not-wanna-be mommy. For the defenseless child, not so much. Posted by: katomar on June 27, 2009 11:47 AM
Yeah, we get it there scottD, you are O.K. with boinking.
You don't care who political leaders who hold your welfare in their hands boink, probably because you don't mind who boinks your wife on the side, or who may have boinked your mommy when you were a kid that caused the divorce, or who your daddy boinked that gave syphilis to your mommy that made her hate Daddy, or whether your dentist boinks your daughter under anasthetic, or a caretaker boinks your grandma in the old folks home.
After all, it would be hypocritical "loathsome moralizing" to worry about "boinking" while you are currently boinking someone on the side.
if you read the text, the words -- they just aren't there.
in fact, let's go through this program one by one and see what is in the constitution, and what isn't:
believer in the rule of law:
well, the supreme court decided that IT had the final say on what's legal, but that decision itself isn't in the constitution anywhere.
Democracy: no, the senate is not democratic, it's not rule by the people, only states are represented in the senate, plus we have places like DC without any representatives in the senate. Plus originally only property owners, male, and white, could vote, there was NOTHING in the constitution saying the right to vote is fundamental, or had to be extended to those aged 18, or women, or blacks, all those things were done later.
Limited government: yes, it's there, not in those words, but in the enumeration of powers and the bill of rights.
Respect for civil liberties: again, this was not really a concept of the original constitution because it allowed denial of civil liberties to women, blacks, and so on. As for white males, yes.
Private property: no, the only limitation is, if you take it you have to pay. I don't recall the constitution saying the taking has to be for a public purpose, though, activist judges made up that requirement.
"the free market" -- not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
"equality of opportunity" -- um, constitution says only equal protection of the law.....and no, I don't believe it requires equality of opprtunity at all. We all seem to accept the notion (for example) that some will be born rich and some poor, and we know this means ineuqality of opportunity, and we're all to some degree okay with that.
"the sanctity of human life" -- no, nothing says it is "sacred" -- ti says it is to be protected.
Like most rights there were well understood exceptions, for example, you can kill in self defense, even thought that's not in the constitution.
Oh, and if the conservatives outlawed all abortion, nothing in the constitution requires us to punish everyone committing abortion with the death penalty.
So not sure what this vague phrase would mean.
"the protection of marriage and the family" -- is NOT in the constitution, only ACTIVIST judges made up some of those protections, like the ruling that the state can't ban contraceptives. The notion is you have a zone of privacy to create the kind of family you want, so you should have access to contraceptives. But this isn't actually in the constitution, activist judges made it up.
I suspect if a bunch of folks in California decided to ban all marriage, then activist judges in the US courts would say, hey, you can't do that, we see an implied right to have a family in the constitution.
"and the defense of our nation's sovereignty and security" -- yes, the constitution says the federal government is in charge of that. But again, activist judges have fleshed this out by finding all kinds of powers to be implied, too.
Bottom line scorecard: the notion that the constitution prescribes being conservative is false. Under our basic constitutional set up, there's plenty of room to argue for conservative principles on policy grounds, and there's plenty of room to argue for liberal principles on policy grounds.
And let's not forget half of what George Washington did was to enhance the value of his Ohio land...pretty corrupt, really...and Jefferson had someone on the side, too. He had sex with her and didn't marry her. So I'd say the attempt to argue we have to have our leaders be moral icons isn't really borne out by the facts of history, that is, if you think Washington and Jefferson are heros on a world historical scale, like I do.
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on June 27, 2009 12:07 PMAnd that's not treating their lives as "sacred"is it? Nossir, if you believe in the sanctity fo human life you would have to say "darn it all, we have to do away with the death penalty if we believe in the absolute sanctity of human life."
The point is, conservatives think that the number of errors is small enought that they don't count when balanced against the utility or benefit of having a death penalty.
In other words, conservatives are moral relativists who will sacrifice human life to achieve public policy purposes.
That's not treating life as absolutely sanctified; it's the opposite.
So neither side believes that life is "sacred" in taht way; we all have reasons why it's okay to kill (war, defense, insantiy, to some, even provocation is a basis for not dealing out the death penalty, recklessness ditto, and we all know someone will die if we build the Brooklyn Bridge but hey, it's worth it!).
OK back to studying how to put you all in reeducation camps, where you can study concepts like those stated above and repeat endlessly "I am TOO a moral relativist...I am TOO a moral relativist.......
aurevoir--
Posted by: Torture Lawyer on June 27, 2009 12:14 PMKeep it classy -- and enjoy chatting amongst yourselves. No one else cares...
Posted by: scottd on June 27, 2009 12:18 PMWhen some of us must work 80 hours a week just to feed our families, how can you have the nerve to call that freedom?
Let's assume those long hours are simply a consequence of having a family. By that logic, having a family deprives a man of his freedom. Are we really free if having a family deprives us of our freedom, if having a family results in our own economic enslavement?
What you're defending is freedom as defined by the employer-class. Freedom for working-class people is the freedom to have a family, to spend time with that family, to enjoy art, to enjoy our time on this earth. You must know very well that a person who must work 80 hours a week just to survive will have none of those things. Freedom in this case is synonymous with time.
Please, when you preach about freedom, be honest about whose freedom you're referring to.
Posted by: Hilary Smith on June 27, 2009 02:13 PMWhen some of us must work 80 hours a week just to feed our families, how can you have the nerve to call that freedom?
Let's assume those long hours are simply a consequence of having a family. By that logic, having a family deprives a man of his freedom. Are we really free if having a family deprives us of our freedom, if having a family results in our own economic enslavement?
What you're defending is freedom as defined by the employer-class. Freedom for working-class people is the freedom to have a family, to spend time with that family, to enjoy art, to enjoy our time on this earth. You must know very well that a person who must work 80 hours a week just to survive will have none of those things. Freedom in this case is synonymous with time.
Please, when you preach about freedom, be honest about whose freedom you're referring to.
Posted by: Hilary Smith on June 27, 2009 02:14 PMFirst, get back to the principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Voters have seen many Republicans who have campaigned on the conservative themes of lower taxes, less government and more freedom, and consistently failed to govern that way. Americans didn't turn away from conservatism; they instead turned away from those who faked it."
--- Mark Sanford: Prescriptions To Fix The GOP
SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/06/opinion/main4997022.shtml
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 27, 2009 03:55 PMPlease show me the words "right to privacy" within the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
Man-child Mike,
Why the concern over Sanford? It's just about sex... Not perjury, or graft, or corruption, or tax evasion, or...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 27, 2009 06:36 PMWhat are you ranting about now (as if you might know)?
MikeBoyScout wrote,
"Voters have seen many Republicans who have campaigned on the conservative themes of lower taxes, less government and more freedom, and consistently failed to govern that way. Americans didn't turn away from conservatism; they instead turned away from those who faked it."
There is considerable truth to this statement. Political courage is a rare and valuable commodity all too difficult to find.
Sanford's failure was not about sex and it was not hypocrisy but a lapse in character. He is paying by losing his credibility and future political fortunes. Denial and enforced failure is hypocrisy. Failure, contrition, resolve, accepting penitence, and seeking redemption are signs of character and human decency.
The reaction from the right has proven once again that however poorly some Republicans rule, the party itself values integrity and walks the talk. I'm far more concerned with the failures in judgment of Dave Reichardt than Mark Sanford. Sanford pulled a stupid personal move that hurt his family and damaged his credibility, but Reichardt proved himself an idiot who willingly backs insane policy. Where Sanford has lost ground, he can make amends, but Reichardt can never grow a brain. By voting like Darcy Burner, he became like her and we may as well have her.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on June 28, 2009 05:56 PMWho woulda thunk it?
SOURCE: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SC_GOVERNOR?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on June 30, 2009 11:51 AM