After the common threads that tied Americans together began to unravel a couple of decades ago, it became standard practice for presidential candidates to claim they “could unite America.”
George W. Bush ran on that claim in 2000 and actually succeeded — although uniting Americans in contempt of their president probably is not what he had in mind.
Generally, politicians making such a claim mean they will support enough giveaways to appease the left and oppose enough to appease the right. But why the machinations when we already have a unifying document? The Constitution is a statement of shared goals.
Lamentably, it is unclear whether modern Americans still want to abide by our national agreement — or whether a politician who advocates strict adherence to the Constitution even can be politically viable.
The candidate who defends the Constitution most consistently, Ron Paul, R-Texas, has attracted only a small following, and it includes some unsavory elements.
It seems that the majority of Americans — certainly the majority of Democrats — have abandoned the values that defined this nation for its first 200 years or so: beliefs in self-reliance and individual liberty, and respect for the rule of law.
How can Americans and their representatives in Congress still profess to believe in self-reliance when they support such things as foisting the cost of children’s health insurance from parents onto taxpayers?
Exemplifying the absurd, Congress even created a federal subsidy to help Americans buy converter boxes when television broadcasts shift from analog to digital. Where does the Constitution guarantee citizens the right to clear TV reception?
Listening to some of these candidates, one can only wonder if these people ever listen to themselves. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., wants taxpayers to give every baby born in the United States $5,000 at birth to encourage the habit of saving.
But parents will have no incentive to save if taxpayers provide every child’s nest egg. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards wants to spend money on college for everyone … when not everyone is college material.
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., says we must be “the generation that ends poverty.” But poverty in the United States now is largely self-inflicted by people who refuse to go to school or get a job and have babies they cannot support. Unless Obama is willing to denounce those behaviors, denouncing poverty is futile.
That a significant percentage of Americans applaud such suggestions indicates they don’t want to be self-reliant. They would rather mooch off the earnings of others and let the government control their lives.
Who would have dreamed a generation ago that citizens would let their government dictate the minutiae of everyday life such as where young children may ride in the car and what time teenagers have to be home — or that small businesses would be saddled with regulations on such things as carving butterfly shrimp?
Politicians peddle overweening government on the pretense of “keeping Americans secure.” But the Constitution requires government to provide for the common defense — not for individual safety. If you’re afraid of incorrectly carved shrimp, then stay home to eat.
Perhaps most discouraging is how many Americans seem to no longer believe in the rule of law. Consider the debate about what to do with illegal immigrants in this country. Many candidates’ positions essentially explain to what extent they would ignore or violate the law.
Disagreeing with statutes and advocating change is defensible; advocating breaking the rules is not. Yet respecting the rule of law obviously would cost Democratic candidates support among their party’s base.
When taking the oath of office, a president promises to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It isn’t his job to monitor the prevalence of diabetes on Indian reservations (as the head of Cherokee Nation Businesses implied in endorsing Obama for president).
Ideally, a presidential candidate would assure Americans that the federal government would leave them largely alone to earn their own livings, take care of their own families, guard their own health, and save for their own retirement. He would follow the dictum that guided the Founders: “That government is best that governs least.”
Alas, such a candidate likely would not be elected to govern at all.
Examiner Columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
