On Wednesday, prominent, self-identified conservatives will gather to sign the Mount Vernon Statement, explained on its Web site as “a defining statement of conservative beliefs, values and principles penned by a broad coalition of conservative leaders” while claiming to represent “wide spectrum of the movement including fiscal, social, cultural and national security conservatives.”

The statement is modeled after a similarly-themed ”Sharon Statement” written by National Review founder William F. Buckley.

Here’s an except of the Mount Vernon Statement, by way of Salon:

“We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.”

The Mount Vernon Statement will be signed at Collingwood Library and Museum, which “original part of George Washington’s Mount Vernon real estate holdings”, according to the Mount Vernon Web site.

So how are political pundits reacting to the news?

Explaining his reasoning for signing the Mount Vernon statement in an editorial on Fox News, President of Americans for Tax Reform Grover Norquest wrote, “We all choose how we live our lives as individuals. We decide for ourselves our careers, family life and religious belief. But we collectively commit to the constitutionally limited government that protects our rights and property. Together we restate the American compact where we work to restore and maintain a limited government so that our futures may be what we individually choose.”

Which is all fine and good, but, as Salon’s Gabriel Winant points out in response to such notions, “Back in 1776, nobody needed Medicare, because the average lifespan was around 35. In 2010, just citing ‘self-evident’ truths ain’t going to cut it.”

To read more about the Mount Vernon Statement, go here.

Our Take

There’s nothing inherently objectionable parts of the Mount Vernon statement. Notions such as “[t]hrough the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law” and “[The Founders] sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government” should ring true to most people, regardless of ideology. (Save for maybe the “republican” part, but do note that it’s a lower-case “r").

The problem is that there are far too many people in conservative activism and policy aren’t practicing what they preach. How else to explain the inconsistencies between a faction of American public who cheers a Supreme Court ruling that declares that corporations are human, too (which reminds me, I need to send a congratulations card to Walgreen Co.), while insisting upon military tribunals and prolonged detention? Or who cries about the supposedly intrusive evils of economic redistribution while barely blinking an eye-lash before intruding in the bedrooms of fellow tax-paying Americans?

So is the Mount Vernon Statement intended to be a new “contract with America?” Well, for one, the Mount Vernon Statement is more of a statement of purpose, rather than a legislative guide for action. But if the authors and signees (which, so far, includes no actual politicians) intended for their Mount Vernon Statement to have the same effect as the Contract With America had in the 1994 election, they may be in for an uphill battle.

What do you think of the Mount Vernon Statement? Let us know by leaving a comment. Keep it civs, people.