A Winning Political Strategy for the 21st Century

Those of us who are conservative-libertarian in our political views often wonder if the future looks bright for those who adhere to the principles of liberty as envisioned by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution. I believe it does. But a few changes are necessary.

First, it is important that we steer the nation back to the Constitution as a liberating set of ideas penned by those who longed to be free from oppression, coercion, and tyranny. Far from being an antiquated set of beliefs that restrict and limit human behavior, the Constitution's central focus is on the expansion of liberty.

Education in the home and in our schools is essential to the rediscovery of the Constitution as a liberating document.

Second, in light of the general principle of the expansion of liberty, we must affirm the right of individual citizens to make their own choices although some of those choices may not align with our personal preferences or beliefs.

For example, non-smokers certainly have a right to clean air around them, but smokers also have a right to smoke. This means that non-smokers must stand for the rights of smokers to do their thing in smoking areas, in their homes, and in other public places, as long as non-smokers are afforded a reasonable amount of smoke free air.

The same principle applies to the issue of coupling. Decisions regarding romantic preferences are personal and must be protected. Allowing a gay couple to have a civil union that is recognized legally is no threat to marriage.

For example, the fact that I am a heterosexual male who is attracted to the opposite sex in no way forces me to prevent same-sex coupling in order to somehow 'protect my manhood' or to 'protect marriage.' My manhood is fully intact no matter what gay persons do. And marriage between a man and a woman will survive even if gay couples are allowed legally recognized unions.

If we are to maintain liberty, we MUST safeguard personal habits and choices even if they may appear strange or inappropriate for us.

Third, we must keep conservative members of the religious community on board with us by affirming the right to religious expression in the public arena. If we believe in the unfettered, unobstructed right to bear arms, for example, then that same principle must apply to ALL of the rights enumerated in the Constitution.

Religious conservatives need to know that we value their beliefs and their contributions to the political process. If they feel devalued or used, they will either stay home on election day or make a stupid mistake by voting for a purveyor of anti-freedom in protest.

Deeply spiritual people of various stripes have blazed a trail for liberty in this nation. These honorable persons learned from the Puritans that we cannot limit freedom. Hindsight shows the folly of the Puritan experience of coming to America for liberty only to turn right around and limit religious liberty for their detractors.

Fourth, we must return to the original Constitutional principle that America's defense must be exactly what the word denotes, i.e., defense and not offense. Outside of World Wars I and II, America's involvement in foreign adventures has tended to result in disaster.

Are there exceptions to this principle? Of course. There are times when it is absolutely necessary to involve ourselves on the world stage when the alternative would be mass genocide and broad-scaled tyranny, such as the prospects of a Hitler-dominated Europe.

Fifth, we must stress the concept of personal empowerment over dependence. Personal empowerment is a liberating process of being in control of one's destiny, one's decisions, one's life. Dependence, on the other hand, is serfdom and slavery.

Americans must be shown that dependence on government is the ultimate slavery. The highest example of liberty is when an individual lives with the knowledge that ultimately he/she is his/her own guardian and master.

In addition to the fact that this principle will guide the way to our deciding what is truly necessary in government and what is not, this principle will keep taxes and big government in check.

Sixth, with mounting problems facing us from globalization, climate change, border security, immigration, terrorism, and the like, we must take a 'can-do' attitude to each of these threats. Americans built the Panama Canal. We invented air travel. We invented mass production of autos using the assembly line. We were the first to put a man on the Moon.

If we could take each of these significant giant leaps in human progress, then there is no doubt that American ingenuity will lead the way to significant developments in emissions-free travel, safe nuclear energy that includes missile shields, personal devices that detect terrorist threats, and any number of further strides in technology.

Seventh, legal immigration must be affirmed and encouraged while illegal entry into the country must be stopped cold. Our complaint is not with Hispanics, Asians, or any other ethnic group. Those who are willing to come here legally and gain their citizenship according to our laws are to be welcomed with open arms. We need and appreciate all that they bring to our society in terms of manpower and technology.

But those who break our laws right off the bat by attempting to gain something for nothing are to be prosecuted severely. If it is so vitally important for a person in a foreign country to come to America to live and work, then the very least we should expect is an adherence to our laws, a knowledge of our language, customs, and culture, and an appreciation for our rich history as a beacon for liberty.

Illegal aliens have no business being in this country at all. Their behavior is an affront to every single immigrant who came here legally and went through the process of becoming citizens.

Naturally these seven components of a winning political strategy for the 21st century are only a start. There are many more issues to be considered.

I would hope that a dialogue could ensue concerning the precepts described here as well as other pertinent issues. I certainly do not claim the final word. But it would seem to me that these are the basic essentials, the bare necessities for a future in which liberty is cherished, valued, and protected.

An Interesting Constitutional Question

Liberal jurists have often referred to the principle of 'strict constructionism' with regard to Constitutional interpretation as 'old hat.' The notion that 21st century Americans must be bound by a document that was written within the context of the 18th century seems to them to be stale, antiquated, and unsuitable for modern times.

Thus, 'liberal' or 'progressive' jurists coined the term 'the living document' to designate their viewpoint that the process of Constitutional interpretation must be given the broadest leeway possible in order to make the document relevant to our times.

For example, since the Framers could not have possibly envisioned a time in the future when large, heavily populated areas would be overrun with handguns, often obtained illegally, then they could not have possibly meant that the Second Amendment should provide an unconditional cover for bearing arms.

Thus, using the 'living document' method of interpretation, such jurists would be in support of 'reasonable restrictions and limitations' on a Constitutional right.

The problem, of course, with such a view is that the principle can be applied to any of our guaranteed rights, including First Amendment rights. The Framers could not have envisioned a time when society would be dominated by media coverage, including peering into the private lives of citizens, complete with outlandish charges and accusations we have come to expect from tabloid journalism.

Thus, a case could be made that utilizing the principle of the 'living document' school of interpretation, progressive jurists and politicians could claim that reasonable restrictions and limitations on free speech and freedom of the press are entirely appropriate.

Clearly those who have espoused the living document method of interpretation have a history of supporting restricting the rights delineated in the Constitution. Thus, we do not actually have complete freedom of religion in this nation due to the numerous restrictions placed upon religious expression in the name of 'diversity.'

The same could be said for freedom of speech.

And we know that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has been attacked and restricted relentlessly by those who adhere to the 'living document' method of interpretation.

Perhaps the only individual right that has escaped such limitation and restriction is the freedom of the press. One can surmise that the press has been granted a pass because so many who adhere to the 'living document' school of thought work within the media.

It is always more expedient to restrict someone else's rights than your own.

Thus, an interesting Constitutional question comes to the forefront of the debate. What principle should be used to interpret the Constitution in modern times, when clearly times have changed drastically since the 18th century?

Originalists, or 'strict contructionists,' are often mischaracterized. Of course, strict constructionism does, indeed, mandate that the original intent of the Framers is the single most important consideration in arriving at a correct interpretation of a Constitutional issue. But this method of interpretation goes beyond merely the words printed on the pages of the original documents.

For example, when one truly wishes to discover the meaning of the Second Amendment, one must go to the original intent of the Framers. What did those words mean to them at the time?

Fortunately for us, they told us. The Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others spell out in detail the exact meaning of the Amendment. They feared tyranny above all and its inherent attempt to remove God-given rights.

Firearms in the hands of ordinary citizens were viewed as a means of empowering the people against the power of oppressive government.

Any serious consideration of the meaning of the Second Amendment must start here and come to terms with this basic philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

But the process of originalism doesn't stop there.

One must look at the underlying principle that provides the foundation for all future attempts to interpret Constitutional issues. And that principle is expansion of rights.

The Constitution itself states that there are many other rights that belong to human beings which are not spelled out specifically in the document itself, but which are valid nonetheless. The absence of specific references to those unnamed rights is in no way to be construed as implying that those rights are not guaranteed as well.

This very statement provides the foundation of the principle of expansion of rights, which for a century and a half was an important precedent in Constitutional interpretation. Those matters that the Founders did not or could not specify at the time must be judged by the general principle of expansion of rights rather than restriction of rights.

How important has this principle been to Constitutional interpretation? Without it, slaves would have never been freed or given the right to vote. Women would not have been given the right to vote.

The nation has sometimes strayed from this basic Constitutional principle, much to its peril. Prohibition is an example. Individual rights were restricted and removed rather than expanded and protected.

The result was rampant crime and a lucrative black market for criminals.

The nation learned its lesson and repealed Prohibition. Yet those who espouse the so-called 'living document' method of interpretation still seek to limit individual rights. What they have not been able to do at the national level they have succeeded in doing at the local and state levels.

The creeping crawl of government expansion leads to oppression. In Europe, for example, we see governments so afraid of the people that laws have been passed that prevent individual citizens from owning firearms. Our own federal government in the U.S. apparently has been afflicted with the very same disease. We see increasing signs year by year that our own government is just as afraid of its own citizens as it is the terrorists, to the point that government has sought at every hand to remove every means of self-protection the citizens have at their disposal.

This is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared more than anything else.

Thus, it is absolutely essential in these strange and interesting times that we appoint to the bench only those jurists who live by the Framers' principle of expansion of rights. As it stands now there are far too many who would restrict every single right guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.