Second: As I am a foreign-policy conservative, so I am also an economic conservative. I believe in defending freedom and free enterprise from all opponents, foreign and domestic. If only one word could describe my political goals, it would be “liberty.” That’s what inspires me and motivates me more than anything here on earth. Economic liberty, religious liberty, financial liberty—they are all connected. You can’t truly have one without the rest. I always recall the words of the Muskego manifesto, the words that inspired my forebears to come to America from Norway: Here in America, they wrote, is a land “where freedom and equality prevail in civil and religious affairs, and without any special permission we can enter almost any profession and make an honest living. This we consider more wonderful than riches.” More wonderful than riches. That’s the way I feel too.
Yet with freedom comes responsibility. And in the past our leaders have been irresponsible. When I came into Congress, the national debt was $8.67 trillion. Now it’s headed up to $16.7 trillion, with no end in sight. In other words, it took 219 years for it to get this high, and now, in just five more years, it’s almost doubled. No wonder America’s AAA bond rating has been downgraded.
As president, I will consider it a duty to cut federal spending. Not only because the economy needs relief from overspending but because the government itself needs relief from overspending. So I won’t just put an end to Obamacare; I will put an end to all the spending that has made our government simultaneously painfully gargantuan and hideously ineffectual. That is, so fat and bloated that it can’t do anything, even as it suffocates the economy. I’m not against government; I think our current government is a mortal threat to America—just as, in its morbid obesity, it’s a mortal threat to itself. But I think that some government is necessary. I am essentially a libertarian on pure market questions, but I know that we need a government to ensure domestic tranquility. I simply want to restore government to the sort of flinty integrity it had when the good citizens of Black Hawk County, Iowa, back in 1853, knew exactly where every cent of that $873.08 was going. And today, thanks to the Internet, we could again have that sort of to-the-penny awareness of where our tax money is going.
So yes, I will control federal spending and bring it into balance—we have to or we won’t survive. But in doing so, I will never endanger our security. And if we have another government spending crisis—and I am sure we will—I will continue to defend defense. I will make sure that our men and women in uniform get their paychecks. I have had five biological children and twenty-three foster children, but I feel a special awe toward all the men and women of our armed forces. And I know that the American people feel the same way. We will always support them as they keep us safe.
Yet even as we cut public spending, we are going to foster growth in the private economy. I have specific plans for cutting spending, cutting taxes, and cutting regulation—and for increasing exports, increasing investment, and increasing innovation.
As for the tax code in particular, I know what a disaster it is. I have seen it from the inside. As president, I will examine various approaches to tax reform, as well as tax reduction. Flat, fair, or hybrid—I’ll consider whatever tax system we need to unleash the entrepreneurial, transformative potential of the U.S. economy. Under a Bachmann presidency, every young person with a good idea and a lot of stamina will know that America is the best place in the world to start a dream, and start a business.
Third, I am a social conservative—and I mean it. I haven’t just talked the talk when it suits me politically—I have walked the walk. Consistently. I have been strongly pro-life since the early 1970s, and I have been active in the right-to-life movement since the eighties. In the Minnesota state senate, I was at the forefront of the effort to enact the Woman’s Right to Know Act. And in Washington, I have been involved in every piece of pro-life legislation that Congress has considered.
On profamily education policy, I bucked my own party to lead the fight against a liberal, paternalistic, secular education agenda beginning in the nineties, ultimately securing the repeal of Minnesota’s Profile of Learning in 2003. Also in 2003, I was at the forefront in pushing for a traditional-marriage constitutional amendment in Minnesota, which, I’m proud to say, will go before the voters of my state in 2012.
I believe we must remember the work of the biblical Nehemiah, who rebuilt the sturdy walls of Jerusalem. That is, today we must reinforce the sort of ethical framework—for most of us, the framework provided by the Judeo-Christian tradition—that protects liberty from anarchy.
So that’s the “three-legged stool” that Republicans often talk about—that is, the peace-through-strength conservatives, the economic conservatives and libertarians, and the social “values voters” conservatives. A majority of Americans associate themselves with one or more of these categories. So in other words, a candidate who can coalesce these three groups can win a national election. That’s what Ronald Reagan did—twice. And so did George W. Bush.
But in addition, there’s a new source of political energy in America today: the Tea Party, or should I say tea parties, because there are so many of them, each proud of its own autonomy and independence. I once said that the Tea Party represents 90 percent of Americans. I now realize that I misspoke. I should have said 100 percent, because I believe that nearly all Americans retain faith in the ordered liberty that the Constitution offers. Americans have rebelled against autocrats in the past; today they have no wish to see czars reigning on imperial thrones.
Tea partiers are also sometimes called constitutional conservatives, because we put so much emphasis, and rightly so, on the Constitution as the basic source of legitimate governmental authority. As I asked of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: Show me in the Constitution where you have the authority to give a $700 billion blank check to whomever you choose. And of course he couldn’t do it. Too many Washington power brokers haven’t much cared what the Constitution stipulates—unless, of course, the issue is accused criminals and terrorists, in which case they tease out exaggerated theories of procedure to hamstring authorities. But constitutional conservatives do care.
Tea partiers and constitutionalists speak up for the common sense of ordinary Americans, who are instinctively suspicious of concentrated power and yet at the same time expect the government to be able to do a few things well, rather than a lot of things badly. You don’t need to be a constitutional expert to see the need for due process and fair play when it comes to dealing with the IRS or the EPA or OSHA.
In the political center of this country stands a huge group—Democratic commentator Pat Caddell calls them the “radical middle”—of practical-minded Americans who may never have been political a day in their lives but who are now simply fed up with the faltering status quo. They are disaffected Democrats, independents, libertarians, and those who would reject any political label, and yet they all share the same realization: The current system is an insult to American ideals. And when I say that it’s “gangster government,” they smile and nod their heads. Finally, they think to themselves, there’s a leader who gets it.
So these four groupings—foreign policy, economic, social, and Tea Party/constitutional—represent a powerful coalition in the making. Actually, it was already made in the 2010 elections; it just needs to be revived again in 2012. And then it needs to become the governing coalition of a reformist, center-right leadership that keeps its promises.
So I have described the building blocks of my candidacy. But of course, building blocks have to build. To win the White House in 2012—to make Obama a one-term president—we need a compelling narrative that shows how we can make a team that can’t be beat.
I believe that a conventional, play-it-safe campaign will ensure that America has to endure another four years of Barack Obama and his wrecking-crew policies. That is, if the Republican presidential nominee fails to energize key constituencies, or worse, if the nominee is seen a
s insincere, then we will lose. So we need a fresh effort deriving its strength from the common sense of the American people, from their commitment to the nation’s founding values and to the knowledge that the country must rest on a secure moral foundation that puts common sense ahead of trendy theorizing. It must reach out to the whole nation, inspiring disparate groups ranging from churchgoers to homeschoolers to alienated rec room youth searching for something to believe in; it must reach out to Americans, rallying citizens and patriots of all parties.
And my plan is already working. Just seven weeks after I entered the race, after a lot of hard work, I was honored to win the Ames, Iowa, straw poll on August 13. That night I thanked my supporters, reminding them that with their continued efforts, we could restore that next link of liberty, connecting our glorious past to an even more glorious future.
Together, we can do this. I was born to parents in humble circumstances, but out of that, my husband and I helped to build a big family and then a job-creating business. We have cared for unwed mothers and foster children. I know the pain that ordinary people go through, and yet I also know the rules for success. I was forty-four years old when I first ran for office. I am a small woman, but my heart for the animating principles and values of America is great. I love this country as much as it has loved me.
Yes, the presidential campaign will be tough. I am ready. I like to joke that I have a titanium spine. And I am inspired by the words of John F. Kennedy at the 1963 national prayer breakfast in Washington: “Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers,” said JFK as Billy Graham nodded in approval. “Pray for powers equal to your tasks.” That’s my prayer, too.
And so I will drive a freedom-and-prosperity train from all parts of the nation to Washington. I will call it the Liberty Express. Conservatives will be on board, of course. Then we will stop and invite soccer moms to join us, and the women concerned about their children and families. And then men without jobs or who are worried about their jobs. We will include the hardworking, sometimes neglected singles, because they are vital and welcome in the family of community and country. We will stop too for African Americans, who share our vision of faith and family, who are seeking true hope. And Hispanics as well, hardworking values voters who will also want to come aboard. And Asian Americans and all the minorities in this ethnically diverse country of ours, all those who look with a hope for the day when a change will come. Get ready: Better days are ahead. Even before we get to Washington, we’ll set our job-creating/economic-growing/government-reforming agenda in motion.
Together we can do this. We can come together and stick together as we renew our nation. A plan for America’s renewal. As the great Daniel Webster declared as he commemorated the fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Bunker Hill, we must always be “one cause, one country, one heart.”
And of course, we will pray. As Abraham Lincoln said, the issue isn’t whether God is on our side; the issue is that we are on God’s side. That’s my prayerful hope. And so, in the spirit of our great president, I have faith that right makes might. And in that faith I will, to the very end, dare to do my duty for God and country.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would first like to thank Marcus, who has been with me every step of the way, over thirty-three wonderful years. And I would like to thank my five biological children and my twenty-three foster children. I love you all. You have given me both joy and strength. It’s been said that love can be divided endlessly and yet still not diminish. That’s certainly been true for me.
I would also like to thank my parents and my grandparents, all of whom worked so hard, gave me so much—and asked for so little in return. Their example, their work ethic, and their wisdom forged the core of conviction that guides me to this day. And I thank my siblings, who have always been friends as well as beloved family. I must also express gratitude to my ancestors, including the Munsons, whose story has provided inspiration to me, more than 150 years after they first came to Iowa from Norway. I may never know the stories of others in my family, but I realize that they all contributed, in their way, to weaving the fabric of this country—a fabric both durable and wondrous.
I also thank God for the many generations who built our nation, beginning with the founding men and women who gave us this land of liberty and opportunity. It is their example over the centuries—from brilliant vision to heroic sacrifice to quiet duty—that inspires me to fight in my own time for a return to greatness under the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues, my co-workers and co-laborers—all those whom I have been blessed enough to know and to work with. So many of you have helped me, and mentored me, on causes great and small. I have listened to your voices, I have read your writings, and I have derived strength from your deeds. From campaigns to capitals, I have been proud to know you—and you have contributed greatly. And, of course, I must thank the people who have trusted me with their votes and their support. I am honored and humbled, as well as grateful, and will strive always to earn your continued trust and confidence.
And thanks also to Alex Hoyt and Adrian Zackheim, who first saw I had ideas that I could share with the nation. So thanks also to the whole team at Sentinel, Emily Angell, Jackie Burke, Tricia Conley, Susan Petersen Kennedy, Tiffany Liao, Noirin Lucas, Allison McLean, Eric Meyers, Joe Perez, David Shanks, and Will Weisser.
And thanks also to my research and writing partner, Jim Pinkerton, who helped me put onto these pages my memories, my reflections, and my goals.
But I must return once again to acknowledge and honor our country—to give thanks to this beacon of hope, these United States of America, this sanctuary for so many who have yearned to breathe free. A long time ago, in a little corner of the heartland, some sturdy pioneers spoke for all of us when they described the young nation as “this fertile land, where freedom and equality prevail in civil and religious affairs.” In counting their blessings as more wonderful than riches, they were inspired and motivated to help build the American Story.
With God’s grace, may it always be so.
APPENDIX:
Goals 2000 in the Context of a Global Power Grab
AS discussed in chapter 8, the origins of Goals 2000 and other similar U.S. legislation can be seen in international agreements, such as “The World Declaration on Education for All,” proclaimed at a 1990 United Nations conference in Jomtien, Thailand. That document, building on numerous previous documents generated by myriad UN conclaves—and augmented by myriad more documents since—is open in its declared ambition to remake the nations of the world on a vast scale. Few Americans know about this world government “mission creep”—the federal government certainly hasn’t told them—but as we shall see, the influence of the international education bureaucracy is reshaping American public schools.
For example, Article VIII of the UN’s “Education for All” tells us that education, by itself, isn’t good enough; society, too, has to change: “Supportive policies in the social, cultural, and economic sectors are required in order to realize the full provision and utilization of basic education for individual and societal improvement.” In other words, society has to be remade to meet bureaucratic specifications—and not just those of national bureaucrats, but those of international bureaucrats as well. Moreover, Article IX puts some mobilizing muscle behind these goals: “If the basic learning needs of all are to be met through a much broader scope of action than in the past, it will be essential to mobilize existing and new financial and human resources, public, private and voluntary.” Now here’s an oxymoron for you: mobilize voluntary resources. Well, what if those “resources”—that is, you and me and everyone else—don’t volunteer to be “mobilized” by some nascent world government? And what do you do when you are “mobilized” anyway? Think about it: It’s hard enough to fight city hall. It’s even harder to fig
ht your state capital. And harder still to fight Washington, D.C. So how are you going to fight some ruling bureaucracy in another country, a far-away institution that might not even acknowledge your legal standing to put up a fight? By now, we are starting to see more clearly that “education” is just the thin edge of the wedge for a remaking of the world. And here’s another one: Article X, “Strengthening International Solidarity”; the first lines of this article read, “Meeting basic learning needs constitutes a common and universal human responsibility. It requires international solidarity and equitable and fair economic relations in order to redress existing economic disparities.” In other words, “education for all” isn’t really about education; it’s about establishing a new international world economic order to fix “existing economic disparities.”
Some will say, of course, that these are just words—word castles erected by expense-accounted bureaucrats with too much time on their hands, living out a fantasy life of jargon as they junket their way around the globe. But actually, no; these ideas have big consequences. Amid all this word piling, we can see the antecedents to the Goals 2000 legislation that was, in fact, enacted by the U.S. Congress just four years after the Jomtien conference. That is, in both the UN document and the U.S. document, we see the same bureaucratic exhortation, the same commitment to greater government funding, and the same commitment to government power at the expense of local autonomy. (The National Education Goals [Section 102] of Goals 2000 is included at the end of this appendix.) The added twist, of course, is that once the decision-making power goes international, codified in obscure agreements and treaties, it is then beyond the reach of Americans, who are never consulted in these decisions and would certainly never approve of them if they were. There’s a term for this phenomenon: “democracy deficit.” That is, the bureaucrats in distant institutions make unaccountable decisions, and citizens and taxpayers find out about them only later. This phenomenon has been happening in Europe under the European Union for years as central planners gather power into Brussels and then seek to impose liberal secular homogenization upon the Continent as a whole. As a most flagrant recent example, people across Europe have awakened to discover that some minister in Frankfurt has just written a huge check to bail out some wastrel government.
Core of Conviction : My Story (9781101563571) Page 25