Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments… Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. [Federalist No. 46]

One thing is clear from all the Founders, they argued that the Constitution afforded the prerogative to the state governments to maintain proper checks and balances on the newly formed federal government.  However, it is easy to see that Madison’s optimism of a self-restrained federal government and his assurance that states would have the fortitude to constrain federal government has been a dismal failure to date.

Both sides of the partisan aisle hail the genius of our Founding Fathers and their groundbreaking construction of a Republic that not only created horizontal checks and balances with the judiciary, executive and legislative branch (which is what is frequently discussed), but also created the more important vertical checks and balances between the federal government and the states.  This check and balance was the key to safeguarding the liberties of the people against a tyrannical government.  If there is any hope of re-establishing the balance of power, bringing government back within reach and influence of the average citizen, and restoring the Founders’ vision of a government subservient to the people, states must reclaim the authority they delegated themselves in the Constitution.

Madison outlined in the aforementioned quote the means by which states could assert their authority and voice.  It can only be done through “legislative devices” and political pressure.  Moreover, its impact will be more wholeheartedly felt “where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison.”  It is time for we the people to redirect our fury from the federal government and White House to our state governments.

Our state representatives are the only formidable weapon left against the “absolute and uncontrollable powers” of the federal government.  We should expect and demand that our state representatives exercise their constitutional authority and political capital for their constituents.  Our states must disentangle themselves from the dependent relationship with the federal government and reassert their role as the leaders of the Union.  We all have limited time and energy we can exert.  We should focus it where we know we can make a difference.  We should demand that states reassert their position and authority in the national landscape.  When the states assume their natural role in the political sphere and start working together to achieve this goal, the balance of power will naturally return and the spirit and effectiveness of our Constitution will be restored.

As Virginians, we face a challenge equal to any challenge in our history: How can we solve severe and persistent social and economic problems, such as crime, homelessness, school dropouts, poverty, family disintegration, teen suicides and pregnancies, and recession, without more government?

Conservatives have been good at identifying the problems with government. Our criticisms of smothering regulation, stifling bureaucracy, growth-killing tax increases, self-perpetuating government programs, and laws and policies that discourage private initiative, erode individual responsibility and undermine community, have been on the money.

What we have not done well is to deliver a positive message – - a vision of how the real problems that Virginians face – - can be solved in most instances through private action and without new and expanded government programs. It is a measure of how far we have departed from this philosophy and faith of the great Virginias – - Mason, Henry, Randolph, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, and others – - that many no longer have genuine confidence in our ability as private citizens to solve those problems that most concern us. When we confront those problems, our first impulse is to pass a law. Increasingly, we have come to expect government to take care of us.

Our political system encourages this view. In a contested campaign, the candidate who offers a government program to solve a problem generally has a significant advantage over an opponent who offers no program or even a less ambitious one. Only when the cumulative weight of these government programs becomes a political issue is this advantage overcome.

But even when that happens, it seldom lasts, because this public opposition is essentially a reaction.

It lacks any firm rooting in a coherent philosophy or view of life that offers a way to solve problems over the long term. It is fed by an anti-government, anti-tax, get-off-my back emotion that soon abates when the painful realization sets in that our social and economic problems have not gone away and, in fact, may have gotten worse.

We must do more than shout slogans and ride the occasional crest of voter dissatisfaction with big government and high taxes. We must offer an alternative that holds the promise of solving problems without more and more government.

Our task is much more difficult than for those who have a faith in government. We can’t offer a simplistic proposal to create a new agency, a new program, a legislative fiat that will cure every new problem. A private solution is always more complex, more difficult to explain and not as easy to implement as passing a new law or raising taxes. Even worse, years of dependence on government have dampened our understanding of how private institutions, churches and families, can meet our needs.

We face a three-fold rebuilding task. First, we must resist the simplistic political sloganeering by candidates and elected officials who lure voters with promises of government “solutions” to every problem. Second, we must restore our faith and confidence in private institutions, and reestablish a framework of understanding in which Virginians can once again see private alternatives as possible. Third, we must be prepared as individuals to do more directly and actively to rebuild the strength and vitality of private institutions, particularly families, churches, voluntary associations, neighborhoods, and small communities. Our vision should proceed from the understanding that our most daunting social problems can best be addressed by our acceptance of moral responsibility.

Lura Grubb — “Granny” to just about everyone who knows her — is a 102-year-old mother of seven who just this year moved into a house with indoor plumbing for the first time in her life. Her life story was profiled in a July article in The Roanoke Times written by Donna Alvis-Banks.

Granny Grubb raised her children virtually alone in the mountains of Pulaski County without indoor plumbing and, for many years, without electricity. She worked for 50 cents a day in a cornfield, saving enough for a down payment on a house and 30 acres. To make the loan payments, she traded land for a cow that could generate income through milk sales. Her husband, Walter, sold the cow to buy liquor.

Things got worse. Walter shot and killed Granny’s mother in a drunken rage, resulting in a murder conviction and nine years in prison. Granny divorced him, but refused to accept alimony saying, “I’ve always supported myself.” And she continued to do so by walking to work in nearby factories and selling her own handcrafted quilts, crochet and bedspreads.

The Grubb household depended on mountain springs for drinking water, rain barrels for washing and what could be produced from a garden, an orchard and their own livestock for their food. They were faithful churchgoers. When times were especially hard, the Grubb family was sustained by a caring rural community.

At age 102 and experiencing a decline in her health, Granny sold her mountain home for a modern house in Radford near her daughter. Her new life of relative ease is just beginning.

At about the time Granny was moving into her new residence, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was announcing that ailments associated with obesity would be paid for with taxpayers’ funds. This will include gastric bypass surgery, which costs between $25,000 and $50,000. Some would call this a “core governmental service.”

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Forget the responsibility members of a family or close community once felt for each other. We no longer expect every individual to take control of his or her own life or assume the consequences of foolish decisions.

Much of what the government now pays for in health care is associated with poor life choices and risky behavior. Compounding this burden is the cost of government welfare programs that have expanded to deal with problems related to family breakdown.

The more government does for citizens, the less families, religious congregations, local voluntary organizations and other private institutions are expected to do. Medicaid, for example, encourages the elderly to look for assistance first from government rather than from these voluntary groups. Whether this is an inevitable or a wise public policy, its adverse impact on our social fabric and the resilience of our citizenry is obvious.

The hidden costs of our modern public policy are the erosion of individual accountability, a decline in personal initiative and an expansion of self-perpetuating government programs. Somewhere on the road to total dependency on government, shouldn’t we stop and ask whether our well-intended government programs are worth the loss of the culture of self-reliance that sustained us for so long?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

—The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

When Republican governors like Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, and Sarah Palin voiced reservations about their states’ participation in the federal stimulus package this spring, they were accused of placing political ideology over the best interests of their constituents.  A prominent attack ad currently running against Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell cites his opposition to stimulus funding for Virginia as evidence of his lack of concern for hardworking families.  For many people, the idea that a governor would turn down “free” money from Uncle Sam in order to protect the economic solvency and political independence of their state is completely foreign, if not downright laughable.  As the central government continues to grow and amass power, however, perhaps now is the time to begin a thoughtful public discussion about the proper constitutional role of state governments in a federalist system.

It is impossible to watch TV, listen to the radio, or surf the internet these days without being reminded that our nation is experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.  No one is fonder of reminding us of this alarming state of affairs than our President and his supporters in Congress.  The rhetoric of crisis makes it easy for politicians to convince the people that bold actions were, and continue to be, necessary in order to salvage our flagging economy.  And of course, the only entity capable of taking on the gargantuan responsibility of saving America from the consequences of its own selfishness and greed is the federal government.

In the name of remediating this crisis, the American government has presided over the most drastic expansion of its size and scope of influence in our nation’s history.  In the name of “recovery and reinvestment,” this Administration has catapulted the irresponsible fiscal policies begun under the Bush administration to new levels, spending unimaginable sums of taxpayer money to nationalize or quasi-nationalize vast segments of the American marketplace.  There’s no telling what segment of our economy will fall next into the crosshairs of Uncle Sam’s benevolent bailout apparatus.

How will the federal government fund the bailout mania that appears to have no end in sight?  Simple.  Bureaucrats will work day and night to find creative ways to extract more and more money from the people.  Of course, when there is more money flowing into Uncle Sam’s coffers, there is less money circulating in households and in communities.  That translates into an ever growing dependence on the federal government for the performance of functions that should rightly rest with individuals and their respective state governments.  Indeed, the bloated visage of the federal government has become so fixed in the nation’s psyche that effective challenges to its legitimacy seem utterly futile, if not downright impossible.  Political constructs like “universal health care,” “free education for all” and “a hybrid in every driveway” are now viewed as unassailable moral dictates of the American creed to be mandated, managed, and administered by bureaucratic elites in Washington, D.C.  Those who would dispute the legitimacy of this statist dogma are no longer invited to have a seat at the table.

History teaches us, however, that this massive government growth and consolidation of power at the national level cannot continue without detrimental consequences for the American people.  Thankfully, some are beginning to reexamine the role that the states should be playing in these issues.  A review of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution reminds us that the federal government was never intended to have the power it now possesses.  The bounds of its authority and its role in America’s political system are explicitly enumerated, while the bulk and remainder of governmental authority is allocated to the states.  In addition to the system of checks and balances put in place to ensure stability between the three branches of the central government, we have a federal system by which the states are to exercise power and check the abuse of power by the central government.

Alexis de Tocqueville considered the powers vested in the individual American states to be key to the long-term viability of the nation as a whole.  His eloquent assessment of America’s federal system in 1830 could be read as a prophetic admonition of our nation’s current state of affairs:

“One cannot imagine to what extent this division of sovereignty serves the well-being of each of the states of which the Union is composed….  As the sovereignty of the Union is hindered and incomplete, the use of that sovereignty is not dangerous for freedom.  Neither does it excite those immoderate desires for attention that are so fatal to great republics.  As everything does not necessarily converge at a common center, neither does one see vast metropolises, or immense wealth, or great misery, or sudden revolutions there.  Political passions, instead of spreading in an instant over the whole area of the country like a sheet of flames, break against the individual interests and passions of each state.”

Modern day disciples of Tocqueville who wish to resurrect a robust role for the states’ constitutionally delegated authority must, nevertheless, overcome an unwholesome legacy.  Too often in America’s history, the states attempted to exert their sovereignty at the expense of individual rights.  Who can forget the states’ rights justification used to defend the extension of slavery into U.S. territories prior to the Civil War, the shameful phenomenon of antebellum Jim Crow laws, or the image of Alabama governor George Wallace barring the schoolhouse door in protest against federally-mandated desegregation in public schools?  These ill-conceived assertions of state authority cast a pall over the doctrine of states’ rights.  Having lost moral legitimacy in the public square, the concept atrophied through decades.  In the meantime, people have been conditioned to look to the federal government to meet their wants and needs.

But times have changed.  The American people are now faced with the opposite phenomenon: a central government that is abusing its amassed powers to dismantle the federalist tradition and all it stands for.  The rights of the states and the rights of individual citizens are being trampled upon in the name of the common good.  The states must not shy away from their constitutional responsibility to defend themselves from this federal onslaught.  Moreover, individual citizens have a role to play in educating themselves about the republican model of our federalist system so that they can participate in a meaningful public discussion about the proper relationship between the central government and the states.  If we don’t have this conversation, and soon, we might as well say goodbye to the United States of America and embrace our country for what it’s fast becoming: the United State.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty” He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society. For more articles and resources from Mr. Connor and the Center for a Just Society, please visit the archive at Center for a Just Society.

If the election were held today, Barack Obama would be the new President of the United States of America. The latest Real Clear Politics average of national polls shows Obama ahead of McCain by nearly seven percentage points. It looks like the Democrats are going to have control of both the White House and Congress for the next four years.

And, mark it down, if there is a Democrat sweep, conservative Republicans will get the blame.

Counterfeit Conservatism Caused Collapse

The fact of the matter is, however, that President Bush and the Republicans who dominated Congress during most of his administration governed as anything but conservatives. Except during election season, it has been difficult to find any trace of conservative principles among incumbents within the Republican Party. During their tenure, Republican governance was characterized by out of control spending, record-setting earmarks, affirmative action programs for corporate wrongdoers, corrupt relations with special interests, and sexual scandal. While they often described themselves as “conservatives,” their walk was very different from their talk.

The names voters associate with Republicans do not evoke visions of commitment to traditional conservative values: Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Alberto Gonzalez, Boeing, Halliburton. Neither do the programs: No Child Left Behind, The Bridge to Nowhere, Amnesty for Illegals. During the period of Republican hegemony, no real ground was gained on reforming entitlements, no major effort was made to curb abortion (or even abortion funding), and the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product rose to a 50-year high!

Few Republicans in leadership in government during the past decade have been authentic conservatives. At best, they have been counterfeit conservatives, which no doubt accounts for why Republicans lost so many seats in 2006 and why they appear ready to lose more seats and the Presidency this November.

In the aftermath of the election, the Republican Party will undoubtedly have the time to engage in serious introspection. Hopefully, its leaders will come to understand that conservatism is not just a “label” or even a “movement.” It is a way of life.

Principles of True Conservatism

Because of the divergence between the words and deeds of those who have called themselves conservatives, there is a lack of clarity of what it really means to be a “conservative.” Conservatives are sometimes confused with libertarians. But true conservatives are not autonomous individuals seeking absolute freedom. The siren call of extreme libertarianism is no less destructive than the liberal dream of the nanny state. Conservatives understand that every person is a part of a family and a community; they understand that each generation is just one link in the long chain of human history; and they understand that each person and each generation has duties to those who went before, those who are living today, and those who will come after us. A sense of duty and history governs the lives and thoughts of conservatives.

Life
Conservatives understand that the right to life is the foundation of all other rights. They believe that unless government first protects the right to life, all other rights become meaningless. Rights are reserved for the living. They mean nothing to a corpse.

Conservatives also believe that one’s rights come from the Creator, not from the government. They believe that Government’s chief role is to protect the rights that God has endowed to humankind. They do not believe that human rights or human dignity depend on one’s age, size, or location (inside or outside the womb or even in a petri dish). Consequently, conservatives support policies that protect the lives of all innocent human beings from conception to natural death.

Family
A recovery of conservatism begins with a recovery of the family. Families are the cornerstone of a healthy society. Families are the units that raise our children, transmit our values, and prepare children for life in society as responsible adults. In addition to providing protection, provision, and guidance, families provide an environment in which children learn how to order their lives as they live in community with others.

Conservatives believe that both mothers and fathers have unique and invaluable roles to play in the development of healthy children. Feminine and masculine role models are important for girls and boys alike. In our youth, we look to our mothers and fathers to learn how to live and relate to others. However, divorce, promiscuity, and co-habitation have devastated America’s families. Many children have only a single parent to raise them. Consequently, children are often raised with a “gender gap,” and they receive instruction and guidance at home from just a single parent. The pathologies of single parent children are all too familiar: academic failure, drug abuse, teen suicide, sexual promiscuity, juvenile delinquency. Conservatives, therefore, advocate policies that strengthen and undergird the family, knowing that such policies strengthen and undergird society.

Work, Savings, Investment, Thrift
Conservatives understand the value of work. Work is the means by which families sustain themselves economically. Since families (unlike government) are not able to print money, they understand the work-wealth connection. Conservatives deem the willingness to work hard to support oneself and one’s family a virtue. They eschew policies that diminish incentives to work or encourage a lack of self sufficiency.

Conservatives also understand the importance of living within one’s means. They understand the importance of savings and investment and know that to do either requires that they resist the temptation for instant gratification. They understand that the future is uncertain and life has its ups and downs. Therefore, in good times they set aside a portion of their earnings for the difficult times that may be around the bend. They favor policies that promote savings and investment and oppose those that promote unhealthy speculation, which they see as the equivalent of gambling.

Markets
Conservatives believe that markets should be free from excessive government regulation and that free market forces, not government intervention, should determine winners and losers in the market place. Competition is typically the best and most efficient way to determine which goods and services the consuming public wants. Government control of the means of production of consumer goods and government dictation of consumer preferences should be discouraged.

Recognizing, however, that men are not angels and that accountability and responsibility run hand in hand, businesses and the marketplace should be subject to reasonable regulations designed to secure honesty, transparency, and accountability. Individuals or enterprises, who deem themselves aggrieved by others, should have access to the courts so that disputes may be resolved by a jury of their peers

Education
Conservatives understand that getting a good job and working hard is an important part of life, but they believe that the purpose of education is much greater than just career-preparation. They agree with Russell Kirk that the true purpose of education should be the “cultivation of a person’s own intellect and imagination, for the person’s own sake…. True education is meant to develop the individual human being….” Conservatives believe that through education children should gain a better understanding of themselves and the world. Consequently, conservatives believe that the education of one’s children is first and foremost a parental responsibility.

To the extent that government assumes a role in the educational arena, conservatives believe that schools should not promote values that are inimical to those of parents. Recognizing that one size does not fit all and that all schools are not equal, conservatives believe that parents should be able to choose the venue for their children’s education, including the home. Since education is important to the development of our children, conservatives also believe that educational standards should be designed to encourage excellence and discourage mediocrity in the class room.??Religious Faith
Our culture is increasingly ambivalent about religion. We have come to believe that religion is a private matter that should only be discussed in the confines of home, if at all. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional conservative understanding of religion’s role in culture.

Conservatives believe that the marketplace of ideas should be open to a free and vigorous exchange of religious thought. People should have the freedom to advocate the propriety of their own religious views and to challenge the views of others. Nevertheless, because one’s beliefs are ultimately a matter of personal conscience, conservatives believe that neither government nor anyone else should have the power to impose particular religious views on others. People should be free to believe (or disbelieve) in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience. That does not mean, however, that the policies of government may not be informed by its people’s religious beliefs. Indeed, conservatives believe that there are self-evident truths rooted in eternity that transcend time and culture and that these truths are binding on individuals and governments alike.

The Earth
Perhaps the most conspicuous failing of “modern conservatives” is the complete abandonment of care for the environment. Because of their antipathy for “tree-hugging hippies,” conservatives have abandoned their duty to care for our world. This is nonsensical—no one should care more for our world than conservatives. The conservative respect for past and future generations demands that we exercise proper stewardship over the earth, cultivating it and preserving it for our children.

Community
Conservatives believe in the importance of local communities. While liberals look to government to provide for the needs of the community, conservatives believe in the potential of individual neighbors to work together to build strong communities. Placing this responsibility on the shoulders of the government weakens the community and reduces the human potential for hospitality, love, and sacrificial service one to another.

T. S. Eliot understood that government was no replacement for weak, disintegrating communities: “This separation cannot be repaired merely by public organization. It is not a question of assembling into committees representatives of different types of knowledge and experience, of calling in everybody to advise everybody else.” There is no replacement for a natural local community. No other entity can provide the kind of common moral basis, the unwritten social rules, the preservation of cultural traditions, and the care and love for one another.

Conclusion

A return to conservatism will not succeed on a national level if it does not first begin at home. No political movement can reestablish true conservatism, because true conservatism is not rooted in the government or political activism. The root of conservatism lies in the second greatest commandment: “…’Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Matt. 22:39 NIV) and in the Golden Rule, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31 NIV)

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty” He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society. For more articles and resources from Mr. Connor and the Center for a Just Society, please visit the archive at Center for a Just Society.

“Political moral philosophy” sounds like an oxymoron in the context of our modern, unprincipled politics. Nevertheless, a sound moral philosophy is the vital center of any political movement intent on fashioning a just society. Unfortunately, both political parties today seem to have lost their grip on whatever moral philosophy they once held to be true. Democrats have abandoned their old socialist ideals for a pragmatic approach focused on winning elections by promising new domestic programs and repeating a mantra advocating vague, undefined notions of “change.” Republicans have dropped their ideals of personal freedom and limited government in favor of winning elections by rewarding powerful special interest groups with earmarks, tax cuts, and limitations on liability for wrongdoing.

The dominant principle of moral philosophy guiding both major political parties seems to be reelection.

There is great value in having a guiding moral philosophy to act as a check on the political fancies of the day. Both politicians and their constituencies are often carried away by their desires or perceived needs. When people suffer, they are tempted to look first to the government for aid. And when politicians’ terms are about to expire, they often seek to ingratiate themselves to their constituents by sending money and benefits their way. These impulses will inevitably lead a government astray if they are not hedged in by a well-informed political moral philosophy.

P.J. O’Rourke exposes the importance of political moral philosophy in his recent Weekly Standard article, “Mr. Sununu Goes to Washington.” O’Rourke explains that both the left and, to a lesser extent, the right have forgotten or abandoned their underlying moral philosophies. In his article, O’Rourke interviews one man whom he feels still embraces a moral philosophy which guides his political decisions: Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire. Though the Senator’s specialties are engineering and business, O’Rourke maintains that he has a grasp of the core principles which made the Republican Party strong. Sununu asserts, “I have a deep-seated belief that America is unique, strong, great because of a commitment to personal freedom—in our economic system and our politics. We are a free people who consented to be governed. Not vice-versa.”

Personal freedom is foundational to all branches of conservative moral philosophy, but it is especially important to Christian conservatives. Christian conservatives believe that all individuals—rich or poor, black or white, whole or handicapped—have inherent worth, value and dignity. Their belief springs from the concept of the imago dei, that is, that every individual is created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Their belief is bolstered by the notion that God loves humanity so much that he sent his son to die for fallen human beings in order to redeem them for eternity (John 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). These views give rise to the notion that all men stand equal before the law and that government exists to protect the rights that have been endowed to them by their creator.

Tension sometimes develops between the different strains of conservatism, especially between libertarian conservatives and Christian conservatives. That tension typically arises over where to draw the lines limiting government involvement in the free choices of its people. For example, many libertarians oppose governmental attempts to restrict abortion, prohibit physician-assisted suicide or use tax monies to assist the poor. The basis for their opposition is that, in a free society, government has no business limiting the rights of its citizens to make decisions for themselves. For libertarians, freedom is the ultimate value and the atomistic individual should be free to make decisions for himself by himself. Hence, libertarians believe that women should be free to decide whether to abort their unborn children, that people should be able to determine the time and manner of their death and that government aid to the poor represents nothing more than a coerced form of redistribution of wealth through taxation.

Christian conservatives, while cherishing freedom, do not believe that freedom is the only value or that it gives rise to an unrestricted license in personal decision making. They believe that since we live in community with others who are of equal worth and dignity, we have obligations to our fellow citizens and not just to ourselves. Decisions which affect our fellow citizens must be evaluated in light of whether they are fair and just to others and in light of the impact they have on the rights and freedom of others. Christian conservatives see government as agent of all the people, not just of the individual. Its chief purpose is to protect life and to preserve order so that freedom can flourish for all. Preserving order includes protecting the weak from exploitation by the strong and protecting the lives, rights and property of all citizens.

The conservative principles of equality and freedom formed the moral philosophy of the early United States. While they were often realized incompletely (the horrors of slavery show the inconsistencies of the founders), they were vital to the success of the nation. The Declaration of Independence specifically focuses on these principles. It declares that the equality of all men and their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are self-evident truths. Human equality and freedom are the core principles that form the moral philosophy of the United States.

The Declaration goes on to state that the purpose of government is to protect the freedom and equality of its citizens. Government is necessary to prevent one man from killing or enslaving another. Moreover, since government derives its powers from the people, the people have the right to “alter or abolish” the government if it ceases to fulfill its purpose.??These political principles of moral philosophy were once understood by most Americans, but they are increasingly being replaced by the selfish concerns of politicians and citizens alike. Both Republicans and Democrats are now focused on their own political gain. Their agendas have become little more than checklists of benefits available to the constituencies who elect them.

Americans need to demand principled politics from their representatives. They have a responsibility to oppose the self-centered, vote-grubbing tactics of modern Republicans and Democrats. Both parties need to establish and articulate their undergirding moral philosophy. The contrast between these philosophies would augment the national political dialogue. Through a discussion of the contrasting political philosophies, Americans will once again begin to develop their own individual political philosophies which, in turn, will guide their opinions and votes.

Ken Connor is an attorney and co-author of “Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty” He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society. For more articles and resources from Mr. Connor and the Center for a Just Society, please visit the archive at Center for a Just Society.