I love George Washington, except for his foreign policy

Over the last year or so, I've been struggling to redefine my views on foreign policy. As a former neo-conservative, I enthusiastically embraced the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I readily accepted the notion that military force serves as a legitimate tool for nation-building. And I still get goosebumps seeing projections of military power. I love fighter jets, tanks and big guns. Maybe that's just a guy thing.

But it doesn't take a doctorate in foreign relations to understand that U.S. policy has forged a tangled mess of contradictory alliances and obligations, and created a much more dangerous world. I've gradually come to accept that military intervention in foreign affairs typically causes more damage than good and that the whole concept rests on morally dubious grounds. Who am I to point a gun at another man's head and demand he practice "democracy"?

This does not make me a pacifist. I believe in a vigorous defense. If attacked, respond with overwhelming force. As I tell my kids, avoid a fight if at all possible by every means at your disposal. But if you get forced into a position where you have to fight, fight to win.

This does not make me an isolationist. Non-intervention differs greatly from closing yourself inside a box and avoiding interaction with the world around you. I favor vigorous and open trade. This stands in direct contradiction to the concept of isolationism.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, I bought into the conventional wisdom on Ron Paul. He was pretty good on domestic policy, but a "nut-job" when it comes to foreign policy. But as I've really listened to what he says, as opposed to the media spin, and studied the world I live in today, I find he makes much more sense. Do I agree with him 100 percent? No. But I can no longer simply discount his foreign policy as quackery.

I hear this mantra all the time today. "I like that Ron Paul feller, except for his foreign policy." I'm not even sure many who say that really understand his foreign policy positions. In fact, they line up pretty closely with stated positions of another president revered by most Americans - George Washington.

I wonder if Washington could get any traction in American politics today with this kind of foreign policy thinking? The following comes from his Farewell Address, delivered on Sept. 17, 1796.

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean,as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

Dear Warren: Just write the damn check

Warren Buffett says he wants to pay more taxes.

Which raises a logical question in my mind. If he is so gung-ho about giving more money to Uncle Sam, why doesn't he just write a check? Nobody is stopping him.

Apparently, his is really more interested in perpetuating and extending a system of legalized plunder.

What is legalized plunder, you might ask. Well, economist and political philosopher Frederic Bastiat came up with a pretty good definition.

When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it - without his consent and without compensation - and whether by force or by fraud - to anyone who does not own it, then I say the property is violated, that an act of plunder is committed.

So why would Buffett advocate plundering himself? I don't know, but I guarantee you he has something to gain by it, something greater than the potential cost. Billionaires don't become billionaires by being stupid. Political power? Some kind of special treatment? Who knows. But he stands to gain.

Perhaps, you retort, he simply cares about the country. Well my friend, that simply brings us back to my original question. Nobody stops him from writing that check.

Do you even realize how few people Buffett is talking about?  In 2009, only 236,883 tax returns in the U.S. had an adjusted gross income over $1 million. They made, combined, about $726.9 billion. Lets say we increase their tax load by 20 percent. That would represent an additional $145 billion dollars in revenue. The U.S. spends about $10 billion a day, so the extra income raised would run the government for an extra 14 days. Lets get really crazy...lets confiscate ALL of these rich dudes' money. That would be enough to run the government for less than 3 months.

Clearly, this isn't about raising revenue. It's about class warfare. It's about making one group of people feel better. It's about concentrating political power.

The problem in the U.S. is not that it doesn't take in enough revenue. The problem is that it spends too much money. The treasury borrows  40 cents of every dollar it spends.

You want to talk fairness? Lets talk fairness. The top 10 percent of wage earners in the U.S. (AGI over $113,799) paid 69.9 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent paid 2.7 percent of the total tax burden. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 48 percent paid NO federal income tax.

It's time we stop with the class warfare and set about solving the actual problem. That means shrinking government. That means REAL spending cuts. That means restraining the federal government to its prescribed constitutional role. And it means reforming the tax code to make it truly fair. Where everybody contributes.

And Warren, if you feel you aren't contributing enough, by all means, write the damn check!

Why was the word explicit removed from original drafts of the Tenth?

I've not been writing much here lately. I am currently working on a book that I will hopefully have finished up by late this summer. So, I've been dedicating most of my writing to to the book, and of course to the TAC website.

But I thought I would take a moment to share an exchange with a reader at the Huffington Post website. I commented on a story that made an excellent case for the Tenth Amendment and its importance today. I included in my comment the Madison quote outlining the scope of federal power.

A reader going by the tag Mikel Moore wrote the following.

You conveniently did not give the Madison quote wherein he states that the word 'explicit' was removed from the express rights clause to give the federal government more wiggle room.

Then the post civil-war amendments changed that balance of power and allowed the federal government to impose on the states. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states prior.

Here is my response:

The Madison quote from the Federalist Papers is particularly relevant because it outlines the role and scope of the federal government that was “sold” to the states and the people. And it was upon that understanding that the ratifying conventions adopted the Constitution. So whether some of the framers desired a more powerful, national government, and some certainly did, is not at all relevant. Unless of course you accept the idea that an agreement based upon bait-and-switch remains binding even after the switch.

But yes, the word “explicit” was removed from original drafts of the Tenth Amendment. The original proposal came from Massachusetts.  Many didn’t see the point, arguing that the Constitution carefully enumerated the powers of the general government. It was self-evident that this excluded any other power.  Designato unius est exclusio alterius – a legal maxim meaning, "the designation of one is the exclusion of the other."

But many fearful of federal overreach didn’t want to rely on the assurance of proponents and insisted on an amendment making this explicit. (And they seem pretty insightful at this point in history.)

“It removes a doubt which many have entered, and gives assurance that, if any law made by the federal government should be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void.  It is consonant with the second article in the present Confederation, that each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not, by this Constitution, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.” – Sam Adams

So why was explicit removed? (The word clearly was also considered) It was in essence to give “wiggle room” already provided for in the Constitution. The fear was that leaving explicit in the Tenth would in effect repeal the “necessary and proper” clause. It was always understood that the federal government would have powers not “explicitly” enumerated, but incidental to carrying out those enumerated functions. Necessary and proper was a legal construction with a specific meaning, basically that any necessary and proper power had to be 1. Necessary to carry out the original purpose. 2. A customary way of carrying out the original purpose. 3. Incidental power could never be greater than the original power granted.

As for the 14^th Amendment, it did not repeal the 10^th. The validity of the incorporation doctrine, a function of courts, is up for debate. But you certainly cannot argue that the 14^th granted additional power to the federal government.

I always find it fascinating that the same people who rail against the concentration of corporate power in an economic context don’t bat an eye at concentrated power in the political arena. Both are equally nefarious for the same reasons.

Some thoughts on the arrests at the Jefferson Memorial

Yesterday, five people were arrested inside the Jefferson Memorial for silently dancing. A group of about a dozen showed up to protest a recent court ruling upholding the governments right to ban certain expression at memorials.

 

If you have not heard about this, you can read the story and watch a video here.

The event stirred a lot of controversy, with folks coming down on every side of this multifaceted issue. Some praised the protestors for standing up for our free speech rights. Others condemned them as rabble-rousers, looking for trouble and finding it. As a result, several people thought the police were completely justified in their response. Others argued that the police actions illustrate a movement toward a police state in the U.S.

After contemplating the incident for about 24 hours, I thought I would share a few random thoughts.

First, I basically agree with the court decision. The First Amendment was never intended as a carte blance right to say whatever whenever. When the framers drafted the amendment, a well-defined understanding of what “free speech” meant already existed. For instance, slander was a punishable offense, as was “blasphemy” and “lewdness.” So the framers clearly didn’t mean all speech was permitted at all times.

In essence, the judges in the memorial case followed precedent, allowing the government to limit speech, keeping with the “purpose” of the place. A memorial serves as a place of honor and solemnity, and regulating expression to maintain that purpose does not strike me as a particularly insidious thing. We limit speech in this was all the time. I can’t go hold a noisy protest in the middle of my street at 2 a.m. I would find myself under arrest for disturbing the peace – assuming a neighbor didn’t come out and whip my butt before the cops showed up.

Opponents will counter that a plain reading of the First Amendment makes no exception for places. And this is true. But I would counter that if we are going to appeal to a literal meaning, the First Amendment offers no protection for dancing. There exists no indication that the framers considered all "expression" speech. That is a construct of our court system through the evolution of First Amendment law. It becomes difficult to argue that the courts can create a construction protecting "dance" as expression and then turn around and say the court cannot create a construction limiting speech in certain places.

That said; the police overreacted. The force used in no way correlated to the crime. If the police were concerned about maintaining decorum at the monument, they certainly botched that. They should have just let the group do its little dance (I doubt anyone would have noticed anyway. It was of course “silent”) and then cited them after the fact. But I suspect the police intended to make a point, just like the protestors.

I found the treatment of those filming the event particularly troubling. The police tried to shut down videotaping, threatening at least one man with a camera with arrest if he continued to record. That indicates to me the officers knew they were over the line and didn’t particularly want anybody to see it.

Courts have consistently held that police cannot stop anybody from filming as long as they remain in an area open to the general public. The police have the right and authority to clear a "crime" scene, for their own safety and the safety of bystanders. But once a person complied and was outside of the restricted area, he had every right to continue recording. Threatening arrest for filming was a clear violation of press rights.

I wonder if the camera man working for the local NBC affiliate lodged any protest. He was shoved out of the memorial and that was way out of line. There really wasn’t any reason to clear everybody out. The situation was well in hand at that point. Again, it appears the police wanted to limit their exposure. That is a dangerous thing. Nasty stuff happens in secret – thus the importance of a free press.

And by the way, press means every citizen. You don’t have to be a member of some secret club to enjoy the rights of a free press.

Finally, I commend the protestors. Even though don’t agree with their position from a constitutional standpoint, I do respect the fact that they stood up for what they believe. They didn’t just submit. And the reaction taught us a valuable thing about the police and how they handle such situations – pretty darn poorly.

The whole incident was rife with irony. Police arrest citizens exercising their rights in the shadow of the statue of a man who wrote, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

It appears these folks don't consent.

Want to be searched? Take the bus

 A very poignant  turn of the tables courtesy of  Jeff Matthews, a lawyer from Houston.

While some people argue that travelers consent to unreasonable search by choosing to fly and that these travelers can remain free from search by choosing not to fly and taking a bus, it seems that a better Constitutional construction of the argument would be that if people can't bring themselves to board a plane without unreasonably searching everyone, perhaps they should choose not to fly and take the bus.  This is the entire premise of the Fourth Amendment - that a free people live with some degree of risk in order to preserve their freedoms.  Rather than taking away everyone's freedom, the risk averse segment ought to bear the burden of finding alternative means to avoid risk.  

Some random thoughts

A proposal to create a Confederate heritage license plate caused a big brouhaha in Kentucky last week. It got me to thinking about the way people react to symbols.

I have never considered the Confederate flag offensive, or necessarily racist, although I know many people use it in that sense. I have personally known several people who take great pride in their southern heritage and believe strongly in state sovereignty. They have never demonstrated any racist tendencies.

On the other hand, I also know some people who find any Confederate symbolism extremely offensive. They tend to assume anybody who displays these symbols MUST somehow harbor racist sentiments. They can’t conceive that the rebel flag could have any other meaning.

My initial reaction to those offended by the Confederate flag is to say, “Get over it and quit being silly.” But as I was pondering the issue the other day, it occurred to me that it’s not really fair to dismiss their interpretation of the symbol. Their view of the rebel flag evolved in a negative way due to events in their own lives that shaped their perception. You can’t simply say, “Quit feeling this way,” about something so deeply engrained. It stems as much an emotional reaction as rational, and we all know our emotions don’t always follow reason.

But it is equally unfair for those who equate all things Confederate with racism to project that view on somebody else, and then insist that they must harbor racist sentiments, or mean something harmful and negative. The southern heritage folks developed their view of things through very different experiences and sincerely view the symbolism differently.

I’m not sure you can call either side “wrong” in what they feel. Symbols aren’t objective. They find their meaning in the way each individual perceives that symbol. For instance, an American flag can stir some to prideful tears and induce blind rage in others.

So, how do we deal with the issue?

I think it comes down to something often talked about by the left, but not so often demonstrated – tolerance.

The problem arises when those who take offense at a given symbol seek to ban it. Really, what does it matter if some guy wants to drive around with a rebel flag on his truck? Why should someone else insist he doesn’t have the right to display a symbol because their own perception offends them? Last I checked we don’t have a right to live free from offense. Heck, even if the driver is a card carrying racist redneck, does it really matter if he has a rebel flag on his car?

I like my wife’s take on it. She says let them fly their rebel flags. Then she knows who they are.

***

I’m amazed at the power of media templates.

Take Ron Paul, for instance. For years, all I knew about Paul was the media spin, regurgitated through acquaintances - “He’s a nut.” There were always a few sound bites thrown in to demonstrate his nuttiness. But over the last few months, I’ve actually taken the time to LISTEN to what Paul says, in toto, without the media filter. I’ve had to conclude that either I’ve turned into a nut, or he isn’t one.

Truth is, most who tag Paul as a nut couldn’t actually tell you three things he legitimately advocates. I was one of those people – and I’m not proud of that fact.

Listen and read for yourself.

***

All those blasting Rand Paul for comparing the health care law and its effects on doctors should look past their own emotional reactions (Joel Pett) and ask themselves this question:

What exactly do you call it when somebody else dictates, by force, how you must dispose of your labor or intellectual efforts?

***

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities." – Winston Churchill

Fact checking Obama's oil production assertion

During a Town Hall meeting aired on CBS Early Morning on May 12, Pres. Obama claimed U.S. domestic oil production stands at the highest level since 2003.

“What's also true is the disruptions in the Middle East, particularly in Libya, ended up having some impact. Because people started worrying, ‘Well, even if there's still some supply now, what's gonna happen in the future.’ Those are -- things that we could not completely control. What we can control is number one -- are we producing as much as we can here in the United States? And in fact, we're producing more oil now than any time since 2003.

“So, production is actually up. Even after what happened in the Gulf, we're still saying to oil companies, ‘You can drill, as long as you do it safely. We don't want to go through another oil spill like we had -- last summer. But -- we are gonna give you permits if you show us that you've got a good plan for containing it if something goes wrong.’”

As with most things, it depends on how we look at the numbers.

In the first two months of 2004, the U.S. produced 11,126,000 barrels of oil per day, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the first two months of 2011, America produced 11,095,000 barrels per day, slightly less than the same period in 2004.

If we are going to take the president’s words literally, they are false. U.S. production during the first two months of this year lagged slightly behind 2004 figures.

But in fairness, average production is running slightly higher than at any time since the 2003 daily average of 5.7 million barrels per day - if we look at the bigger picture and assume 2011 will follow the trend of 2010.

U.S. production dropped significantly in 2004 averaging 5.46 million barrels per day. And it dropped even lower throughout the rest of the decade. But domestic production rebounded in 2010 averaging 5.51 million barrels per day.

Here’s where things get interesting. There is a reason Pres. Obama choose 2003 for his cutoff date. The years 2004 through 2009 represented a low-water mark in domestic oil production. Going back to 2000, we find the U.S. produced significantly more oil than it does today. Domestic production averaged 5.82 million barrels per day that year.

This still doesn’t give a clear picture of U.S. oil producing potential. The peak came during the early 70s. In 1970, U.S. production averaged a whopping 9.64 million barrels per day. In November 1970, the U.S. produced the highest average per day ever- 10,044,000.

So, is the U.S. producing all it can? Again, it depends on how you care to interpret the numbers. We are certainly doing better today than we were in the early mid and late 2000s. But U.S. production certainly isn’t setting any records.

In summary, I would call Obama’s statement mostly true, but you should keep in mind that he choose 2003 as his benchmark for a reason and his broader argument loses some of its force when you look at a broader oil production perspective.

I'll make you!

As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, over the last several years, I’ve taken a journey in my political philosophy from what most would define as conservatism (some would likely use the term neo-con) to a more libertarian worldview.

The journey hasn’t always proven easy. I will admit, sometimes standing on a libertarian principle makes me queasy. I’m not thrilled with standing up for someone’s right to smoke pot. Or hire a prostitute. Or gamble away their life savings. I am a devout Christian and these activities represent moral shortcomings in my mind. Even setting aside my faith, these activities wreck lives and destroy families.

Not a good plan.

But I recognize the fragility of liberty. When I start imposing my values on others, it becomes more difficult for me to defend my own choices. I find the most obvious example in protecting freedom of speech. If I don’t defend the neo-Nazi’s right to express his ideas, how can I defend my own right to criticize the government? Some would find my speech just as “dangerous” as the skin-head’s.

I think that’s the point Ron Paul was trying to make during the debate in South Carolina last week when he challenged laws criminalizing heroin.

Washington Post op-ed writer Michael Gerson didn’t get it.

“The de facto decriminalization of drugs in some neighborhoods — say, in Washington, D.C. — has encouraged widespread addiction. Children, freed from the care of their addicted parents, have the liberty to play in parks decorated by used needles. Addicts are liberated into lives of prostitution and homelessness. Welcome to Paulsville, where people are free to take soul-destroying substances and debase their bodies to support their ‘personal habits.’”

I could make the same argument for alcohol. In fact, I would argue that booze ranks equally high on the “soul-destroying substance” scale, and has wrecked far more lives than drugs like cocaine and heroin.

I wonder if Gerson advocates prohibition.

Paul went on to make the point that laws won’t stop people from engaging in destructive behavior, a point Gerson completely misconstrued.

“Paul was claiming that good people — people like the Republicans in the room — would not abuse their freedom, unlike those others who don’t deserve our sympathy.”

Gerson later piled on.

“Paul is not content to condemn a portion of his fellow citizens to self-destruction; he must mock them in their decline. Such are the manners found in Paulsville.”

I’m not sure I’m willing to pick up Gerson’s compassion card here, considering his solution lies in locking the heroin addict up in a cage.

Paul’s point, and one any thinking person has to accept as true, is that a law doesn’t stop self-destructive behavior. We have draconian drug laws. The federal government spent over $15 billion in the “war on drugs” in 2010, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. And we still have children being raised by drug addicted parents, kids playing on needle littered play grounds and all of the other drug-related social ills Gerson lists. Perhaps a better approach exists.

Just sayin’.

If you don’t believe me, come visit me here in Kentucky and we’ll go into some of these communities waging war against meth – and see just how many people are on meth – despite the law enforcement efforts.

But my biggest issue with Gerson, and like-minded conservatives, is this notion that they possess some kind of lock on exactly which moral values government should enforce for the good of society.

“It is the teaching of classical political philosophy and the Jewish and Christian traditions that true liberty must be appropriate to human nature.”

I happen to agree with Gerson’s view. It’s the forcing part I have a problem with.

You see, some radical Islamists believe sharia law must be enforced in order to “appropriate” true morality to human nature. They view adherence to their religion as a higher moral value than the western concept of liberty – something they presumably reject in favor of their religious law.  Adherents see no line between religious and civil law.

You have to wrap your head around the concept that some people don’t accept our view of liberty and they believe in the moral superiority of their position as strongly as the social conservative hold to theirs.

So, the question for Gerson is this – if the radical Islamists were one day able to win the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans putting his “conservative” values in the minority, would he accept sharia law? Would they not have the same “right” to dictate their values if they had the power?

If Gerson’s not willing to stand up for the right of others to engage in activities he happens to disagree with, or even finds morally repugnant, who is going to stand up for him when somebody with power comes along who finds his “Jewish and Christian traditions” a moral shortcoming?

This leads us to the root of our problem. The progressive mindset has completely infused both the left and right. Both seek to use the power of government to achieve their ends. Both look to government first.

But government was never intended to shape moral values. Its role is to protect life, liberty and property. The job of the church, the synagogue, the mosque, and whatever institution atheists create is to change the hearts and minds, to mold people into morally responsible citizens, and keep them from ruining their lives with drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, et all. We need private social organizations to step up and help the addict, the poor and the sick. We need individual citizens to reach out and lend a hand to their fellow man and woman. 

But we’ve abrogated our responsibilities as Christians and as citizens, leaving everything to the government and pleading hopefully to our saviors in D.C. Too many Americans have convinced themselves that by voting for the right politician and getting the right law passed, they’ve done their job.

I respectfully disagree.

Liberty presents the only logically consistent standard and truly viable political philosophy. Each individual enjoys the freedom to live their lives as they see fit (short of infringing upon another's life, liberty or property) and also the freedom to try to convince their fellow-citizen their way is best. We retain the freedom to work to mold society into our own vision trough churches and other institutions, minus coercive force of government. If our way is truly "good" others will certainly join. If not, we will eventually come to see the error in our thinking.

I happen to believe the truth is strong enough to stand testing.