First Principles

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

When I first started conceiving of this blog, I imagined the Principles to be more of a laundry list with annotations and explanations.  But the more I thought about it, and the more I questioned the “why” of each principle and why each one was consistent with the other, a mere list became obviously inadequate to be a “unified theory”.

Instead, when one is talking about reducing a set of policy preferences to their underlying principles – or indeed, reducing a set of principles to their vital core – something more like a tree takes shape in the mind.

But what, then, is the trunk of the tree?   What ties pro-lifers, military hawks, free-market capitalists, small government advocates, tough-on-crime law ‘n’ order types, originalist judges, and federalists together?

And then I realized – the answer had already been written 231 years ago in one of our nation’s most sacred documents.  Modern Conservatives believe that every human on the planet has divinely granted natural and individual sovereignty.  And because this inherent sovereignty is God-given, unaccountable encroachment of it is illegitimate not just in the eyes of the governed, but is illegitimate per se as a matter of natural fact.

All policies conservatives tend to prefer can be justified and explained through this principle.  Conservatives believe in free markets because they are the ultimate expression of personal choice.  We trust local governments more than far flung national ones because they are more accountable to us, and thus we can more easily exercise our sovereign right to change their direction.  We are pro-life because we believe the child in the womb has the same God-granted self-sovereignty that any other human being does.  We believe in an individual right to own weapons, because the right of self defense is inherent to any expression of sovereignty.  Affirmative action, like all forms of racism, is hateful to a Conservative, because it is the primacy of the individual, not the average amount of melanin in a large class of people, which matters to us.

Like all sovereigns, we can and do limit ourselves through various contractual methods, both with other private citizens and with society as a whole.  We enter into social alliances and bind ourselves to their larger will even where we disagree with it at times, but in the end, we reserve the right to cut those bonds and re-form those contracts when the arrangement becomes unaccountable and oppressive.  And we are careful to only enter into those agreements which are able to be held accountable and re-formed in the first place.

Indeed – this base principle was once universally American, and so even some liberal policies were and are justified with it.  Opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, pro-choice stances, and gay marriage advocacy are all based on some interpretation of Jefferson’s first principle.  But by and large, modern liberals tend to be social engineers who in their heart think they know better than most people how those other people ought to spend their money, discipline their children, manage their health care, and run their businesses.

There is no more “why” past this principle (except maybe to wonder why God would create us with free will and the means to exercise it, which is more of a theological exercise than a political one).  There is only the faith that it is true.  I can’t prove that God created me to have free will and certain unalienable rights any more than Jefferson could.  To me, to the Founders, and to other conservatives, it is simply a “self-evident” truth that we know to be true in our bones.

And even more than a mere hunch, this concept of personal liberty by divine right is reflected in the history of culture after culture constantly seeking to throw off the bonds of oppressive rulers and decide their own fate for themselves.  It’s a story as old as the Exodus, and older.  It’s a story that long predates the United States, and one which will be as true 4,000 years from now as it was 4,000 years ago.

What Conservatives are trying to conserve, then, is this idea of divine, natural, and individual sovereignty given sanctity in our governmental policies.  What American Conservatives in particular are trying to conserve is the Constitution as it was originally understood by a majority of the people who crafted it, people who, whatever their disagreements, believed in this First Principle Jefferson articulated so brilliantly.

People of good faith can and do interpret this princile differently.  Congressman Ron Paul, for example, believes that it requires a weak government and a non-interventionist foreign policy in the extreme – not my position or that of most self proclaimed conservtives, as is obvious to all.  And if someone can show me a “pure” conservative who has forever adhered to this principle in perfect fidelity and consistency, it will be the first I’ve ever heard of such a person.  I certainly can’t honestly claim such virtue.  But then, neither could Jefferson, so I feel like I’m in decent company.

But by deconstructing the reasons why positions we consider are conservative in light of a central principle of conservatism, I hope to come as close as I can.  And as we face the crucial choice in 2008 of who among our Presidential candidates is most able to ensure the government protects our sovereignty instead of co-opting it, keeping this core definition of “conservative” is critical in assessing their platforms and promises.