Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pence: Evangelizing for a Constitutional Reawakening
I serendipitously happened on to a speech that Mike Pence delivered at Hillsdale a few months ago on the presidency and the Constitution, which was very timely, given the current White House occupant’s routine abuse of executive authority.
I’ve known for some time that Pence is a serious and substantive guy, but was particularly impressed with this speech and wanted to share a few thoughts about it. In a site search I discovered that Professor Rahe had written about the speech on Big Government.com, which he earlier linked on Ricochet. I’ll read his piece shortly.
Pence’s speech deserves attention because it is an eloquent and stirring call to a return to first principles. Many of us expend a great deal of energy criticizing liberals for their cynical disregard for the Constitution as written. But I don’t think we spend enough time making the affirmative case that the framers purposely structured our government to achieve the proper balance between the power of government and individual liberties. They were learned students of history and statecraft, and proceeded largely from a worldview that recognized the fallen human condition. They understood that investing the government with too little or too much power would jeopardize liberty. “If men were angels,” they wouldn’t have had to pit the branches and levels of government against each other in an effort to “oblige government to control itself,” and avoid tyranny.
Pence affirms that our republican government is one of laws, not men, which was designed to avoid the development and elevation of a ruling class that operates above the law or outside its established constitutional constraints.
In his speech, Pence argues, in effect, for a reawakening of our first principles and a return to true constitutional governance. He reminds us that like the framers, we must not place our hope in our fellow mortals, but in adherence to a system that best accommodates the human condition so as to maximize our liberties.
He says that instead of operating as a check on each other, the executive and legislative branches, being dominated by a single party, have formed an “unholy unity,” and this “political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.” (Think of Obama’s post election delusion: “The American people did not vote for gridlock.”) Pence continues:
A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect. … That is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and even accounts at the end. …
The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us; we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law, and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing. …
No one can say this too strongly, and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects; we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and—if I may remind you—we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States? …
The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. …
A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic, but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history, through which he must navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed on those powers both by man and by God. …
A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men. …
Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith with it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the nation’s first principles. The Constitution and the Declaration should be on a president’s mind all the time, as the prism through which the light of all question of governance passes. Though we have—sometimes gradually, sometimes radically—moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion to limited government?
Pence’s words reveal a refreshingly stark contrast between his adult approach to limited, republican government and Obama’s statist ends-oriented manipulations — especially in an age when arrogant politicians have become so far removed from their roots that they don’t ever pause to consider, before acting, whether they have the constitutional authority to act.
You surely remember the bizarre string of quotes from various Democratic senators and congressmen when asked by reporters under what authority they legislated Obamacare. Most were aghast that anyone would even dare question their legislative omnipotence. That’s one of the many reasons that Pence’s call for a restoration of our founding principles was so gratifying — and encouraging.
Published in General
That you need to explain the importance of the Constitution to men and women who took an oath to uphold the Constitution is really scary. But since it has to be done, it is nice that there are people like Pence out there who can do it so eloquently.
I met Mike Pence at the dinner before the speech and heard him deliver it. In his intellectual seriousness, he is a rarity among the folks in Congress. I hope that he runs for higher office. If I remember correctly Mitch Daniels will be termed-out as Indiana governor in 2012.
There are no benevolent big governments, just as there are no horse-friendly 400-lb jockeys. Size alone becomes the oppression.
I have received the Imprimis publication for years. Although there have been many outstanding pieces, the Pence speech was the first which caused me to write for additional copies to hand to my friends and family. It was a wonderful explanation of why limited government and particularly, a limited executive, is so crucial for liberty.
3 Cheers for Imprimis ! ! !
For me, a compelling demonstration that a candidate is unwavering in his devotion to Constitutional principles is an absolute requisite. Pence appears to be such a man.
On the other hand, I’m wary of any candidate who wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve. George W Bush let his beliefs inform some truly awful policies.
Agreed.
Our Founders intentionally created a system of government that sacrificed efficiency for security (at the federal level) and rejected the social stratification of English society. Americans have increasingly accepted old European ideals of statism in want of greater efficiency.
No government or culture remains static. Perhaps this is the most natural drift for a system such as ours. That doesn’t mean we have to accept the change without struggle.
The Constitution did not create America. It cemented in contract how America would be preserved and strengthened. It’s vital that Americans understand this. Americans created this government to protect the liberties they had already claimed. Government does not give us freedom.
America is not a government. It’s a people.
Agreed. Your piece was very good on the speech, btw. A bit off topic, but when I went to this post a few minutes ago to check for comments I noticed I hadn’t linked to the speech and so went in to edit and add the link. Instead of adding the link, it deleted the entire first paragraph. I tried three times and same result, even after quitting and relaunching the browser. I’ve alerted Diane to this glitch but wondered if any of you had ever experienced it.
On the other hand, I’m wary of any candidate who wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve. George W Bush let his beliefs inform some truly awful policies. ·Dec 4 at 8:33am
Kenneth: I couldn’t disagree more, but instead of just assuming I fully understand what you mean I want to ask for clarification. Are you saying you are bothered by outspoken evangelical conservative politicians, any social conservative politician or anyone who allows their policies to be informed by their worldview? I have written about this many times, but I just cannot understand how anyone can reasonably object to a politician allowing his worldview to guide his policy preferences because it is impossible to do otherwise. Are you bothered by secularist politicians who allow their worldview to inform their policies? I just don’t understand this line of thinking; never have. It seems to me a bizarre extension of the church/state separation myth, but maybe you mean something entirely different.
David,
There is a large segment of our republic that does not believe in the relevance of the constitution. Woodrow Wilson saw it as a great anchor against his progressive beliefs. He even thought he was doing the Lord’s work; literally.
From Teddy Roosevelt forward, we have a progressively growing progressive element that would gladly tear up the constitution so that they would be less restrained in their efforts.
As the proverb states: ” Where there is no vision, the people cast of restraint.” Proverbs 29:18
There is a large segment of our republic that does not believe in the relevance of the constitution. Woodrow Wilson saw it as a great anchor against his progressive beliefs. He even thought he was doing the Lord’s work; literally.
From Teddy Roosevelt forward, we have a progressively growing progressive element that would gladly tear up the constitution so that they would be less restrained in their efforts.
As the proverb states: ” Where there is no vision, the people cast of restraint.” Proverbs 29:18 ·Dec 4 at 8:51am
Edited on Dec 04 at 08:52 am
Yes, and it’s really annoying when they selectively champion certain favored provisions, such as steroid-injected interpretations of the 4th amendment — or, when they completely distort the Constitution, as in emanations and penumbras, and then presume to be jealous guardians of “established” rights that were never remotely contemplated by the framers.
On the other hand, I’m wary of any candidate who wears his evangelical beliefs on his sleeve. George W Bush let his beliefs inform some truly awful policies. ·Dec 4 at 8:33am
David,
I’m skeptical of politicians who use their religious beliefs to sell themselves. I’m a Christian,but I’ve never found it necessary or desirable to beat the drum about it: judge me by my actions, not by my words.
As a libertarian, when I hear a politician expound about their evangelical enthusiasms, I feel they’re pitching to a particular constituency, to the exclusion of folks like me.
Also, I’ve seen politicians violate Constitutional principles in favor of their compassionate religious beliefs. Witness Bush’s expenditure of tax dollars for African AIDS or Orrin Hatch’s enthusiasm for the DREAM Act, which serves his church’s recruiting purposes.
Yes, if someone wears his religion on his sleeve opportunistically — just to get support — that’s not admirable. FWIW, I find Pence enormously authentic and believe that to the extent he wears his Christian values on his sleeve, he is totally sincere. Your objection to the Bush AIDs thing, etc. is completely valid on constitutional grounds, in my opinion, but would just point out that Christian constitutional conservatives would probably agree with you — AND I’d add that liberals do the same thing virtually every time they advocate, i.e., they support all kinds of unconstitutional schemes on the phony pretense (and it’s not always phony, I’ll grant you) of compassion. The fact that their compassion is usually not driven by Christian impulses (though there are ample exceptions, as with social Gospel Christians), does not make it less objectionable even from the basis you are arguing. I assume you would agree with that?
I am glad I asked for a clarification because I don’t think you were saying what I thought you were, which is good — :-).
David, I agree with all that you just said. However, I don’t care whether Pence is sincere when he wears his Christian values on his sleeve. I’d rather he didn’t resort to it at all. If I were to meet him and hear that sort of thing, I’d probably respond, “OK, Mike. I’m a Christian, you’re a Christian, 75% of the population is Christian. So what? Find another way to persuade me.”
I’m just not comfortable with identity politics, though I grant that I am more comfortable with politicians who share my Christian worldview than those who do not.
Thanks to Rush, I’m an Imprimis subscriber and I thoroughly enjoyed the last speech that was delivered to me. Our problem today is not the authority legislated to our officials but the authority our legislators, beaurocrats, and judges take from the people. We live in a society were a non elected “official” has so much control that the people do not matter anymore.
Kenneth, you’re right that living by example is most important. But living Christian values without openly referencing Christ now and then is like living by all your father taught you while never acknowledging his presence right beside you. And religion is not merely private.
But I share your concerns. Unfortunately, popular perception of government in America has long been divorced from Constitutional limits. Even most conservatives have a habit of turning to government whenever “something should be done.” Charitable care for our neighbors is just one of many concerns which are improperly realized through government these days.
That said, political acts of charity are not always improper. They can strengthen our national security when they strengthen our alliances. In government, as in the residential lives of individual citizens, it pays to develop good will with neighbors. Some diplomacy costs money (taxpayer money).
That said, political acts of charity are not always improper. They can strengthen our national security when they strengthen our alliances. In government, as in the residential lives of individual citizens, it pays to develop good will with neighbors. Some diplomacy costs money (taxpayer money). ·Dec 4 at 10:16am
Sorry, Aaron, but I cannot agree. There is no Constitutional warrant that allows the Federal government to distribute my tax dollars to foreigners. But don’t take my word for it, recall what James Madison said, during a 1792 Congressional debate about appropriation of charitable funds for French refugees of a Haitian slave revolt:
It’s either in the Constitution or it’s not. If it’s not, and we allow it for “commendable” purposes, it will grow into a monstrosity.
I must admit to certain contradictions in my own thinking on political issues. Firstly, being “not of this world” and being an “ambassador” of another kingdom, it is difficult to bear too much allegiance to a document which some (inappropriately IMHO) raise to the level of semi-sacred. However I do want “…as much as is within me, to live at peace with all men…”. Therefore, I “Render unto Caesar…”.
In your evangelical reawakening effort, David, I would suggest that evangelism to Christ (akin to the Great Awakening of the days of Edwards and Whitefield) will have the secondary salutary effect of evangelism to the US constitution.
Just noticed Kenneth’s last post and agree wholeheartedly. Governments cannot act in charity. Only people can act in charity. Institutionalized charity breeds the soulless welfare state we have today because it disconnects the recipient from anyone with a beating heart.
David, I couldn’t agree more: restoring our constitutional order–a belief in and a reverence for the document itself, and for the prudent, limited and accountable government it bestows on us–is exactly what we need and should represent the underlying theme or purpose in all conservatives and Republicans and Tea Partiers attempt.
And I’ve been struck by how many of my guests on Uncommon Knowledge over the last couple of years have made just this point–i.e., that conservatives need to restore and deep their understanding of the founding document: Charles Kesler of the Claremont Review of Books, Reagan biographer Steve Hayward, and of course our own Paul Rahe.
Paul Ryan is doing magnificent work on the budget, but we need something deeper to unite and guide us. The Constitution–that’s it. Pence deserves a lot of thanks–and some serious attention.
It’s a fair point, but I would beg to mention that, under our system, the government and the people are supposed to be the same thing. In an ideal world, the government would never spend a dime except in a way I would wholeheartedly approve. In the world we actually inhabit, however, that’s not a realistic expectation. I can think of many worse ways — we all can — for the government to spend my money than by sending some to fight AIDS in Africa. I remain free to express my disapproval through the ballot box or through my elected representatives. If “charitable” initiatives such as these were sufficientlly unpopular, the government would cease to undertake them. Since they continue, it’s fair to assume most of us approve (or at least withhold our disapproval).
However, I don’t care whether Pence is sincere when he wears his Christian values on his sleeve. I’d rather he didn’t resort to it at all. If I were to meet him and hear that sort of thing, I’d probably respond, “OK, Mike. I’m a Christian, you’re a Christian, 75% of the population is Christian. So what? Find another way to persuade me.”
No, Kenneth, it’s precisely because Christianity is such a common way of understanding the world in our country that persuasion sometimes means doing the (to me as well) distasteful job of referencing it when talking politics.
In order to communicate with people, you have to build on what they already understand, in language they already understand. Not a whole lotta people understand basic economics or governance. But they do understand — or think they understand — being a good Christian.
If you want to communicate with as many people as possible, you have to be willing to sometimes get your “hands dirty” in reaching out to those people who have little other way of understanding you.
Count yourself blessed, Kenneth, for already having other ways of understanding. Many haven’t.
As an example, Kenneth:
Suppose I were trying to explain the advantages of a free market to one of my evo-bio friends. My friend will most certainly grasp how populations evolve naturally, without needing deliberate rules imposed on them. My friend would almost certainly agree to the proposition that human beings are biological organisms like any other.
Then, starting from there, I might ask, if we know that biological systems evolve spontaneously, without a need for some more powerful being to deliberately impose rules on them, why should human society be that much different?
Or something like that…
At any rate, I would build on what a person already knows and believes, and I think you would do the same thing, too.
For what it is worth, when Mike Pence came to Hillsdale — if I remember correctly — he did not wear his religious convictions on his sleeve. The only criticism that I could level at him is that his delivery was wooden. With practice and effort, that can be fixed.
Kenneth, I agree to the point that committments of taxpayer money to foreign bodies are required by the Constitution to be approved by the legislature. As a President can independently negotiate a treaty but that treaty must be ratified by Congress, so any act of diplomacy which financially burdens citizens must be approved by the whole of our representative government.
Foreign committments are certainly a slippery slope. I’m against our support of the United Nations and similar obligations. I would limit foreign aid to natural disaster relief.
But the Constitution does not define the forms or limits of our diplomacy. Am I wrong? Leave aside for the moment what is wise. What is Constitutional?
And I’ve been struck by how many of my guests on Uncommon Knowledge over the last couple of years have made just this point–i.e., that conservatives need to restore and deep their understanding of the founding document: Charles Kesler of the Claremont Review of Books, Reagan biographer Steve Hayward, and of course our own Paul Rahe.
Paul Ryan is doing magnificent work on the budget, but we need something deeper to unite and guide us. The Constitution–that’s it. Pence deserves a lot of thanks–and some serious attention. ·Dec 4 at 12:19pm
Gosh, Peter, that’s what libertarians have been talking about as long as I’ve been libertarian – restoring the Constitution. We’re the goofy guys who always carried a pocket-sized edition of the thing.
Foreign committments are certainly a slippery slope. I’m against our support of the United Nations and similar obligations. I would limit foreign aid to natural disaster relief.
But the Constitution does not define the forms or limits of our diplomacy. Am I wrong? Leave aside for the moment what is wise. What is Constitutional? ·Dec 4 at 1:27pm
Aaron, read Madison’s statement above and then read the 10th Amendment. That’s your answer.
If an individual state – or the people, as individuals – wish to give aid to foreigners, fine. But the Constitution does not give the Federal government that power.
You are conflating diplomacy with cash aid. They are not the same.
Agree with your entire post, Robert, except I’m not sure you’re actually guilty of any contradictions. I sometimes think it at least appears (notice all these qualifiers) that we Christian conservatives approach idolatry in our reverence for the Constitution. But since I believe it was conceived largely by those with a Christian worldview and that it incorporated that worldview (especially in that it structured government based on a recognition of man’s fallen nature — to maximize his liberties), it doesn’t bother me too much. It’s not idolatry to revere (not worship), “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man,” especially when that document formally established the greatest (and most benevolent) nation in world history.
Aaron Miller: Kenneth, I agree to the point that committments of taxpayer money to foreign bodies are required by the Constitution to be approved by the legislature. As a President can independently negotiate a treaty but that treaty must be ratified by Congress, so any act of diplomacy which financially burdens citizens must be approved by the whole of our representative government.
Foreign committments are certainly a slippery slope. I’m against our support of the United Nations and similar obligations. I would limit foreign aid to natural disaster relief.
But the Constitution does not define the forms or limits of our diplomacy. Am I wrong? Leave aside for the moment what is wise. What is Constitutional? ·Dec 4 at 1:27pm
If an individual state – or the people, as individuals – wish to give aid to foreigners, fine. But the Constitution does not give the Federal government that power.
You are conflating diplomacy with cash aid. They are not the same. ·Dec 4 at 3:40pm
They are not the same, but cash aid might on occasion be an appropriate instrument of diplomacy.
Kenneth
Aaron, read Madison’s statement above and then read the 10th Amendment. That’s your answer.
If an individual state – or the people, as individuals – wish to give aid to foreigners, fine. But the Constitution does not give the Federal government that power.
You are conflating diplomacy with cash aid. They are not the same. ·Dec 4 at 3:40pm
Professor Rahe, cash aid as part of a treaty, approved by the Senate, could be an appropriate instrument of diplomacy. Absent a treaty, there is no Constitutional grant of power to the Federal government to distribute tax dollars to foreigners.