True Conservatism
For those of you who are unaware, today (Sunday, June 15) is the anniversary of the Magna Carta, the British document that established the tradition of Constitutional law that protects individual liberty in the western world and that serves as the legal inspiration for the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, not many Americans know of this document or appreciate its significance, a by-product of negligence in understanding the importance of our liberties and of maintaining our Constitutional system of government. But while our basic freedoms have been under assault in recent years, so has also been the case in my ancestral homeland, the UK.
This week, the sacred British traditions enshrined in the Magna Carta were dealt a serious blow by Parliament. The Labour Party (the UK's equivalent of the Democratic Party in the U.S.), who currently controls government under the leadership of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, introduced new legislation that would extend the detention period for terror suspects without charge to 42 days. Whereas the mere presence of detention without charge is a clear violation of Habeas Corpus, a hundred years old principle dictated by the Magna Carta, extending the period of detention to 42 days is a simply unacceptable increase in power of the state and is a serious threat to liberty. It is fundamental to the freedom of the individual that he/she must be allowed to live his/her life without coercion by anyone, as long as there is no coercion of others' life and liberty. That a person can be held without charge for a crime completely contradicts a free society and establishes the basis for tyranny. This is the initiation of a trend very damaging to the concept of a free British society. What's to say that in the future, the government won't ask for the period to be extended to 90 days, or six months, or even a year?
Unfortunately, this legislation passed on Wednesday by a very narrow margin of nine votes, all of which composed by the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party (which some suspect may have been the result of a dodgy deal). What is encouraging, though (and surprising, from the perspective of an American) is that the Conservative Party- essentially the UK's version of the Republican Party- was opposed to the legislation. The Tories (British nickname for the Conservatives) joined the Liberal Democrats (who would be best compared to the left-wing of the Democratic Party here) in fighting the legislation, while most of Labour pushed for it.
But no Tory, or for that matter any other MP, has offered such spirited opposition to the proposal and gone to such extraordinary lengths to defeat it as David Davis, a Shadow Cabinet minister, who this week resigned from Parliament in protest of the Bill's passage. Mr. Davis, who led the Conservatives' opposition to the measure, has committed to running in a by-election (when a MP resigns, a special election for the seat called a "by-election" is automatically held) from his district on the platform of protecting civil liberties. In doing so, he gave an eloquent and alarming speech laying out the specific anti-freedom actions pursued by the UK government recently- which reads quite similarly to a list of legislation enacted and being promoted in the US- and boldly initiating a new struggle for British civil liberties.
But while Mr. Davis is promoting a stance in line with his Party's, this move was truly one of political courage. For one, he resigned from
one of the most power seats in the Conservative Party and, effectively, has surrendered any chance he would have at a cabinet post if, as expected, the Tories win power in the next Parliamentary election. The move, according to The Independent, is also said to have angered Tory leader David Cameron with the perception of instability in the Party that has come in the aftermath of the resignation. Cameron, who has been working hard to build momentum for the Conservative Party, who is set to become the next Prime Minister after the next Parliamentary election. All of this gives every indication that Davis is now permanently out of power and out the running to one day be leader of the Conservative Party, which would position him to one day be Prime Minister if the Conservatives hold Parliament under his leadership. This is not exactly a typical quality for a man who very recently made a strong challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party when it last came up, which would have set him up to be the next Prime Minister of the UK.
Mr. Davis has also opened himself to great public criticism, particularly by the notoriously harsh, yet substantially influential, British media. He has been accused of making a mere self-promoting publicity stunt, the London Times calling it a "disastrous ego trip." The Sun, a right-leaning publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, accused him of "treachery to David Cameron" in a scathing attack in which they call him a "quitter" and say he has "gone stark raving mad." Even by media that has been positive to Mr. Davis, such as the Daily Telegraph. Many in the media suspect him of attempting to exploit the situation to engineer public momentum behind him to challenge for Conservative leadership, a notion he has roundly and convincingly rejected.
This historic act by David Davis solidifies him firmly as Britain's very own Ron Paul. It is an important and inspirational moment in the international movement for liberty, and this is certainly the case for America. Obviously, an act in specified defense of liberty by a politician this powerful and well-known in the cradle of modern Constitutional law of the world qualifies as such. But it is particularly important in that it re-establishes the notion that conservatism- true conservatism- has as one of its fundamental tenants the staunch defense of individual liberty from encroachment by government under any and every pretext. This is absolutely necessary in America, as "conservatism" has come more to resemble the nature of police statism that purges freedom to "promote" security, however ineffective its tactics may be in this regard. While Tory leaders like Davis, Cameron, and former Prime Minister John Major excoriate the British government's offense on civil liberties; in America, the "conservative" Bush Administration has trampled on the Bill of Rights, while Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain calls the Supreme Court's rejection of suspension of Habeas Corpus in the Military Commissions Act "one of the worst decisions" in the history of the Supreme Court. A writer at the "conservative" National Review even claimed that the Court's upholding of Habeas Corpus proclaimed that the America people had "lost to radical Islam."
As Constitutional lawyer Glen Greenwald explains in this terrific piece on Friday, what the "right" of American politics currently pursues is nothing resembling conservatism, but rather authoritarianism. Basic preconditions to true conservatism are the preservation of tradition and restraint. For America, entails preserving America's tradition of as a free society rooted in individual liberty and restraint of government from encroaching on this liberty by Constitutional law. Inherent in the actions advocated by "conservative" Republicans like George W. Bush, John McCain, and most of the Republican Party wholly contradict these ideas. In order for the freedom movement to advance in America, conservatism must once again be identified in its true context. Self-identified libertarians (big "L" and small "l") simply do not amount to a large enough number at this point to ensure victory, and Democrats like David Price who vote to assault our civil liberties through institution of the Patriot Act and the Real ID clearly cannot be trusted completely- if at all- to faithfully carry forth this agenda. The American Right must once again reacquaint itself with its purpose in order to have the numbers and momentum to prevail. In a sense, we who seek to preserve and promote individual liberty- be we self-identified as of the left, right, or the libertarian column- are all true conservatives.
Printer-friendly version
If you read the comments people have posted in the British media below articles discussing this issue, you'll see that the Brits roundly support Mr. Davis. Of course the MSM's readership levels continue to decline as they see fit to continue their little game of lies, omission, and propaganda.
Yes, they do. Yet another lesson there for "conservatives" in this country.
The American "conservative" has in many ways become so distorted that most true conservatives have become disgusted. The balance that should exist in government has gone out the door: a government in power should balance its power and desires with its duty to the rights and morals that underpin the whole of our society. It looks like it'll take a foreign conservative to show American "conservatives" the right path, a hard and often unpopular path that not many politicians have the courage to take.
I'd say the namesake of this site is a qualified American conservative to join David Davis in showing others the light. Right, B.J.?
When the British public acquiesced to being disarmed, they lost their ability to resist anything their government might choose to do to them.
-jcr
The real problem with Davis's move is not his stand, which as you said the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and even some Labour MPs supported, but that it is so clearly a stunt which could backfire. The Liberal Democrats have already said they will not run anyone against Davis (obviously since they are supportive of his stand) and if Labour not to indulge his stunt than he risks substantial embarrassment. All this is unnecessary when the Conservatives are polling at 47% and Labour is at 24%, a lead which would get the Conservatives a 249 majority in Commons, a majority with which they could repeal this act.
Its hard to call Davis a Ron Paul when the entirety of his party agrees with him, just not his methods.
How very well said. I agree, and thank you for a terrific post. The revolution is in fact about individual liberty and restraint of government. This clear thinking exposes the hypocricy of the entrenched, power on both continents.
Independence Day 2008 has come and gone, but its passing got me thinking.
Independence day commemorates the time when our philosophical ancestors finally said to a King, "Enough!" Mostly, everyone knows that, but how many people have actually read the document, the Declaration of Independence, in which they said that.
Some of the complaints Tom Jefferson made in the Declaration aren't things we worry about anymore. It used to be that governments routinely solved the problem of how to feed and house their armies by providing them room and board in private residences--at the expense of, and with or without the approval of, the owners of that residence. At least that's no longer a problem: the "quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" indictment in the Declaration isn't all that relevant anymore. Our own government doesn't "plunder our seas, ravage our coasts, burn our towns, and destroy the lives of our people"
Some things have actually gotten better over the last 232 years.
But...
Some of the complaints of 232 years ago are scarily still relevant. Back then the King "erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. " Hmmm, sounds familiar, doesn't it. He "imposed taxes on us without our consent." I don't know about you, but I sure never consented to having 40% of my income seized by various governments. The King "suspended our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever." Sounds a bit like the way the Federal government routinely ignores the rights of the, theoretically, sovereign states. The King "deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury" and "transported us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Kinda sounds like Guantanamo and "extraordinary rendition" doesn't it? The King "affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power." The undeclared Iraq war comes irresistibly to mind.
All of these things were enough to start a revolution a couple hundred years ago. Just off hand, I don't think they ought to be any more tolerable today.
Chris Moller said:
“I don’t know about you, but I sure never consented to having 40% of my income seized by various governments.”
Ah, but yes you did. Every time you, or a preponderance of the electorate vote for a politician whose platform is one of multiplying “social” benefits you, we, us, vote for higher taxes. Like it or not we are all in one boat. George Bush is every American’s president, just as the big spending and bloated government policies of his and previous administrations belong to all of us.
“The King “suspended our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Sounds a bit like the way the Federal government routinely ignores the rights of the, theoretically, sovereign states.”
Many Americans miss this, but when congress passed the Interstate Commerce Act the states, through their elected representatives in that august body, turned over their sovereign rights to the federal government.
“The King “deprived us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury” and “transported us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses.” Kinda sounds like Guantanamo and “extraordinary rendition” doesn’t it?”
Actually no. Read the fourth word in that sentence: us. When the constitution was written the signers were not thinking of residents of subterranean Africa, or the residents of France, Germany or the residents of any place other than the American Colonies. And, so it seems to me that is still the case. The Constitution does not apply to any people other than those living in the United States.
“The King “affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.” The undeclared Iraq war comes irresistibly to mind.”
The “undeclared Iraq war” was voted on and agreed to by congress, not a King or even a president. Where you got the notion the military had become independent and superior to civil power is beyond comprehension. Perhaps you missed it, I’m sure CNN covered it. The military brass being questioned by congress was even in the newspapers.
Cngress, which I believe is still a civilian body, votes on the head the Department of Defense.
If you are trying to muster a crowd for your revolution you will have to do a better job of rewriting history.
There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men. Edmund Burke
Read what I said: I never consented to having 40% of my income seized by various governments. It doesn't matter in the slightest how many other people did so consent. Further, for the most part, I've never consented to the imposition of these putative "social benefits" which, on the whole, cost a great deal more than the value of the so-called benefits. Further, it's not at all clear that people are in fact giving informed consent to the levels of taxation imposed on us--politicians are as artful as used-car salesmen at deceiving us. They promise all this great stuff, but then whisper about the cost. Or--the politicians' favorite trick--assure the beneficiaries of their scheme-du-jour that someone else--usually those nasty "rich" people--will pay the bill. "Consent" obtained by deception is simply fraud, regardless if that fraud is that of used-car salesman or a politician.
The Interstate Commerce Act has nothing at all to do with things like the No Child Left Behind fiasco, or decisions that Constitutionally belong to the States such those concerning abortion and use of "drugs."
A number of American citizens--I don't know how many, and generally, apparently, of Middle Eastern origin or ethnicity--have been the victims of violations of habeus corpus and "extraordinary rendition." Further, the Supreme Court recently ruled that Guantanamo detains are in fact entitled to the protection of law heretofore denied them. (By the way, "subterranean" means "underground." I suspect the word you were after was "sub-Saharan.")
The Iraq War was never formally declared. Further, the War Powers Act of 1973 stipulates the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if the country is already under attack or serious threat.
Post new comment