Alan Keyes
May 31, 2012
Restoring representation--A Strategic Proposal III (Cont'd)
True representation--the Electoral College strategy
By Alan Keyes

This entry is part 5 of 6 in the series Restoring Representation

Step Two: Focus on restoring the political standard of America's founders and renewing America's common bond

A. Look not for a President who will do for you, but for representatives who will choose a President most likely to do his sworn duty to the country.

In the lip-service they give to the true meaning of the Republican label, GOP leaders routinely speak of their belief in "limited government." Yet in their practice of politics, they focus, just like the Democrats, on what government is doing, has done, or will do for some individuals and groups. In doing so, they give short shrift to the things that government is supposed to do for the people as a whole, according to the U.S. Constitution and the moral principles it is based upon. First among them: to secure the unalienable rights which are the common good of all. "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." So says the Declaration of Independence. If this is the first duty of government, then it is the first duty of all the sworn officers of government, for their office (from the Latin officium, meaning service, duty, etc.) is their duty.

The elitist faction's sham political process literally turns this priority upside down. The "what have you done for me lately" mentality was once mainly associated with urban bossism's degradation of politics. The elitist demagogues have made it the byword of their campaign rhetoric. This is why their promise and spend, spend and borrow, and spend election strategies, which feed the addiction to government power, have bankrupted the nation. Down this bottoms-up political rabbit hole, the aim of the nominating process is to procure the best talking figurehead to speak for this political prostitution, with no more thought to duty or real qualifications than is required to find an attractive reader for the nightly news.

In the context of their power-corrupted way of doing politics, the oath and duties of office aren't even an afterthought. If a nominee is serviceable as the focal point for their manipulation of the electorate, their attitude says "let the Constitution's requirements go hang." Thus in Obama's case, the overwhelming majority of politicians and government officials in both parties pronounced, or acquiesced in, the view that the majority's vote is the only qualification for office, no matter what the Constitution says. In line with the worst kind of obsequious, mobocracy-promoting demagoguery, they then proceeded to apply this same attitude to abusive Presidential executive orders, as well as the subversion of the Constitution's plainly-mandated legislative process.

So a corrupting approach to politics leads to an abusive approach to governing, one that casts aside the limits and constraints of the Constitution's words in order to violate the limits and constraints of the Declaration's principles. Thus, on the excuse of national security, and with the support of majorities from both parties, Congress approved legislation erasing the due process of law for individuals, citizens, and non-citizens alike.

Such results are poison to liberty. But it does no good to protest these results while accepting, with bovine placidity, the corrupt political process that secretes their venom. It makes no sense to choose government officers with no regard for their commitment to the first duty of government, and then expect that, once in office, they will make respect for that duty their first priority. The priority that governed their quest for office governs their tenure in office. To change the process, we must reject the order of priorities it imposes. We must replace it with the order of priorities America's founders proposed when they subscribed to and adopted the documents that make up the nation's organic law.

B. Swear never, by action or omission, to disregard the words and principles of the nation's organic law — i.e., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Voters who want to replace the corrupt priorities of the present political process with the order of priorities America's founders proposed will have to pull themselves together to devise a path for the political quest that surveys candidates for proof of their commitment to duty before true representatives of the people agree to commit them to office. But in order to gather, they must first identify themselves — i.e., they must make their shared identity known to one another.

What better way to do this than to take upon themselves the commitment they want their representatives to carry out? By doing so, they would make it possible for their choices to substantiate the literal meaning of true representation. To this end, therefore, they should signify, in some way visible to all, their sworn assent to the following pledge (or something like it): "I do solemnly swear and affirm that I will never, by action or omission, disregard the words and principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, but will to the best of my abilities seek, by my vote and political participation, to respect and implement them."

Under the present corrupted political paradigm, demagogues favored by the elite faction are offered as the focal points for people's will and allegiance. In the paradigm intended to restore the integrity of the republic's foundations, the documents that express that integrity become the focal points for the allegiance of people of goodwill, that is, people whose will corresponds to the good aim and intentions of America's founders.

C. Coming together on the common ground identified by this oath of shared allegiance, develop by way of rational deduction a statement that sketches out the overall guidelines for the work of your representatives.

In the present corrupted political paradigm, the sham Parties develop what they call their political platforms. Whatever purpose they served before the present corruption of political understanding took hold, now they are mainly exercises in cynical salesmanship, cobbled together to support the pretense that the respective Parties offer whatever their pollsters and consultants tell them people want to hear. Their platforms are especially targeted at whatever core constituency the Parties rely upon to be the leaven whose activity causes their Party hacks to rise to the political occasion. Because they mainly serve this "public relations" function, these days the platforms exist for reference only, on an "if asked" basis. In fact, especially in the GOP, it is commonplace for "presumptuous" nominees to distance themselves from the Party's platform even before it comes into existence. This is done to make sure that the mandate they receive in the general election can be interpreted as an excuse to forget the platform altogether. This oblivion leaves incumbent officeholders free to act without much concern for representing the voters who elected them.

But because our new electoral paradigm aims to restore true representation, the goal of representation must condition all the operational elements of the political process it entails. Therefore, representatives won't stand on a separable political platform. Instead, they will be chosen in light of guidelines intended to assure that they share and will conscientiously strive to embody the moral principles, character, and good will of the people they have been chosen to represent.

Obviously, it's not possible for any single individual to say what those guidelines should contain. Their content cannot be developed except in the specific context of the commonality they are supposed to express. At this point, it is not inappropriate, however, to consider some examples of the deductive thinking that ought to be involved in composing them.

The guidelines aim to aid in the search for people who will conscientiously keep the pledge to respect the words and principles of the nation's organic law. A potential official's attitude toward issues that directly involve this respect, and his record in dealing with those issues, is therefore the first priority for consideration. It is the sine qua non of fitness to represent voters who are themselves bound by the pledge.

Key premises of the nation's organic law include, for example:
  • Human equality as a matter of natural creation;

  • Unalienable rights endowed by the Creator;

  • Securing these rights as the overall aim of government;

  • Consent of the governed as the source of the just powers of government.
Key constitutional provisions that follow from these premises include, for example:
  • Equal protection of the laws, due process for all persons under the law;

  • Government actions and policies constrained by respect for unalienable rights;

  • Law and law enforcement that protect those who are exercising their rights and aims to discourage and prosecute wrongdoers;

  • Scrupulous respect for the constitutional provisions that implement and limit government based on these premises, such as: separation of powers; checks and balances; Federalism; and the residual sovereignty of the states, respectively and of the people (including careful regard for their natural and consensual associations, such as the family, their institutions of common worship, their business associations, etc.).
Key responsibilities that relate to these constitutional provisions include, for example:
  • Securing the unalienable right to life on an equal basis for all human beings as from the moment of their creation;

  • Assuring that the government's law enforcement and national security activities respect the constraints required by respect for the unalienable rights of all persons;

  • Eschewing any use of government power that erases the distinction between right and wrong, punishes citizens for the exercise of right, or compels citizens to approve or engage in wrongful acts;

  • Avoiding and opposing government policies, programs, and activities that consolidate the power of government without regard for the separation of powers; vigorously implementing the oversight and jealously safeguarding the prerogatives that maintain the constitutional system of checks and balances; and acting to preserve, defend, and where necessary restore the Federal character of government in the United States, including, as required, the assertion of the residual sovereignty of the States, respectively and the people, as well as the U.S. government's obligation to protect against invasion or insurrection and guarantee a republican form of government in each of the States.
From this kind of review of the premises, constitutional consequences, and responsibilities entailed by the nation's organic law, certain questions arise bearing on the fitness of anyone being considered for an office in the government, and in particular the office of President of the United States.

Such questions include:
  • How has the potential officeholder dealt with issues that directly involve respect for the key premises of the nation's organic law? Such issues include (for example and in rough order of priority):

    1. Use and abuse of the concept of the "separation of church and state" to deny purposeful creation as the premise of human equality and eliminate the people's awareness of the authority of the "laws of nature and of nature's God" as the basis of their claim to unalienable rights and constitutional self-government.

    2. The promotion of abortion and homosexual marriage, and in general the denigration of the responsibilities, obligations, and attendant rights of the natural family in order generally to implicate the people, so that their own actions and attitudes subvert and overthrow the consciousness of unalienable right that is the prerequisite for their moral capacity to maintain self-government based on the constitutional sovereignty of the people.

    3. Asserting and defending the people's right to acknowledge and respect, in all relevant aspects of education, and as authorized by the nation's organic law, the Creator; human persons as created beings; human beings as persons representing the will, and protected by the authority, of the Creator; human institutions, such as the natural family, as extensions of the "laws of nature and of nature's God"; and the obligation of government to secure the unalienable rights and consent of the people, from which their sovereignty as a people derives.

    4. The protection of the integrity of U.S. citizenship; of the franchise (the right to participate in U.S. elections); and in general of the citizen body that constitutes the locus of action of the people when acting in their sovereign capacity to determine their will.

    5. The rollback of programs and policies that rely on government domination of the nation's financial resources; its social institutions (especially the family and the schools); and its key economic sectors, including especially healthcare and energy.

  • How has the potential officeholder dealt with issues that involve the constitutional consequences of these foundational premises and the responsibilities associated with them? Such issues include (for example):

    1. Protection of the unalienable right to life by reversing and undoing the destructive consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court's atrocious Roe v. Wade decision (including support for a constitutional amendment specifically confirming the right to life of our posterity); and steps at all levels of government to restore general public consciousness of the personhood of all human beings from the moment of creation;

    2. Protection of the authority and rights of the natural family by opposing so-called gay marriage and other government interventions that disrupt the natural constitution of the family's God-endowed nature; and support for efforts to end the usurpation by the government of the natural role and responsibilities of parents within the natural family;

    3. Opposition to legislation and/or government policies and actions that use the excuse of national security to legitimize routine disregard (in legislative or executive actions and policies) for the unalienable rights of the people, as a whole (e.g., the declaration of war) or as individuals (e.g., the immunity from coerced criminal self-incrimination, or the immunity from loss of life, liberty, or property without due process, etc.)

    4. Constitutionally appropriate action to guard against, check, and remedy the abuse by any branch of government of its respective power in a way tending to promote government tyranny through the unconstitutional amalgamation of the legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government; support for laws that properly regulate immigration, as well as the requisite enforcement of those laws; and support for laws, policies, and actions required constitutionally to guarantee that the basic premises and institutions of republican government will be respected and maintained by both the U.S. government and the governments of all the States.
In addition to having such guidelines as a standard for the activities of their representatives, voters held together by the bond of respect for America's organic law will literally have to rally 'round the standard and the bond, in order to give political effect to both. Is it merely a coincidence that we live at a time when both the method and the means needed to do so appear at hand and ready for use? If there are people with the vision and courage to employ them in the electoral context, the time seems ripe for a campaign of mobilization that combines a firm commitment to restore the wisdom of the founders with the unprecedented opportunity for grassroots' coordination and action made possible by 21st century technology.

[Next — Step Three: Focus on mobilizing voters who respect the standard and the bond]

To see more articles by Dr. Keyes, visit his blog at LoyalToLiberty.com and his commentary at WND.com and BarbWire.com.

© Alan Keyes

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Alan Keyes

Dr. Keyes holds the distinction of being the only person ever to run against Barack Obama in a truly contested election — one featuring authentic moral conservatism vs. progressive liberalism — when they challenged each other for the open U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 2004... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Alan Keyes: Click here

More by this author