» Conservative Principles «

The United States of America is a nation of liberty and freedoms. That is because of the way this country came to be. The American colonists revolted against the continued unjust rule by the British king who deprived them of certain rights that came to be referred to as “inalienable.” In those years before the final moment of independence in 1776, the British government, faced with a huge debt after the French and Indian War, raised taxes and duties in the American colonies, ignorantly and without regard for the way this affected Britain’s own subjects in those colonies. The indifference to the complaints from the colonists that the tax burden was too high soon turned to callousness, as the tax laws were harshly enforced. Uprisings were met, not with the open mind and the listening ear, but with further attempts to assert Britain’s authority and any means, fair or foul, was used in that enterprise. New duties were levied and the colonists complained that this was approved by distant legislators who did not know anything about America and without representation from the colonists themselves.

The American Revolution and the establishment of the new, independent nation, was predicated on the notion of just laws guaranteeing certain basic rights that all citizens ought to be assured of at all times. In a sense, the United States was built on a grand agreement that we would play by the rules. The original Articles of Confederation were the first expression of this agreement. They were replaced by the Constitution in 1789.

To be a conservative is to uphold that grand agreement: to play by the rules. That means believing in not extending the influence of government beyond what the Constitution allows. It means not giving any branch of government powers the Constitution does not ascribe it. It means protecting the rights described in that Constitution against whatever force assails them, be it from within or without.

These principles have certain practical outworkings in the political reality of every time. In this document I lay out my political beliefs as they issue forth from my subscription to these conservative principles.

1. National Security

The Constitution gives the President of the United States relatively broad powers at times of war. As Commander in Chief he has sole authority in a number of areas related directly to the execution of such a war. Congress ought not to meddle in the direction of the war or individual battles as the authority to do so has not been granted that branch of government.

Therefore, I reject all the failed attempts by the recent Congress to force troop withdrawals from theaters of war as unconstitutional and an indefensible arrogation of powers.

Terrorists, who attack civilians and military personnel alike and who do not abide by internationally established rules of armed combat, are not to be treated as soldiers but as criminals. When captured in a theater of war, they fall under the clear jurisdiction of the President’s war powers and should be disposed of at his sole discretion pending the continuation of hostilities. They cannot have any rights of appeal (in particular that of normal habeas corpus) in the judicial system because the Constitution clearly gives the President sole jurisdiction.

The president ought to create more clarity in the way enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay are treated. They should not be held in legal limbo for indefinite periods of time. The US government should prohibit the torture of enemy combatants. Not only is it immoral, all experience shows that it does not produce results.

2. Iraq and Afghanistan

The Case for War

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was constitutional, legal, and carried out after specific warnings, ultimatums, UN resolutions, and extensive diplomacy stretching from 1991 until the invasion. While the intelligence on Iraq, the political case for the invasion, and the execution of the invasion and occuption of Iraq were seriously flawed, the basic case in favor of invasion stands. Saddam Hussein, who was a reckless and unpredictable tyrant with a track record in genocide, proven use of biological weapons, and a declared intent to reconstitute certain prohibited weapons, repeatedly and persistently ignored warnings that the international community would act if he did not let inspectors into the country, unfettered and unhindered. Much though not all of the intelligence suggesting that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction has since been proven false or inaccurate. However, considering that intelligence agencies, in the absence of reliable information, were not unanimous on Hussein’s capabilities and intentions, President George W. Bush made a legitimate call to err on the side of caution when he decided to invade Iraq to prevent the possibility of Saddam Hussein acquiring WMD or using them, if they were already there.

The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq

The Bush administration largely botched the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Too few troops were used to secure the country. The US was also too heavy-handed in some of the key reforms it imposed on the political system and other important infrastructures of Iraq. President Bush did not do enough to lead and to communicate important policy decisions and the rationale behind them. He should have replaced the incompetent Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld much earlier.

Iraq was not involved in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks, but intelligence reports have proved that Saddam Hussein was actively cooperating with and manipulating terrorist groups that indirectly had links with al-Qaeda. The reports are suggestive that Hussein had designs to collaborate with terrorists to carry out future attacks on countries in the West, including the US. After the invasion, many foreign and native terrorists regrouped inside Iraq and orchestrated sophisticated attacks on civilians and military alike for the purpose of creating chaos and fear, and driving the US and other coalition troops out of the country. In 2006, the country came close to a civil war.

The so-called surge of 2007 has been instrumental in quelling the mounting violence and stabilizing the situation in Iraq. More progress ought to be made on a political level within the Iraqi government. The US should not withdraw from Iraq until Iraqi military and police can guarantee basic levels of security currently provided by US troops. Withdrawal cannot take place within the next two years, though if conditions prevail, troop reductions may be possible.

Afghanistan

America did take the eye off the ball, forced by the deteriorating situation in Iraq, and should have spent more time managing the war against al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other terrorists in Afghanistan.

3. Government Reform

The federal government is too big and is involved in things it has no business meddling in. The Department of Education should be scrapped; let the states sort out their educational standards. Many government departments can be greatly streamlined and waste can be reduced. Simpler and clearer legislation in many areas, from taxes to immigration procedures, will reduce the size of the bureaucracy and thus the tax burden.

Lobbyists are not all bad—they are a normal function of democracy because they represent groups of citizens or corporations with genuine interests in politics. The problem is corruption. There should be clearer, simpler rules for contacts between politicians and lobbyists. No gifts from lobbyists to politicians of any kind, monetary or otherwise, should be permitted and reporting rules should be stringent.

Federal earmarks are not inherently evil, but they have a tendency under current politics to be used as tools by politicians to ensure their own financial or political gain at the expense of the US public. It may be necessary to outlaw earmarking, at least for a while.

4. Energy Policy

All forms of energy ought to be pursued. Companies should be allowed to drill for oil in protected areas to ensure mid-term energy supplies. At the same time, alternative sources of energy (wind, solar, nuclear, etc.) should be supported through research and development grants. The government should not subsidize developped energy sources. The ethanol subsidy should end.

5. Economy

Sorry, I’m not an economist. I am reflexively in favor of free markets, but not a kneejerk anti-regulation thinker. The main rule of thumb is: limited government jurisdiction and oversight by the government, with clear and simple rules, but with strong enforcement authority and stiff penalties.

Also, I’m not on principle against taxes, if the citizens only got what they paid for. Since they do not, I support a national sales tax replacing the federal income tax system.

6. Family and Life Issues

Abortion

Abortion is the termination of human life and is therefore immoral. Abortion ought to be prohibited except in cases of serious danger to the mother’s health. Both the aborting mother and the attending medical personnel ought to be prosecuted for unlawful abortions. The US should not provide any funding for abortions except for those performed as legitimate emergency procedures. Roe v. Wade is a judicial travesty and ought to be overturned.

Stem Cells

Adult stem cell research has already proven scientific results. Embryonic stem cell research is immoral, as it requires the destruction of human life, and has so far produced little scientific insights that could not have been gained otherwise. It has so far produced no cures or breakthroughs. It should be prohibited by law.

Gay Rights

Gay people are entitled to basic human rights—like the rest of us. There should be no discrimination in the work place on the basis of someone claiming to be gay or lesbian. Patients of any sexuality or persuasion should have the right to designate next of kin regardless of family relationship.

The government should recognize only heterosexual marriages. Gay people should not have the right to special government-assured health or tax benefits on the basis of their homosexual relationship. Gay people should not have the right to adoption.

7. Judicial Philosophy

When the Constitution was written, the understanding was that politicians and judges would abide by the rules as they were written. The Constitution provided ways of amending the rules by majority consent.

The dominant (liberal) judicial philosophy nowadays is called Living Constitution, which teaches that judges have the right, in fact, the duty, to interpret the law in accordance with what they (the judges) deem to be the prevalent ‘mood’ in society. Under this theory, the judges can rule laws unconstitutional if they violate principles not found in the actual Constitution but emanating from the political, ethical, and moral views of the judges in question.

This theory and the judges who practice it are intellectually and criminally dishonest. I have no respect for the intellect or character of these judges. They ought to be impeached and disbarred wherever possible.

Only judges following the theory known as Strict Constructionism (just a fancy name for old-fashioned rational logic) ought to be allowed to sit on the bench. There should be a test included in the bar exam that tests understanding of and adherence to upholding and interpreting the Constitution as it is written.

8. Immigration

Legal immigration ought to be carefully monitored and controlled. Illegal immigration ought to be fought with all practical tools provided by the law. Illegal aliens ought to be arrested and deported. Border protection ought to be stepped up. The government ought to work hard to help local law enforcement overcome obstacles that render them unable or unwilling to arrest illegal aliens in their community.

Practically, the deportation of 12 million plus illegal aliens reputed to be in the United States while desirable is not possible from a logistical point of view. A limited amnesty for illegal aliens who have been in the United States at least 5 years, have commited no crimes, can prove to have payed taxes, and speak English, is the least bad option of many bad options and ought to be pursued for national security reasons. If such qualifying aliens turn themselves into immigration officials, they should be arrested and prosecuted for a misdemeanor offense, and fined no less than $5,000. They would then be eligible to pursue normal immigration procedures from within the United States without having to leave the country or being deported (which would render them permanent personae non gratae under current US law).

Copyright © Michel van der Hoek 2008