rules for conservative radicals

8/9/2019 RULES FOR CONSERVATIVE RADICALS

1/94


2/94

Rules forconservative

radicals

How the Tea PartyMovement Can Save America

W H PPOWDER SPRINGS, GEORGIA

D R . D AVID L . G OETSCH&

D R . A RCHIE P . JONES


3/94

rules for conservative radicals

How the Tea Party Movement Can Save America

by Dr. David L. Goetsch & Dr. Archie P. Jones

Copyright © 2012 White Hall Press. All Rights reserved.

Produced and Distributed by:

W H P3150A Florence RoadPowder Springs, GA 30127

www.WhiteHallPress.comwww.PatriotDepot.com800-651-0211

ISBN: 978-1-4675-0258-0

Cover design by Joseph Darnell

Printed in the United States of America.


4/94

Introduction 1

S O :

Advocate for Limited Government 11

S T :

Support Initiatives to Reduce Taxation 22

S T :

Insist on a Free-Market Economy 28

S F :

Encourage Individual Liberty 39

S F :

Require Personal Responsibility 43

S S :

Support Military PreparednessAnd a Strong National Defense 60

S S :

Restore Constitutional Sovereignty and Integrity 68

C O N T E N T S


5/94


6/94

1

IntroductionTe ea Party:

Voice and Vehicle for Restoring First Principles

America has arrived at a critical juncture inits history. As a nation, we can either reverseour current course—one that leads to a country ofthe government, by the government, and for the

government—or we can chart a new course thatwill, once again, be guided by the principles forwhich our Founders pledged their lives, fortunes,and sacred honor.

For 200 years or so, America’s prin-

ciples of liberty and equality, of consent, of religious liberty and private property, of the rule of law and consti-tutionalism have been under attackin the name of history and science

and relativism, in favor of evolvingtruths, living constitutions, and bu-reaucratic government, through the


7/94

rul es fo r c onse rvat ive ra d i cal s2

Progressive movement and the New

Deal, the Great Society, and now intothe age of Obama. 1

Te key to turning America around andcharting a new course is to revive the rst prin-ciples applied by the Founders in carrying out thegreat experiment that became the United Statesof America. Tose rst principles include: limitedgovernment, low taxation, a free-market econo-my, individual liberty, personal responsibility, a

strong national defense, and constitutional sover-eignty. Te ea Party Movement came into beingbecause Americans of all stripes who believe inthese principles were concerned that they no lon-ger had a vehicle for making their voices heard.

Te Democrat Party has become the party ofstatism and socialism. Te Republican Party of-ten resembles nothing more than a slightly to theright version of the Democrat Party, controlledby moderates and RINOs (Republicans In Name

Only). As a result, those who believe in the prin-ciples upon which America was founded hadcome to feel voiceless. Tis feeling contained the


8/94

How the Tea Party Movement Can Save America 3

seeds of what became the ea Party movement.

Rather than sit back and watch the country driftever closer to the point of no return on a riverof statism, entitlement, and government tyranny,Americans in all walks of life came together toturn the ship of state around. Tese patriots whostill believe in the rst principles of the Foundershave come to be known as the Tea Party .

ea Party patriots are political conservativeswho reject the big government policies of thosewho illogically call themselves “progressives.”If the American left is progressive, then what isprogress? Is ignoring the Constitution’s limits onthe federal government progress? Is bankrupt-ing the American economy progress? Is using

government entitlements to buy political sup-port progress? Is promoting a victim mentalityprogress? Is perpetuating racial strife progress? Istransforming America’s public schools, colleges,and universities into centers of leftist indoctrina-

tion progress? ea Party patriots and other con-servatives have the same answer to each of thesequestions: a resounding “No!”


9/94


Alexis de ocqueville, a French dignitary,

warned about the despotism of big government,or what is now referred to as nanny government.In an article for the Heritage Foundation, Mat-thew Spalding summarizes where so-called pro-gressives are taking America:

Where we are tending is a governmentthat does more, spends more, andregulates more and more. Our politicsis covered by an intricate web of poli-cies and procedures, rules and regu-lations, driven by growing streams ofmoney from Washington to every stateand locality, thousands of private andnonprot organizations, and millionsof individuals. As a result, growingnumbers are dependent on govern-ment benets and entitlements. Te American people are becoming more subjects of the state than self-govern-ing citizens. 2

What Spalding describes is not at all what theFounders had in mind when they wrote the Dec-laration of Independence and, later, the Consti-


10/94


tution and the Bill of Rights. Te Founders were

committed to securing their independence fromGreat Britain and establishing a new country thatwould provide its citizens economic opportuni-ty, religious freedom, and individual liberty. TeFounders knew that establishing such a countrywould require a structure that limited govern-ment, required only minimal taxation, demandedpersonal responsibility, benetted from a free-market economy, and enjoyed constitutional sov-ereignty. Tey soon learned that bringing their vision to fruition would also require military pre-paredness for a strong national defense. Teseare the rst principles that ea Party patriotsand other conservatives believe should still guide

public policy in America.Te ea Party can play a critical role in sav-ing America from the false, destructive, socialis-tic principles and policies of the left by being the vehicle and the voice for a re-birth of conserva-

tism based on the rst principles of the Found-ers. Encouraging, equipping, and empowering

ea Party patriots and other conservatives to


11/94


work together to save America is the purpose of

this book. Tere are many things ea Party pa-triots and other conservatives at the grassrootslevel can do to wrest control of the socio-politi-cal dialogue in America from the socialistic gripof “progressivism” and, in turn, reverse our na-tion’s present downhill course.

Te things ea Party patriots and other con-servatives can do to save America include recruit-ing others to the cause through on-going com-munity outreach, providing tools and resources,conducting educational activities, sponsoringrallies and other public events, offsetting the ne-farious inuence of the mainstream media andHollywood elites by communicating the truth to

Americans on a continual basis through radio,television, and the Internet, and keeping constantpressure on the Republican Party to move to theright in developing its political platform, select-ing candidates for elective office, and governing

our country. All of these tactics should be rmlygrounded in and guided by the rst principles setforth by the Founders.


12/94


We do not recommend or suggest that the

Tea Party become a formal political party oreven run its own candidates for office. We be-lieve one of the greatest empowering assets ofthe ea Party is that it is not a political party. Webelieve further that much of its strength derivesfrom the fact that there is no single entity thatcalls itself “Te ea Party.” Rather, just as theoriginal ea Party patriots were a loosely con-nected coalition of like-minded Americans com-mitted to doing their part to put off the tyrannyof King George, the contemporary ea Party is anationwide collection of patriots determined tosave our country from the tyranny of disastrousleftwing government policies—statist polices

that, if not reversed, will eventually blossom intosocialism just as surely as a certain cute and cud-dly puppy grows up to become a dangerous andsnarling pit bull.

Conservatives have the moral high ground

and should use it wisely to save America from thegrowing grip of socialism. Te left’s propensityfor cloaking unethical practices such as legalized


13/94


theft in the attering robe of “fairness” is a lie and

a sham. In short, it is immoral. For this reason,ea Party patriots and other conservatives must

make more than just practical arguments againstthe left. We must also make moral arguments.Practically speaking, statism, socialism, andbig government do not work. Morally speak-ing, they are wrong.

o assist ea Party patriots and other conservatives who are concerned about America’s pres-ent course, we have developed seven broad strat-egies that are based on the rst principles of theFounders as set forth in the Declaration of Inde-pendence and the Constitution. Tese strategieswill help ea Party patriots and other conserva-

tives make practical and moral arguments againstliberals who are taking advantage of the pooreconomic conditions they have created to panderto those most affected by these conditions. Us-ing such tactics as the deceitful rhetoric of social

justice, redistribution of wealth, and class envy,liberals are trying to divide Americans and turnus against each other. Consequently, it is up to


14/94


15/94


him to put his life on the line ghting against the

biggest, best-trained, best-equipped army in theworld, Preston replied: “What we meant in goingafter those Redcoats was simple. You see, we hadalways governed ourselves, we always intended togovern ourselves, and they didn’t mean that weshould.” 3 Te simple logic of a simple man is po-etically eloquent in expressing why we believe thecontents of this book are important for modern-day patriots who, like Levi Preston, are committedto governing themselves.


16/94

11

STRATEGY ONE Advocate for

L G

Due to the economic and nancial excesses ofliberals in the White House and Congressgoing back at least as far as President WoodrowWilson, conservatives have become more vocalabout the concept of “small government.” Con-

servatives use the term frequently in political dis-course and understand precisely what they meanby it. We also understand what is meant by con-servatives who use the term “small government,”but suggest it is more accurate and advisable to

use the term “limited government.”We emphasize the need for accurate terminol-

ogy because liberals have a well-earned reputationfor twisting the language to suit their agenda. Forexample, we are accustomed to hearing liberalsmake such statements as: “If you conservatives re-ally want small government, why not just eliminate


17/94


the military?” Of course, eliminating the military

would shrink the size of government and pleasemany liberals, but it would also leave America un-defended against enemies bent on our destruction.It’d be better to preempt liberals from the outset byusing precise terminology.

When conservatives use the term “big gov-ernment,” they mean unlimited government —government that has grown too big and is proneto grow even bigger. When they use the term“small government” they mean government thatoperates within the specied limits of the Consti-tution. In other words, they mean limited govern-ment . Te limits established by the drafters areenumerated in the various articles that make up

the Constitution and claried by the Bill of Rights,especially the Ninth and enth Amendments.Te Ninth Amendment species that the rightsof the people do not have to be enumerated in theConstitution. However, lest this amendment lead

to opportunistic interpretations—precisely thekind liberals are noted for—the drafters addedthe enth Amendment, an amendment liberals


18/94


have spent the last 100 years ignoring. Tis nal

amendment in the Bill of Rights species that anydelegated powers of the federal government areauthorized to be performed only if such powersare expressly and specically delegated to thefederal government by the Constitution. Te fed-eral government is allowed to do certain enumer-ated things and is not allowed to do what is notspecically delegated to it by the Constitution.Some powers are forbidden to state governmentsby the Constitution; but the rest of the powers—and by far the majority of them—are reserved tothe states. Te federal government that exists to-day has so far exceeded its enumerated powers asto not even resemble the government set forth in

the Constitution.Te federal government is too big because ithas grown beyond the scope of its Constitutionalboundaries. What was intended by the Foundersto be a limited federal government that carried

out specic enumerated duties has, over time,become an unlimited monstrosity that goes wellbeyond its enumerated duties and any reasonable


19/94


interpretation of the duties that were not enu-

merated. Minor cuts to entitlement programsand minimal economic adjustments will nolonger suffice. Americans must demand a major restructuring of the federal government anda downsizing of the public’s expectations of gov-ernment. What follows are our recommendationsfor “right-sizing” the federal government. eaParty patriots and other conservatives should beable to articulate these recommendations.

Recommendations for ProperlyLimiting Government

Visit Washington, D.C. and you will see monu-ments to history, monuments to art, and monu-

ments to waste. In fact, the monuments to his-tory and art—as massive in scale as they are—aredwarfed by the monuments to waste: a multitudeof unnecessary and unconstitutional departmentsof the federal government.

Federal spending is soaring, and gov-ernment debt is piling up at morethan a trillion dollars a year. Official


20/94


projections show rivers of red ink for

years to come unless policy makersenact major budget reforms. Unless spending is cut, the United States isheaded for economic ruin. In recentdecades, the federal government has

expanded into hundreds of areas that should be left to state and local gov-ernments, businesses, charities, andindividuals. Tat expansion is suck-ing the life out of the private economy

and creating a top-down bureaucrat-ic society that is alien to Americantraditions. Cutting federal spendingwould enhance civil liberties by dis- persing power from Washington. 4

To balance the federal budget, Congressmust reduce spending by approximately onetrillion dollars a year for the next ten years —nosmall challenge. Strategies for making the neces-sary reductions are as follows: 5

• Department of Agriculture. End all farmsubsidies, cut food subsidies by 50 per-cent, and end all rural subsidies. Tese


21/94


cuts will save approximately $87 bil-

lion annually and reduce the behemothDepartment of Agriculture to a minorgovernment office. Making the recom-mended cuts will begin the process ofeliminating the Department of Agricul-

ture altogether.• Department of Commerce. End all tele-

communication subsidies and economicdevelopment subsidies. Tese cuts willsave approximately $3 billion annually

and transform the Department of Com-merce into a minor government office.Further, making the recommended cutswill begin the process of eliminating theDepartment of Commerce altogether.

• Department of Defense. Reduce the De-partment of Defense budget by a reason-able $150 billion rather than the hugeand unreasonable $500 billion reductionrecommended by liberals in Congress

and the White House. Tese cuts couldbe proportionately absorbed by the vari-ous branches of the military without


22/94


threatening the viability of America’s na-

tional defense.• Department of Education. Eliminate

the Department of Education and all ofits entitlement programs forthwith fora savings of approximately $86 billionannually.

• Department of Energy. End all subsidiesfor energy efficiency, vehicle technolo-gies, electricity research, and nuclearenergy. Also eliminate the technologyloan program and fossil energy research.Privatize the power marketing adminis-trations. Tese cuts would save approxi-mately $21 billion per year and reducethe Department of Energy to a minorgovernment office.

• Department of Health and Human Ser-vices. he following actions will reducethe federal budget by approximately$353 billion annually: freeze spend-ing on Medicaid, repeal Obamacare,increase Medicare premiums, reducenon-Medicaid state and local grants


23/94


by 50 percent, cut the Medicaid pay-

ment error rate by 50 percent, increaseMedicare deductibles, and enact tortreform. hese cuts will reduce the De-partment of Health and Human Ser- vices from a mutating giant to a minor

government office.• Department of Housing and Urban De-

velopment. Eliminate the departmentand all of its entitlement programs forth-with for an annual savings of approxi-

mately $61 billion.• Department of Justice. End all state and

local grants for an annual savings of ap-proximately $5 billion.

• Department of Labor. Eliminate all fed-eral employment and training programs, job corps, community service for se-niors, and trade adjustment assistancefor an annual savings of approximately$9 billion. Making these cuts will beginthe process of eliminating the Depart-ment of Labor altogether.


24/94


• Social Security Administration. Just a

few cuts to this gargantuan federal pro-gram will save the federal governmentapproximately $86 billion annually with-out endangering the nancial security ofseniors currently collecting social secu-

rity. Te necessary cuts include the fol-lowing: price indexing of initial benets,increasing the normal retirement age,and reducing the disability program by10 percent.

• Department of ransportation. By end-ing all urban transportation grants,privatizing air traffic control, endingrail subsidies, and privatizing Amtrak,the federal government can save ap-

proximately $15 billion annually andreduce this department to a minor gov-ernment office.

• Department of the reasury. wo simpleadjustments in the budget of this depart-

ment will save the federal governmentapproximately $46 billion annually: cutthe earned income tax credit by 50 per-


25/94


cent and eliminate the refundable part of

the child tax credit. Tese cuts would betemporary measures on the way to re-placing the entire tax code with a at tax.

• Miscellaneous Reductions. In addition tothe specic budget reductions recom-mended above, the federal budget canbe reduced by another $98 billion annu-ally by making the following miscella-neous cuts: reduce civilian governmentemployee compensation by 10 percent,

cut foreign aid by 50 percent, cut NASAspending by 50 percent, privatize theArmy Corps of Engineers, repeal theDavis-Bacon Labor rules, end all EPAstate and local grants, end foreign mili-

tary nancing, end all subsidies for theCorporation for Public Broadcasting,end all subsidies for the Corporation forCommunity Service, privatize SA, andeliminate the Neighborhood Reinvest-

ment Corporation.Te sum of the various budget reductions

recommended here would balance the feder-


26/94


al budget in ten years and result in a savings to

American taxpayers of approximately $1 trillionannually. By making the recommended budgetreductions—and only by doing so—can Americareturn to the limited government described inthe Constitution. Making the types of changesrecommended in this strategy will require cour-age, perseverance, and determination on the partof America’s elected officials, things that are typi-cally in short supply inside the beltway. Conse-quently, ea Party patriots and other conserva-tives must be prepared to do what is necessary toput some steel in the spines of elected officials andto replace the ones with steal in their hearts.


27/94

22

STRATEGY TWO

Support Initiatives to

R

Liberals, statists, and socialists have this incommon: they love to spend other people’smoney. Tis is why British Prime Minister, Mar-garet Tatcher, once said: “Te problem withsocialism is that you eventually run out of other

people’s money.” ry this experiment: Engagea liberal in a conversation about taxes. Ask theliberal how much taxation is enough. In all likeli-hood he will not be able to give a coherent answer.Tis is because for liberals no amount of taxation

is ever enough. Consequently, a constitutionalamendment to limit federal government taxationand borrowing is necessary.

Conservatives, on the other hand, can easilyanswer this question: Te proper level of taxationis the minimum level needed to support the gov-ernment as established in and limited by the Con-


28/94


stitution. Tat level of taxation, by the way, would

be substantially lower than the one Americans arecurrently burdened with. ea Party patriots andother conservatives must be able to articulate thecase for lowering America’s tax burden.

Articulating the Case forLower Taxes

As a consequence of the tax-and-spend mentalityof liberals in Congress and the White House, the

federal government has become a bottomless pitinto which liberals, statists, and socialists are con-tinually throwing more money. Tis bottomlesspit simply cannot be lled, no matter how highthe tax rates are set. Tis being the case, what

should conservatives say to those who do notunderstand the benets of lower taxes for allAmericans? Te following facts will help to ar-ticulate effectively the case for low taxation: 6

• Current tax laws encourage people toavoid the taxable economy. For exam-ple, in May 2012, Facebook co-founder,Eduardo Saverin, decided to give up his


29/94


U.S. citizenship and move to Singapore

to avoid paying America’s ridiculouslyhigh capital gains taxes on the almost $4billion he was scheduled to receive fromFacebook’s IPO. Saverin is just one ofmany. Te number of people renouncing

their citizenship to avoid taxation is nowmore than seven times what it was whenPresident Obama entered office. Manymore Americans evade taxes by becom-ing part of the underground economy or

simply working less.• High taxes bleed off precious dollars

American businesses need to investin technology, innovation, and expan-sion—the keys to global competitive-

ness and job creation. oo much of themoney American businesses need toreinvest in their on-going improvementand development winds up in Washing-ton, D.C., where it is frittered away on

liberal social programs that do nothingto make America stronger and very littleto help the people for which these pro-grams were created.


30/94


• Te costs to businesses and individuals

are not limited to the taxes themselves.Tere is the additional time and ex-pense being wasted trying to interpretand comply with a huge, confusing,ever-changing tax code, which even IRS

personnel do not fully comprehend andthat results in almost half of all Ameri-cans paying zero taxes. Economists es-timate that compliance and administra-tion costs add 20 cents to every dollar

businesses pay to the government intaxes. Te costs of administration andcompliance are just two of several goodreasons for eliminating the current taxcode and replacing it with a at tax,

protected by a constitutional amend-ment limiting the percentage.• America’s tax code is inherently unfair

and skewed (not what liberals mean bythe term, but truly unfair in that some

pay too much and many pay nothingat all). Under the current code, the topve percent of taxpayers pay more than60 percent of all taxes collected by the


31/94


federal government. Tis means that

ve percent of Americans are carry-ing the bulk of the load for the other 95percent—a fact that is wrong both prac-tically and morally. Ironically, Americancitizens who live on government entitle-

ments contribute nothing to the nanc-ing of those entitlements. Te majorityof businesses in America earn $250,000a year or less, yet collectively these smallbusinesses are the backbone of the econ-

omy. Small businesses account for 95percent of new jobs created, yet they arehurt the worst by the current tax code.

• High taxes take the incentive out ofworking. Why work when you have to

turn most of your income over to thegovernment in the form of taxes? Studieshave shown that as tax rates increase, thenumber of hours worked decreases. Forexample, studies have shown that highly

taxed Europeans work 50 percent lessthan their American counterparts. Tisfact helps explain why Europe lags be-


32/94


hind Japan, Korea, and the United States

in productivity.• Lowering taxes creates jobs because

businesses will contract for services, invest in new technologies, invest in innovation, and hire specialists. Raising taxeshas the opposite effect.

• Because of over-taxation, Americans nowpay more in taxes than they do for food,clothing, and medical care combined.Tis is a moral outrage. President JohnF. Kennedy summarized the problem ofhigh taxation in these words: “An econ-omy hampered by restrictive tax rateswill never produce enough revenues tobalance our budget—just as it will neverproduce enough jobs or prots.”


33/94

28

STRATEGY THREE

Insist on a

F -M E

Afree-market economy exists when peoplecan buy and sell goods and services with-out restrictions, limitations, or inhibitions fromoutside sources concerning value and price. TeAmerican economy was intended to be a free-

market economy and began that way. However,as the country grew, so did government and biggovernment is the mortal enemy of free-marketeconomics. Moreover, the growth of governmentwas spurred far more by the growth of socialistic

thought and propaganda than by the real needs ofhistorical circumstances. Government inevitablybecomes the outside source that limits the free-market. It does so through unnecessary and bur-densome regulations and policies.

As things stand today in America, virtuallyevery transaction for goods and services is


34/94


limited—directly or indirectly—by govern-

ment regulations. In fact, the federal govern-ment—through the promulgation of a multitudeof regulations—has inltrated every aspect ofAmerican life. Te constricting tentacles of gov-ernment regulation have choked the freedom outof America’s free market. ry to envision whatGeorge Washington or Tomas Jefferson—bothgentlemen farmers—would think if they some-how learned that a mother in today’s over-regu-lated America cannot purchase raw milk for herchildren without fear of prosecution. America’sFounders would be aghast to learn that some typeof government regulation now applies to everymarket transaction taking place in the country.

When a nation over-regulates and allows thegovernment rather than the free-market to beits economic engine, it has slipped into statism,and statism is an intermediary step on the wayto socialism. Many of the economic problems

America now faces can be traced—directly or in-directly—to its retreat from the free-market andits growing acceptance of statism. In modern


35/94


America, the government stands between buyer

and seller, dictating terms in every transactionfor goods and services. America’s free markethas been replaced by a government market andthe situation worsens daily.

Statism has been creeping into the Ameri-can psyche for a long time, but during PresidentBarack Obama’s rst term in office, it took a greatleap forward and gained momentum, therebydraining even more individual freedom out of thefree-market. Milton R. Wolf—a cousin of Presi-dent Obama and a board-certied diagnostic ra-diologist—describes the economic crisis createdby President Obama and his fellow conductors inCongress in this way:

America has become a train withtoo many cabooses and not enoughengines, and our government is rid-ing the brakes with anti-competitivetaxes and regulations. We cannot

hope to re-establish our AAA creditrating until we once again start be-having like a AAA nation. Welcometo downgraded America. 7


36/94


Historical Perspective on theFree-Market in America

America’s War for Independence was largelyfought to protect the property rights of Ameri-cans against repeated violations by the King of

England and Parliament. Te rst and last of the Federalist Papers —the authoritative commentaryon the intentions of the framers of the Constitu-tion—show that the intent of the framers was toprotect republican government, liberty, and prop-erty. Federalist Number 10 , the most important ofthe essays concerning ratication of the Constitu-tion, reveals that the government of the UnitedStates was designed to protect justice and libertyby protecting private property against the unwiseand unjust actions of a ruling majority or a vocalminority. Private property rights are an essentialcomponent of a free-market economy.

One thing that becomes immediately clear

from even a cursory reading of Te Federalist Pa- pers is that America’s framers rejected the kind ofperversions of justice that modern-day liberals pro-pose in the name of “fairness.” Liberals believe the


37/94


federal government has the right and the authority

to take property (money) from selected Americansand “redistribute” it to other Americans. But Fed-eralist Number 10 makes it abundantly clear that justice consists not of articially redistributing private property but protecting it from redistribution.In a free market economy, property is acquired inan unequal manner because the amount of talent,effort, and ingenuity put into its acquisition is in-herently unequal. In other words, some people arewilling to work harder, longer, and smarter thanothers, and the fruit of their labor must be protect-ed. Tis is justice—true fairness—as envisioned bythe Founders.

Writing for the Heritage Foundation, Kim

Holmes and Matthew Spalding explain the con-nection between liberty and economic freedomwith these words: “Economic freedom is a crucialcomponent in liberty. It provides individuals withthe ability to prot from their own ideas and la-

bor, to work, produce, consume, own, trade, andinvest according to their personal choices. It isnecessary for self-government.” 8


38/94


In other words, economic freedom is essen-

tial to entrepreneurship, business innovation,commerce, and economic development. Withouteconomic freedom these things are not possible.And, as the framers of the Constitution knew,without economic freedom, liberty and justiceare not possible. Holmes and Spalding continue:

Te American Founders always hada keen sense of the importance of eco-nomic freedom and the extent to whichit is intertwined with political liberty.Te American Revolution started as arebellion against “taxation without rep-resentation”—against economic policiesover which they had no say. Tat wasthe breaking point, the reaction to a longlist of unanswered grievances against a far-away government that repeatedlyabused their rights. 9

Tis same kind of abuse occurs today on a

regular basis in America by a government thathas forced its way into every corner of our lives.Leftwing economic policies—and the bail-

outs, handouts, and entitlements they have pro-


39/94


duced—are undermining America’s economic

freedom, entrepreneurial spirit, and traditionalwork ethic, as well as our long-term economicwell-being. Te determination of the left to in-sinuate the government into every corner ofAmerican life is undermining the free-market,loading it down with burdensome and unnec-essary regulations. As a result, America’s com-petitive position in the global marketplace is likethat of an Olympic sprinter who must pull a gi-ant anchor behind him. If this statist trend is notreversed, America is destined to go the way ofGreat Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Portu-gal, and Spain—once powerful nations that arenow burdened with second-tier socialist econ-

omies and no longer able to follow through onpromises made to their citizens.

Statism Is Socialism “Lite”

Economists dene socialism as a centrally planned

economy in which the government controls themeans of production and distribution. Tis is anaccurate but understated denition akin to calling


40/94


inoperable cancer an illness. Socialism is more

than just an economic system, much more. It isa worldview based on the premise that the stateknows best what individuals should think andhow they should live. Socialism seeks govern-ment control of all aspects of the individual’s life.Further, it rewards unproductive people who con-tribute little or nothing to society at the same lev-el as productive, contributing people. Socialism isthe “brave new world” Kipling lamented when hesaid: “All men are paid for existing and no manmust pay for his sins.” When liberals talk about“redistributing wealth” in the name of “fairness,”they are advocating a basic socialist principle.

With socialism, the state is supreme and all

problems have the same solution: government. Ina socialist system, the free market is replaced bycoercive government regulations. When the statebecomes supreme and government becomes thesolution, economic freedom, the free market,

entrepreneurship, the work ethic, and individualliberty quickly become casualties. Socialism al-most always begins as statism. Statism is a men-


41/94


tality in which people look rst to government for

their needs and to solve their problems. It is notsocialism, but it is a dangerous step in that direc-tion, and it has a similar effect on people. Tink ofstatism as socialism lite. It is the opposite of thefree market.

Like socialism, statism creates a dependenceon government that is passed from generation togeneration. If the government will provide for me,why should I provide for myself? o a growingnumber of Americans, this is a perfectly logicalquestion. Of course, the obvious answer is thatgovernment cannot provide everything for ev-eryone . Te economic and social turmoil in suchcountries as Britain, Greece, Spain, and Portugal

provide evidence of this fact. When students inGreat Britain instigated violent demonstrationsover increases in college tuition, the world sawrst-hand where government dependence leads.Te level of government dependence in America

is higher than it has ever been. Many Americanshave contracted the disease of statism, and thereis already evidence that economic freedom, en-


42/94


trepreneurship, the work ethic, personal liberty,

and our country’s economic well-being are suffer-ing as a result. Consequently, it is important thatea Party patriots and other conservatives under-

stand and are able to articulate the benets of afree-market economy.

Articulating the Bene ts of a Free-Market Economy

What follows are only some of the many benets

of a free market economy:10

• A free market gives individuals and orga-nizations freedom, exibility, and varietyin buying and selling goods and services.

• A free market allows buyers and sellersto switch products and services, thus al-lowing them to quickly and effectivelyadjust to market conditions.

• In a free market, individuals and organi-zations may buy and sell what they wantat prices they deem appropriate, thus en-couraging production, commerce, andentrepreneurship.


43/94


• In a free market, individuals and organi-

zations with goods and services are morewilling to risk capital on research, develop-ment, and innovation because they havegreater control over their own success.

• In a free market, individuals and organiza-tions can maximize their protability be-cause they are not burdened by excessiveregulations, which have the effect of limit-ing and inhibiting.

• A free market encourages healthy, produc-tive competition that ultimately benetsend users and consumers.

• A free market leads to maximum efficien-cy, thereby making the best possible use ofa nation’s resources.

• A free market allows market-related deci-sions to be made on the basis of supply anddemand, which is always more efficientand accurate than the sluggish, politically-motivated decisions of government legis-latures and bureaucracies.


44/94

39

STRATEGY FOUR

Encourage

I L

Liberty is what individuals have when they areable to peacefully pursue, nurture, and makeindependent decisions about personal, family, voluntary, and commercial interests and relation-ships. In dening individual liberty, Benjamin

Constant, the French classical liberal, said: It is the right to be subjected to thelaws, and to be neither arrested, de-tained, put to death or maltreated inany way by the arbitrary will of one or

more individuals. It is the right of ev-eryone to express their opinion, choosea profession and practice it, to disposeof property, and even to abuse it; tocome and go without permission, and

without having to account for their mo-tives or undertakings. It is everyone’sright to associate with other individu-


45/94


als, either to discuss their interests, or

to profess the religion which they andtheir associates prefer, or even simplyto occupy their days or hours in a waywhich is most compatible with theirinclinations and whims. 11

Te statist and socialist policies advocated bythe left are antithetical to individual liberty. In asocialist environment, the individual’s liberty issubjugated to the state and his status, standing,and stature are all determined by his relative po-sition within the political order. A nation cannothave a civil society without individual liberty. “Tehallmark of a civil society is the autonomy of private associations and institutions as well as that

of private business rms… A market economy isthe appropriate pattern of life in a civil society.” 12

Articulating the Case forIndividual Liberty

Because leftwing policies and practices continueto move America inexorably toward socialismand the corresponding loss of individual liberty, it


46/94


is important for ea Party patriots and other con-

servatives to be able to articulate the benets ofindividual liberty. What follows are some of themany benets of individual liberty: 13

• Individual liberty allows people to shapetheir own destinies, manage their ownlives, and pursue their own dreams un-encumbered by government interference.

• Individual liberty allows people to enterinto contracts, exchanges, and interac-

tions voluntarily and to set the param-eters so that both will benet. Exchangesbetween individuals who have the ben-et of liberty can be win-win exchanges,whereas exchanges directed, controlled,or manipulated by government tend tobe win-lose or lose-lose exchanges.

• Individual liberty allows people to freelyand voluntarily enter into associationsand relationships of mutual interest such

as religious and church activities, culturalassociations, clubs, professional organi-zations, and charitable groups withoutrequiring the approval of government.


47/94


• Individual liberty allows what Austrian

economist Friedrich Hayek called the“spontaneous social order” to develop.Te social order in a free society is spon-taneous because people form their asso-ciations—whether in church, profession-

al organizations, cultural groups, clubs,or charitable groups—voluntarily ratherthan by government coercion. Social-ism does not allow for the developmentof a spontaneous social order. Rather, the

ways in which people form associationsare designed, planned, and controlled bythe government. For example, after Hit-ler’s National Socialist Party took controlin Germany prior to World War II, mem-

bership in the Nazi party was a prerequi-site to securing a good job, decent hous-ing, and other amenities of life.

• Individual liberty is the antithesis of thecollective tyranny of statism and social-

ism where the state, not the individual,is paramount.


48/94

43

STRATEGY FIVE

Require

P R

W hile serving as President, Harry rumanbecame known for the sign on his deskthat said: “Te Buck Stops Here.” ruman’s signwas the ultimate expression of personal responsi-bility. It told the world that he took responsibility

for the actions of the United States governmentregardless of whether these actions had the de-sired effect or failed miserably. But, alas, Harry

ruman is no longer president and America is nolonger the country it was when he served. Instead,

America has devolved into a nation of ngerpointers and blamers ; a country in which peopleno longer expect to be held accountable for theiractions. Worse yet, we have become a nation ofentitled Americans, people who, rather than tak-ing personal responsibility for their lives, expectthe government to take care of them. Tese, then,


49/94


are the counterpoints to personal responsibility:

nger pointing and the entitlement mentality. From elementary school children whodon’t do homework to oil companyCEOs who engage in criminal behav-ior, the consequences often seem to fall on the system rather than on the people who actually misbehaved… Nowonder oil company executives cutcorners: if they get away with it, theyare rewarded with higher pay. If they get caught, they just retire to their gen-erous retirement plans. Like studentsdo, maybe BP thought that if the wellblew up they would get a “do over” oran opportunity for “extra credit” to

make up for the spill or their lawyerswould take care of it. Tat is how itis becoming in America from cradleto tomb. Okay, America, I substi-tuted cheap pipes. Okay, I didn’t hire

enough people. And maybe I knew theblow out preventer had aws. Yup,we bribed the regulators with sex andmoney. But don’t blame us: Blame the


50/94


government for not regulating us. And

while you’re at it, blame society for itsoil addiction. 14

How the Entitlement MentalityCame to Replace

Personal ResponsibilityTe entitlement mentality is like a disease thatinfects the immune system, making people moresusceptible to the allure of government bailouts,

handouts, and entitlements, and corresponding-ly less willing to take personal responsibility forthemselves, their actions, and their decisions. Atthe same time, the nanny-government approachof liberals reinforces and feeds the entitlement

mentality in an unending cycle. As the entitle-ment mentality and nanny government mutuallyfeed each other, personal responsibility is under-mined with each repetition of the cycle. Tis iswhy it is so important to break the cycle by re-

placing the entitlement mentality with an attitudeof personal responsibility that encompasses such


51/94


52/94


53/94


poor choices result in negative consequences.

When their children get at odds with authoritygures, helicopter parents tend to respond withsuch comments as: “My son would never do sucha thing!” or “Why are you being so hard on mydaughter? She is just a child!” In years past, whenparents received a telephone call from a principalor police officer, they asked: “What has my childdone?” When helicopter parents receive such acall, they ask: “What have you done to my child?”

While parents of previous generations tend-ed to side with authority gures—principals,teachers, coaches, and police officers—holdingchildren responsible when they got into trouble,parents of the “entitled” tend to side with their

children. Tey side with their children automati-cally, without even taking the time to learn thefacts of the situation. Further, they often continueto side with them even when the facts reveal thattheir children were at fault. Some of the errors

frequently made by helicopter parents include: 1)shielding their children from the consequences oftheir behavior, 2) giving their children too much


54/94


latitude and too little responsibility, and 3) failing

to hold their children accountable for their ac-tions and behavior. Unfortunately, these types oferrors reinforce the behaviors that got their chil-dren into trouble in the rst place and underminethe concept of personal responsibility.

Misguided School Systems

Many of the adults who exhibit an entitlementmentality grew up during an era in which the

public education system in America underwent amajor philosophical shift in its approach to pre-paring young people to be responsible, contribut-ing, productive citizens. When previous genera-tions attended school, it was thought that setting

high standards, having high expectations, andteaching self-discipline constituted the best wayto achieve this goal; but this all changed with thechildren of the 1960s and their children.

During the formative years of today’s entitle-

ment generation, the focus of public education inmany states shifted from high standards to “inclu-siveness.” Educators in these school systems came


55/94


to believe that developing self-esteem and be-

ing inclusive were more important than studentachievement in reading, writing, computation,history, and critical thinking. Tis major philo-sophical shift was made in spite of the fact thatthere was not, nor is there now, any credible evi-dence supporting its viability. It should also benoted that in attempting to articially developself-esteem in students, educators were tryingto give what can only be earned . Self-esteemis not a gift that can be given to an individual.Rather, it is like a masonry wall—it must be builtslowly and surely, brick by brick. Failure of liber-als to understand how self-esteem is really builtis the result of misguided leftwing thought in the

philosophies of American public school theorists.Failure of schools to properly teach reading, writ-ing, computation, history, and critical thinking isthe result of left-leaning educators using publicschools to indoctrinate rather than educate.

Te philosophical switch from high standardsto inclusiveness and from self-reliance to self-es-teem was the result of socialistic ideals—such as


56/94


hatred of individualism, devotion to egalitarian-

ism, and moral relativism—that inevitably led toa number of misguided practices on the part ofeducators. Some of the most egregious of thesepractices are as follows:

•

Eliminating so-called exclusive practicessuch as naming a class valedictorian, as-signing class rankings, and publicizingthe honor roll.

• Praising students even when their work,

performance, or efforts are less thanpraiseworthy.• Eliminating such practices as naming

the Most Valuable Player in sports andacademic teams.

• Allowing all who sign up to make theteam (sports or academic), regardless ofmerit in the form of talent, motivation,preparation, or performance.

• Giving all participants a trophy regard-less of which team wins or loses.

• Requiring that all members of the teamget to play in every game, regardless of


57/94


their talent, effort in practice, attitude,

or other considerations of merit.Te net result of practices such as these has

been to transform schools into articial environ-ments that are completely at odds with the reali-

ties of the world in which young people will needto function after graduation—a world that val-ues and rewards personal responsibility, effort,and accountability.

Government Programs

People who take personal responsibility seriouslyrespond to adversity by looking for ways to solvetheir own problems. Tis is the self-reliance el-ement of personal responsibility. Unfortunately,self-reliance, personal responsibility, and account-ability are undermined by statist politicians whothink government is the answer to every problem.Government programs in the form of handoutsand bailouts are products of the entitlement men-tality, which is fundamental to a socialistic mind-set. Government handouts and bailouts are majorcontributors to the entitlement mentality that is


58/94


undermining personal responsibility in America.

In fact, many of the government’s most expensiveprograms are called entitlement programs.

In his book Liberty and yranny, Mark Levinsays this about government entitlements: “If theStatist were to devise a scheme whereby a grand-parent would be stealing future earnings from hisown grandchild, would the grandparent consentto such immoral behavior? Yet entitlement pro-grams tend to be intergenerational swindles thatthreaten the well-being of future generations withmassive nancial obligations incurred from ben-ets received by today’s generation.” 15

Levin pinpoints the real problem with gov-ernment bailouts, handouts, and entitlements.

It is not just that they are crippling the Ameri-can economy, which they are, but that they arecrippling individual Americans by robbing themof any sense of self-reliance and personal respon-sibility—two key ingredients in the traditional

American work ethic. People who come to de-pend on government entitlements are saying thatit is acceptable to expect someone else to pay for


59/94


their needs rather than taking personal responsi-

bility for them. Tis is nothing more than legal-ized theft, and the government is the thief.

Tree examples of government entitlementprograms for college students—the types of pro-grams favored by members of the Occupy Move-ment —are the Pell Grant, federally-guaranteedstudent loans, and government programs basedon state lotteries. Formerly known as Basic Educa-tional Opportunity Grants (BEOGS), Pell Grantsare federal government grants to undergraduatecollege students. Te stated purpose of the PellGrant is to promote access to higher education.Student eligibility and the amount that can be re-ceived depend on income level, the cost of atten-

dance, enrollment status (full or part-time), andlength of attendance (full-year or less).In addition to the Pell Grant, government-

backed student loans are readily available to stu-dents who meet the eligibility requirements, ir-

respective of college major. Why is the student’scollege major an issue? Because the college majoris an important factor in determining the student’s


60/94


ability to pay back the loan. For example, students

who major in one of the S EM disciplines (Sci-ence, echnology, Engineering, or Math) will bebetter situated to repay than students who majorin other disciplines that lead to lower paying jobsor, worse yet, that have no marketability.

State lotteries are now available in moststates. Tey are typically used, at least in part, tohelp defray the costs of college tuition and booksfor students. In fact, advocates of state lotteriesoften use additional funding for education as thecenterpiece of their marketing strategy when try-ing to win approval of lotteries at the ballot box.Among the problems with state lotteries, the PellGrant, and government-backed student loans is

that they promote a something-for-nothing atti-tude among the students who use them to nancea college education. Tis attitude undermines per-sonal responsibility even further. Because nan-cial aid has become so readily available from the

state and federal governments, young Americansnow view a college education as just another en-titlement, instead of as a privilege. In other words,


61/94


they believe they have a right to expect others to

pay for it, rather than being something for whichthey should take personal responsibility.

Students who view a college education as anentitlement rather than a privilege quickly cometo view the college degree as an entitlement also.Tis is why college professors so often nd them-selves saddled with students who feel they are en-titled to a passing grade for doing nothing morethan showing up for class, if that. After all, if theyare entitled to a college education, why shouldthey work for it? If all a student must do to receivenancial aid from the government is ll out theright forms, why should he have to do any morethan that to receive a degree? Tis is how entitled

students who lack any sense of personal respon-sibility think.

Articulating the Case forPersonal Responsibility

Tanks to decades of liberal indoctrination, it isincreasingly common for the poor to blame thewealthy for their economic circumstances, for


62/94


the entitled to believe that income redistribution

through taxation is valid, and for Americans toembrace the concept of nanny government. Con-sequently, it has become critical to be able to ar-ticulate the case for personal responsibility. Tefollowing statements illustrate why it is so impor-tant for Americans of all stripes to take personalresponsibility for their lives, their families, theircommunities, and the future of our country. Peo-ple who refuse to accept personal responsibilityare often characterized by the following: 16

• Overly dependent on others in all as-pects of their lives. Tis dependencyleads to the development of an entitle-ment mentality where everyone wants to

ride in the wagon and there is no one leftto pull it.• Viewing the world as inherently unfair

and seeing themselves as victims. Overtime they respond to the perceived un-

fairness and their corresponding victim-hood by becoming chronically angry.When this happens, they often act out


63/94


their hostility in counterproductive ways

(think of the Occupy Movement).• Fearful of taking the risks that are essen-

tial to success in a competitive society.When this fear sets in, they opt for thesecurity of nanny government.

• Failing nearly every enterprise they un-dertake—including personal relation-ships—because they have developed anegative attitude, which becomes a self-fullling prophecy; they expect to fail,and so they do. Eventually they come toaccept failure as a normal way of life in-stead of an anomaly to be overcome byworking hard and working smart andlearning from mistakes.

• Physically and mentally unhealthy. Forexample, obesity is an epidemic in Amer-ica. Obese people tend to blame theireating problems on everyone but them-selves. Tey tell themselves: “It’s not myfault. I can’t help it.” Ten they sue thefast-food establishments they have free-ly and without coercion frequented for


64/94


years. Self-inicted poor physical health,

in turn, often leads to poor mental healthwhere the “victims” pay psychiatrists andpsychologists enormous fees to listen pa-tiently as they blame everyone but them-selves for their problems.

• Addicted to counterproductive behaviorsand substances. Teir rationale is typi-cally something like this: “Since the worldis unfair and the deck is stacked againstme, and since I cannot help myself, I will

seek comfort in drugs, alcohol, gambling,or other counterproductive behaviors.”

• Unable to trust other people, because ev-eryone is out to get them. As a result, theyare unable to form or maintain positive,productive, helpful relationships.

• Seeing themselves as permanent victimswho deserve to be taken care of by othersin the form of government entitlements,for which they are neither appreciativenor thankful.


65/94

60

STRATEGY SIX

Support

M P A S N D

E very day, terrorists scattered around the worldare hatching plots against America. Everyday, the Chinese take another small step towardachieving their stated goal of military superiority

over the United States. And, every day, liberals inCongress are plotting their next move to under-mine the morale and effectiveness of the Ameri-can military. As president, Barack Obama hasmastered the left’s new approach of expressing its

animosity toward the military: praise loudly inpublic, but attack quietly in private .

Using this approach, liberals are often heardpublicly extolling the virtues of the military, es-pecially when doing so will allow them to makepolitical hay. Perhaps the best example of howhypocritical liberals can be when dealing with the


66/94


military was President Obama’s handling of the

historic takedown of Osama bin Laden by NavySEALs. Because the long-awaited death of this de-spised terrorist was such welcome news to Amer-icans of all stripes, President Obama was full ofpraise for the courageous men who carried out themission. Predictably, liberal journalists rushed tocredit Obama with the kill of the century.

As Commander in Chief, it was appropriatethat President Obama be given his share of credit.In fact, in a show of national unity on the subjecteven prominent conservatives were quick to com-pliment the president for the success of the mis-sion. However, what the media conveniently for-got to mention in its rush to praise the president

was that just a year earlier his administration waspursuing the prosecution of Navy SEALs for alleg-edly bloodying the nose of a terrorist. Navy SEALstreat a terrorist no rougher than six year-old boystreat each other on the playground and the Obama

administration wanted to prosecute them. Tis in-cident, not the Osama bin Laden mission, showswhat liberals really think of the military.


67/94


Many liberals lack an appreciation for what

soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and CoastGuard personnel endure in the name of Ameri-ca’s national defense. Further, they either do notunderstand, or do not care, how their misguidedpolicies affect the ability of members of the vari-ous branches of the armed forces to perform theirduties. Nor do they appreciate the consequencesof military defeat at the hands of our enemies.Because so few of today’s members of Congresshave served in the military, there is a growing anddangerous disconnect between those who declarewars and those who ght them.

Following the tragedy of the 9/11 terroristattacks on the World rade Center and the Pen-

tagon, our country underwent what appearedto be a transformation. Liberals, conservatives,and moderates pulled together in a show of pa-triotism. “We Will Never Forget” bumper stick-ers could be seen displayed on the automobiles of

people from both ends of the political spectrum.American ags were proudly displayed, and themilitary was once again afforded a level of respect


68/94


it had not enjoyed since the end of World War II.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this surge ofnational unity was short-lived. Many people whoclaimed they would “never forget” forgot.

Te antipathy of the left for the military hasnot changed since the Vietnam War. Owing to the vocal support of mainstream Americans for themilitary, the left has turned down the volume ofits public animus toward our men and women inuniform. However, the attitude of the left towardthe military is the same as it has always been: neg-ative. What has changed though, is that liberalslike President Obama act out their negativity to-ward the military in more subtle ways than in thepast. Evidence of what the left really thinks about

the military can be found in: 1) their treatmentof military personnel; 2) the rules of engagementforced on military personnel ( e.g. do not shootunless someone is shooting at you, do not shootan insurgent if he drops his weapon and runs, you

must get permission to shoot—even if someoneis shooting at you, etc.); 3) the watering down ofmilitary training; and 4) the propensity for cut-


69/94


ting the military rst when budget cuts must be

made. Te military tends to suffer in all four ofthese critical areas when liberals control Con-gress and/or the White House.

Because of China’s determination to overtakethe United States in military superiority and be-cause terrorists are determined to bring Americato her knees, it is critical that we maintain thebest-trained, best-equipped, best-led, and best-funded military in the world. Attempting to bal-ance the federal budget on the backs of the mili-tary services as liberals are determined to do is aneconomic strategy that can lead only to disaster.

Articulating the Case for MilitaryPreparedness and a Strong

National DefenseLiberals think that peace can be achieved by put-ting bumper stickers on cars and trusting in theUnited Nations. China and the terrorists who de-

spise America and everything it stands for scoffat bumper stickers and the United Nations. Infact, they would be more than happy if the United


70/94


States continued to cut its military and put its

trust in sentimental bumper stickers and an im-potent U.N. Te following statements help articu-late the case for military preparedness and main-taining a strong national defense:

•

As long as hate, envy, greed, covetous-ness, and the lust for power reside in thehearts of men, there will be wars. Con-sequently, Americans must understandthat neither the Chinese nor terroristsare interested in peace. Tey are inter-ested only in dominance. Nor are theyinterested in negotiating, except as away to buy time as they plan and workfor the downfall of the United States.People who hate America and every-thing it stands for are bent on America’sdestruction. Tey do not think like wethink, they do not share our values, nordo they respond to reason. Tey respectonly one thing: strength. Consequently,any lack of strength on America’s partinvites mischief on their part.


71/94


• Te world is lled with people who hate

the United States and everything forwhich it stands. Some are determinedto do everything in their power to bringthis country to its knees. Worse yet,many of these hate-lled fanatics are

more than willing to lose their own livesif, in doing so, they can kill innocentAmericans. Terefore, it is important toreject the naïve posturing of liberals whothink it is possible to sit down with those

who despise America and talk reason.Unmitigated hatred knows no reason.America’s enemies use dialogue and so-called peace talks to gain the time andaccess they need to plan and carry out

their attacks.• Reject all attempts by liberals and mis-

guided moderates to balance the bud-get on the backs of the military. Terehas never been a time in the history of

our country when having a strong, well-equipped, properly-trained, and fully-supported military was more importantthan it is now. Picture a tourist with pock-


72/94


ets full of cash getting lost and walking

through the most dangerous, crime-rid-den neighborhood at night. Tis unfortu-nate tourist will not be able to negotiate hisway out. In fact, he will be lucky to get outalive. Tis is the same type of situation in

which America nds itself right now. Teworld is an increasingly dangerous placefor Americans. Tere is only one way to ef-fectively prevent wars in this environment,that is to eld the best-equipped, best-

trained, best-led, best-funded, and mostdedicated military in the world—a militarythat can quickly and effectively make thecost of attacking the United States too highto even contemplate. Politicians must take

the gloves off the military and let it do whatit is trained to do, and what is necessaryto protect America. Shackling Americanwarriors with politically-motivated rulesof engagement that empower the enemy isno way to prevent wars. In fact, panderingto the enemy encourages more attacks onAmerica and discourages young men from joining the military.


73/94

68

STRATEGY SEVEN

Restore

C S I

he United States’ Constitution is one of themost signicant documents ever written.

It is a document that every American should beknowledgeable of and conversant about. One

of the most important of its drafters was JamesMadison. Known as the Father of the Constitu-tion, Madison kept a journal of the debates thatoccurred during the development of the origi-nal document. From Madison’s notes, as well as

the notes of other rst-hand participants, we canlearn much, including the thinking of the framersat the time the Constitution was drafted. Unfor-tunately, proponents of the concept of the “livingconstitution” have adopted a that-was-then-this-is-now attitude toward Madison’s journal andother sources of rst-hand, eyewitness knowl-


74/94


edge. Tose who subscribe to the concept of a liv-

ing constitution think the views of the framers areirrelevant. Tey believe the Constitution shouldap in the ckle breeze of continual change andbe revised by judicial at, Congressional legisla-tion, or presidential executive orders to t theeeting social mores of the moment. o livingconstitution advocates, what the framers envi-sioned as our nation’s by-laws to enact the princi-ples set forth in the Declaration of Independenceare irrelevant.

If the Declaration of Independence repre-sents America’s vision, the Constitution is thegame plan for transforming that vision into real-ity. Key principles in the Constitution as set forth

by the framers and that are especially importantin today’s political environment are:

• Republican Form of Government. A formof government that is based on popularconsent and popular participation, it

also includes precautions against puremajoritarian democracy while also pro-tecting against governmental tyranny.


75/94


With Republicanism, public policies are

made by representatives elected by thepeople, rather than directly by the peo-ple themselves as would be the case ina pure majoritarian democracy. Feder-alist papers 10 and 51 written by James

Madison, describe the republican formof government, America’s particular fed-eral form of republican government, andthe rationale for adopting the republicanform of government.

• Selection of Government Leaders by Elec-tion. Tose who make public policy areelected by the people. Tis ensures thatthere is popular consent of the governedand participation by the governed while

also protecting against the possibility ofthe tyrannical few ruling over the many.

• Limited Federalism. Te Constitutiondid away with the loose confederation ofstates established by its predecessor, the

Articles of Confederation. In its placewas established a federal system, but alimited federal system. Some powers


76/94


are delegated to the federal government

(and can be taken back by a state as theNew York, Rhode Island, and Virginiaratication documents stated and oth-ers implied), some are forbidden to thestates, some are shared by the state and

federal governments, and the rest—byfar the most—are left to the states. Ar-ticle VI, Section 2, of the Constitution,known as the “Supremacy Clause,” de-scribes the federal system it established:

Tis Constitution and the Laws of theUnited States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all reatiesmade, or which shall be made, underthe Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;and the Judges in every state shall bebound thereby, any Ting in the Con- stitution or Laws of any state to thecontrary notwithstanding.

In other words, the Constitution es-tablished a limited federal system thatleans in favor of the federal govern-


77/94


ment for certain specied national pur-

poses by giving it the power to do suchthings as regulate commerce, providea uniform currency, provide uniformlaws on bankruptcy, raise and supportan Army and Navy, declare war, collect

taxes, provide for the common defense,collect custom duties, and other powers vital to national well-being (see ArticleI, Section 8 for a complete listing of thefederal government’s powers). Te fed-

eral government does not rightly havepowers that are not stated in the Con-stitution. Powers not specically givento the federal government are reservedfor the state governments.

• Limited Government. Te framers werecareful to specically dene what thegovernment could and could not do. Inother words, they envisioned limitedgovernment and developed a document

to ensure that government would belimited. Te limitations on the federalgovernment are contained in the Con-stitution in Article I, Section 8; Article I,


78/94


Section 9; and the Bill of Rights. Article

I, Section 8 lists what the federal govern-ment may do. Article I, Section 9 listsparticular things the federal governmentmay not do. Te Bill of Rights—the rstten amendments to the Constitution—

provides important protections for theindividual from the national govern-ment, and protects the powers retainedby the states.

• Barriers to Pure Majority Rule. Con-

cerned about the potential abuses ofpure majority rule—for example, mobrule—the framers built several barriersinto the Constitution to preclude majoritarian democracy. Tese barriers or

precautions include a bicameral legisla-tive branch (a Congress consisting of aSenate and a House of Representatives);an unelected, appointed judiciary; lim-its on the powers of the federal govern-

ment; indirect election of the president(Electoral College); and various checksand balances, including federalism—a system of separation of power, and


79/94


checks and balances between the state

and federal governments.• Separation of Powers. Te framers were

concerned about misrule and excesseson the part of all three branches of gov-ernment: executive, legislative, and ju-dicial. Tey were especially concernedabout guarding against any branch of thegovernment usurping power from theother branches or from the states. Teysolved this problem by applying the con-

cept of balanced government envisionedby the French philosopher Montesquieuand learned from their studies of histo-ry. Balanced government is based on anawareness of the nature of man and on

the principle that it is dangerous to en-trust any one branch of government withtoo much power. Tis danger is over-come by dividing the various powers ofgovernment up and distributing them

among the various government branch-es (i.e., the legislative branch makes laws,the executive branch enforces laws, andthe judicial branch adjudicates disputes


80/94


81/94


eralism provides a double security for

the rights of the people by establishinga separation of powers as well as checksand balances between the national andstate governments.

Undermining the Sovereignty andIntegrity of the Constitution

Te Constitution is the law of the land in Ameri-ca. It is a document of the people, by the people,

and for the people of the United States. Unfor-tunately, its sovereignty and integrity are underattack. Its sovereignty is being undermined byliberals in Congress, on the courts, and in theWhite House who are advocates of international

law. Increasingly, liberals in Congress look to in-ternational law for guidance when drafting lawsin Congress. Worse yet, liberal judges look to in-ternational law for guidance in making their de-cisions in the cases that come before the bench.Tis is especially the case in the appellate courtsand the Supreme Court.


82/94


Te Constitution’s integrity is being under-

mined by “living constitution” advocates in thecourts who reject the limits imposed on them bythe Constitution and legislate from the bench.Rather than accept what the Constitution actuallysays, these liberal judges twist the words of theframers to make the Constitution say what theywant it to say. As a result, they are turning ourcountry into a rudderless ship adrift on a sea ofuncertainty. Perhaps a better analogy here wouldbe of a disabled ship piloted by a mad captain andcrew attempting to weave the maze of rocks andshoals of global tyranny it faces.

Articulating the Case forConstitutional Sovereignty

Te sovereignty of the Constitution is beingsteadily undermined by adherents of internation-al law. International laws are enacted by peoplewho do not share America’s traditional values.

Further, American citizens have no voice in theirpassage. Terefore, it is important that ea Partypatriots and other conservatives be able to effec-


83/94


tively articulate the case for maintaining the sov-

ereignty of America’s Constitution. Te followingstatements will help in this regard:

• Te Constitution was established as thesupreme law of the land for the UnitedStates. No other law, treaty, or actionmay take precedence over the Constitu-tion. Unfortunately, advocates of a “livingconstitution”—including some SupremeCourt judges—are moving ever closer toallowing international treaties and inter-national law to supersede the Constitu-tion. In order for a treaty to be valid, itmust conform to the Constitution, be-cause the Constitution is a higher legalauthority than a treaty. Te Constitutionis what gives our government the legalauthority to enter into treaties, a fact thatprotects America’s sovereignty when in-teracting with foreign powers. Te sov-ereignty of the Constitution protects the

sovereignty of the American people, thatis, our authority to govern ourselves in-dependent of foreign inuence.


84/94


• International law consists of laws devel-

oped and ratied by other countries andorganizations, which means that Ameri-can citizens have no signicant voice intheir development or ratication. omake matters even worse, these other

countries and organizations are oftencomposed of people with radically dif-ferent religions, worldviews, moral val-ues, goals, and interests than those sub-scribed to by most Americans. Consent

of the governed is a fundamental prin-ciple of the Constitution. Terefore, lawsthat were developed and enacted with-out the consent of the American peopleshould not be applied to the American

people.• Treats to constitutional sovereignty are

not limited to international law. Interna-tional treaties represent another risk tothe American people. International trea-

ties are supposed to be subservient to theConstitution because the Constitution isthe source of authority for governmentofficials who enter into treaties. Unfor-


85/94


tunately, some left-leaning government

officials believe their personal author-ity supersedes that of the Constitution.Tese self-anointed officials are show-ing a disturbing propensity for puttinginternational treaties over and above the

Constitution and for using these treatiesto undermine parts of the Constitutionthat do not support liberal, socialist, andMarxist ideology. Some of the tenets ofthese treaties would deny Americans

their constitutional rights relating toparenting and educating their children,keeping and bearing arms, and otherfundamental rights.

Articulating the Case forConstitutional Integrity

Te integrity of the Constitution is being under-mined by liberal judges who take a “living consti-tution” approach to interpreting the Constitution,rather than the more valid approach of original-ism (either original intent or original meaning).Te “living constitution” approach allows judges


86/94


the luxury of making the Constitution say any-

thing they want it to say, which, in turn, allowsthem to legislate from the bench, or, worse yet,amend the Constitution from the bench. Con-sequently, it is imperative that ea Party patriotsand other conservatives be able to effectively ar-ticulate the case for maintaining the integrity ofthe Constitution. Te following statements willhelp in this regard:

• Te practical integrity of the Constitu-

tion is a function of how it is interpretedby those empowered to do so. Te battleover constitutional interpretation is abattle between advocates of the livingconstitution and advocates of original-

ism. Only if originalists win this battlewill the integrity of the Constitution berestored. Te integrity of the Constitu-tion was on the mind of James Madi-son—the “father” of the Constitution—when he wrote:

I entirely concur in the propriety of re- sorting to the sense in which the Con-


87/94


stitution was accepted and ratied by

the nation. In that sense alone it is thelegitimate Constitution… If the mean-ing of the text be sought in the change-able meaning of the words composingit, it is evident that the shapes and at-

tributes of the Government must par-take of the changes to which the wordsand phrases of all living languages areconstantly subject. 17

• Originalism tethers the decisions of judg-es to the original meaning of America’sFounders. Te “living constitution” ap-proach, on the other hand, opens the ju-diciary to arbitrary, reckless, and self-in-terested decisions that are driven by falseand dangerous ideologies. American so-ciety is like a balloon oating in the air. Asthe winds change, the balloon will blow inthat direction. As the winds change again,the balloon will blow in the new direc-tion. If it is tethered tightly to a solid stakein the ground, the balloon can blow onlyso far, but if not tethered it will blow away.


88/94


Te Constitution is what tethers America

to its founding principles, justice, andfreedom, and originalism is what keepsthe tether from being severed.

• “Living constitution” advocates like toclaim that the Constitution must changeto match the ongoing changes in Ameri-can society, but they miss, or, more likely,ignore an important point. Tink of theConstitution as your home. Americans of-ten change their homes—color schemes,

carpet, ooring, window treatments, andfurniture—to accord with changes in fash-ion, taste, and nancial status. Te reasonthese changes can be made without under-mining the integrity of the home is the sol-

id foundation on which the home sits. Aslong as the foundation under your homeis solid, you can make all the changes youwant. But undermine the home’s founda-tion and the changes will one day cause the

home to come crashing down around you.Advocates of a “living constitution” are un-dermining the foundation of our country.If this trend continues, Americans will one


89/94


day wake up and wonder what happened

to the sovereignty, freedom, and libertythey had always taken for granted.

• In his book Liberty and yranny, MarkLevin explains what is really behind the“living constitution” point of view:

Te Statist considers the judiciary hisclearest path to amassing authority, for through it he can proclaim whatthe law is without effective challenge

or concern with the eeting outcome ofan election cycle. Moreover, the federal judiciary is populated with about onethousand lawyers—and the SupremeCourt a mere nine—making statistinltration easy. Even when holdinghigh off

rules for conservative radicals

Documents