(Note, this has been updated since its first iteration). The Sharon Statement was written in 1960, and outlined several conservative principles to govern by. While it was instrumental in bringing together many “conservatives,” it died out by the end of the Reagan administration. With “neoconservative” influence over public policy, especially in the realm of foreign policy, traditional conservatism all but died out. Pundits such as Pat Buchanan kept it alive through what political junkies refer to as “paleoconservatism.”
That is until a Buckley-ite and former National Review editor decided he is going to try to form a “Conservative Party” to rival the Republican Party. Except they wont really run candidates – it will be a bully pulpit to reign in or shame candidates. While it sounds like a good idea, its awful, for this reason: it will be controlled by people based in DC and NYC, and who are mostly interventionist neocons, who sell our Country out for the interests of those abroad. I don’t trust anyone associated with National Review to do anything but sabotage what most Americans hold dear.
Coincidentally, Peter Thiel recently spoke at a “National Conservatism Conference,” which seems like an attempt to bring various factions together. (There are no coincidences in politics – Rich Lowry of NRO was there). The Conference is a new effort, and aims to “recover and reconsolidate the rich tradition of national conservative thought as an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism …”
The Conference has buzzfeed reporting that the presence of an associate of Peter Thiel “implied that the fringe and very online ideologies of the right were not unwelcome.” Apparently buzzfeed didn’t read the About section of the Conferences website. Their desire to exclude libertarians is concerning. In fact, they use a social justice warrior tactic by pretty much saying they dont associate with racists. Neocons love calling those who disagree with their foreign policy as “racists” and “nativists.” They are laying that ground in their statement.
A review of several of their speakers and members of their presidium reveal there is strong neocon and possibly foreign influence involved in this effort. There are plenty of Bush administration leftovers, and people affiliated with The Heritage Foundation. (Foreign nations such as Japan, and certain middle eastern nations give millions of dollars to guide the “research” of DC based think tanks such as Heritage, and are publicly known to lobby republicans).
I support the concept that the conference wants to implement. However, there is to be no peace with those who advocate for endless, pointless wars and interventions. How many soldiers need to be wounded or killed for absolutely nothing? How many countries do we need to destabilize for a few headlines? Why are we securing other countries, while ours is invaded?
The Sharon Statement has not been revised for almost 59 years. Although it was principled, especially for its time, people in 1959 could not have imagined how far the excesses of big government would later become. So I propose a revision of the Statement. I hope it unites traditional conservatives, paleocons, and libertarians. I will never align myself with neocons who support interventionism, globalism, or nation building. They are quasi-socialists who expand the power of the state at every measure. Just look to W Bush’s administration.
(I am not sure what we should call this, but lets call this initial draft the Fort Worth Statement). Add your thoughts and comments below.
In bold are the additions to the original statement:
In this time of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of Americans to affirm certain eternal truths.
We, as liberty-minded Americans, believe:
That foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;
That liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;
That the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;
That when these institutions break down, and fail, it is right of the individual and the militia to restore lawful order;
That when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;
That our current government has gone far beyond its rightful functions, to the detriment of the American public;
That the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;
That the genius of the Constitution—the division of powers—is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people, in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;
But That the United States has willfully violated this principle, and the IX and X amendments to the Constitution; and
That it has become necessary to hold another Constitutional Convention to address: representation in Congress; the debt ceiling; revising the Constitution to repeal Supreme Court decisions from the FDR/New Deal era, and to strengthen provisions that empower the individual;
That the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;
That when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation;
That when the government takes from one man to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;
That Supreme Court rulings, such as Wickard v. Filburn, provided the government too much power over the market place, while also straying from the Constitution’s intent;
That the Courts have become too politicized, and unjust instruments of policy change, rather than acting as instruments of justice;
That we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
That the foreign policy of the United States is bankrupting the treasury, has not added to the safety and security of the American public, and currently serves no strategic interests to the United States;
That forcing other nations to adopt our methods of government is unjust, and hypocritical when our Government willfully violates our own laws;
That the United States has completely neglected the security of its borders, and has placed the public at risk by increasing drug trafficking, gang warfare, and terrorist access to the United States;
That measures implemented by the United States after 9/11/2001 have reduced the freedoms of Americans, that certain government agencies were proven to have violated the Constitutional rights of its citizens with spy programs; and
That these agencies have exceeded their lawful mandate, and have unlawfully engaged in the political process; and
That as a result, it is necessary to hold a Constitutional Convention to reign in the excesses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security; and
That the forces of international Communism, progressivism, and terrorism remain a tremendous threat to our liberties;
But that the domestic, politically-correct progressive movement is the single greatest threat to our rights, freedoms, and liberties; and
That the Citizenry of the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with, this menace; and
That American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests, and immediate security of the United States?
And ultimately, that due to the predicament Americans are placed in, with the social strife and the dramatic increase of government power, that it is right and just to resist, and
That under the principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, violent efforts to separate from, or to restore, the United States to Constitutional governance may become necessary in the future.