not, I think underrate the importance of these
statements. They reflect the view of a majority of
the leaders of one of our parties, and of a strong
minority among the leaders of the other, and they
propound the first principle of totalitarianism:
that the State is competent to do all things and is
limited in what it actually does only by the will
of those who control the State.

It is clear that this view is in direct conflict with
the Constitution which is an instrument, above all,
for limiting the functions of government, and
which is as binding today as when it was written.
But we are advised to go a step further and ask
why the Constitution's framers restricted the scope
of government. Conservatives are often charged,
and in a sense rightly so, with having an overly
mechanistic view of the Constitution: "It is Ameri-
ca's enabling document; we are American citizens;
therefore," the Conservatives' theme runs, "we are
morally and legally obliged to comply with the
document." All true. But the Constitution has a
broader claim on our loyalty than that. The found-
ing fathers had a reason for endorsing the principle
of limited government; and this reason recom-
mends defense of the constitutional scheme even
to those who take their citizenship obligations
lightly. The reason is simple, and it lies at the
heart of the Conservative philosophy.

Throughout history, government has proved to
be the chief instrument for thwarting man's liber-

-16-