Mark offers a variety of arguments and controversies made on the manifesto for the modern conservative movement. Addressing multiple facets of conservative ideology, Levin outlines the relationship between conservatism and liberty, and he further equates non-conservatism with tyranny. To Levin, conservatism is when the civil society has the highest role in preservation and improvement while liberalism is the supremacy of the state over the people. The modern liberal uses the power of the state to force change resulting to soft tyranny, since the society and people do not fit in his view of how things should be (Mark 15-6).
In order to differentiate modern liberal and classic liberalism, Levin uses the term statist. The statist looks for much control and never gets contented with what is able to get. The statist frequently agitates for a government programme in order to solve some social ills while demonizing the productive members of the society, so as to get their money to fund his schemes. The federal government began passing laws and creating administrative agencies speedily, thereby increasing its control over the economic activity and personal liberty. It used taxation to redistribute wealth, finance welfare programs, set prices and production limits, and establishes pension and unemployment programs (Mark 21-3). The statist presented by Roosevelt, used their power to expand political alliances and create electoral constituencies at the expense of the society.
Concerning a message of a high moral fury, one should no think that, conservatives reject change but rather go slowly and deliberately, not rushing as the statist wants. A good change is that which preserves and improves basic institutions of the state, but a change that departs from the past is destructive of the existing institution, resulting in more damage than good. The statist is adamant to change and uses the power of state to end any challenge to their goals.
The statist likes a living constitution so that they can manipulate it to suit their political program, unlike the conservatives who are originals with regard to the constitution. Their intentions are that the constitution be interpreted by later generations in the manner in which it was written. The problem of seeing the constitution as living document is that, it allows the statist to pursue their every fantasy completely unchecked by the law. Levin put the Community Reinvestment Act at the top of the list of culprits for "the housing bust of 2008," asserting that the amount of the Community Reinvestment Act eligible loans as tops $4.5 trillion (Mark 78-9). In fact, the vast majority of subprime loans were made by financial institutions not subject to Community Reinvesting Act guidelines, and according to the article Levin cites for that $4.5 trillion number, the figure covers all loans made under the Community Reinvesting Act since its 1977 inception, not recent loans.
Levin furthers his criticism on the static president Franklin Roosevelt as a sad man who objected the bill of rights as it protected the individual from the power of an overreaching state. For instance, he proposed some changes in the bill of right: Firstly, the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment. However these rights were not properly understood. Secondly, is the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition, and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
The statist also abused the constitution in the interstate commerce clause, which was intended to regulate trade between the states, which is now pulled out to justify just about any expansion of federal power. For instance, the infamous case of Wickard Vs Filburn; the Supreme Court ruled that any farmer growing wheat on his own land for personal use was still subject to federal laws regarding it, even though none of his wheat would leave the state. The reason being that by withholding his wheat from interstate commerce, he was affecting interstate commerce.
The conservatives do not object increasing income tax rates in order to finance the legitimate functions of government. The problem to this is that, the government has grown beyond all reasonable bounds beyond the ability of the society to shoulder. If one compares the adjusted inflation cost of past programs with what the democrats and Obama are proposing today, one can see the magnitude of the problem. The government is spending a lot of money with programs that does not help, for example, the Korean War, the Iraqi war etc thus injuring business and job creation. This has rendered many jobless and thereby increasing the country’s debt than ever before (Mark 189-0).
To bring this problem to an end, Levin proposes that we should work in creating, building and supporting a new generation of conservative activist, who are larger in number, shrewder, and more articulate than ever before. These are those who will put efforts in blunting the statist counter-revolution, but not to imitate, and gradually and steadily inverse the situation. Levin presents the short conservative manifesto primarily as a party platform type of a document, which is solid to the conservative positions (Almond 12-5). However, some of Lewins’ goals will never surely be realized, for instance, making the federal income tax to increase, which requires a super majority vote of two-fifth of the congress.
Most importantly, the idea of the conservative is solid, and a clarion a call to the American conservatives. It is a new manifesto for the conservative movement of the new generation to avert the injustices brought by the statist policy. The federal government that is massive is unaccountable, and it is the time to re-enforce the intellectual and practical case for the conservatism now since the liberal dictates lead to breakdown of the civilized society.