Fred: Rights Come From God
I've been a lousy blogger this week as real life has impinged forcibly upon me. But I need to break silence and point out the brilliant little nugget in Fred Thompson's new ad:
Did you catch that, nestled amidst the Cracker-barrel folksiness? "My friends, we must remember that rights come from God, and not from Government." It's already creating some buzz because it's a radical statement. And a true one. And a very important one.
I got in a heated discussion with Allahpundit about this very subject a while back--I can't find it in the Hot Air comments now, but I think it was just a month ago--about where rights come from. Allah thought our fundamental rights come from the "consent of the governed" which is no protection at all. I maintained then as now that rights are bigger than government, that government guarantees them but it doesn't make them, and so it also can't take them away with the stroke of a pen--no matter what Kelo says. We can forfeit those rights through our actions--for example, murdering someone forfeits our own right to life--but government can't legitimately decide that, for example, this "self-defense" thing was a mistake and outlaw a natural right because it's politically convenient. Governments may abuse or ignore citizens' rights, but it doesn't mean the right goes away when they do.
It's a reassuring statement coming from Fred, but it's not a new one. Here he is addressing the Council on National Policy in May:
Hopefully there will be an opportunity to do all of those things [i.e. cover some policy talking points--See Dub] but tonight instead of all of that, I want to talk a little about what should be the origin of all those talking points. This would be the principles on which they are based — first principles. The principles you have been defending since 1981.I'm kind of a political philosophy geek so maybe this is more important to me than it will be to other voters, but I still love to hear it. It's big questions like this that I want to hear the answer to more than the small policy details. Like any battle plan, those small things won't survive first contact with the enemy (or the opposition, as the case may be). The principles might.For Americans, these are found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. They include a recognition of God and the fact there are certain rights that come from Him and not the government. They are based upon a respect for the wisdom of the ages, and a belief that human beings are prone to err; that too much power must never rest in too few hands. The result is a system of checks and balances and a separation of powers that flow from our guiding documents and from the rule of law.
When we elected George W. Bush in 2000, we had no idea that the September 11th attacks were already being planned. (Had I known, I probably still would have voted for Bush, and sent money too.) We had to pick someone with the right principles for an unpredictable world. We don't know what the next four years will bring. I know it will bring a lot of decisions we'll never even hear about that will test the new President's commitment to his principles, so we should at least understand what those principles are that he's starting from before we trust him to make decisions in our name.
That way we can hold him accountable.*
One more thing--politically, this is an appealing position because it is religious and acknowledges God without being churchy or condescending or sappy. Compare these terse and reverent invocations of Deity to the showy treacle the Democratic candidates engage in when they take to the pulpits. It's also one of the reasons James Dobson despises him so much and keeps engaging in clumsy attempts to sink his candidacy. Me, I'd be fine with a more demonstrably devout candidate, but I also know a lot of people wouldn't be. If Thompson turns out to be a closeted Jeffersonian Deist, that will be fine with me, and the broad middle as well.
*Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that Hillary Clinton is the kind of president we could do business with because she has no principles, and only believes in expediency--and therefore she's the least worst Democrat in the race. It struck me as a bit glib, but there may be something to it. Depressing, though, that Hillary's corrupt power-hungry nature serves as her best attribute.