The Challenge

The PiPress' Craig Westover wrote a fascinating piece that touches on several topics close to my heart (and frequently found on this blog).

He starts with the Strib's paeon to WELLSTONE!, the documentary, which I wrote about a while back:

In a local newspaper article lavishly praising the documentary film "WELLSTONE!" there appeared this remarkable statement: "Like Illinois' Democratic Senate shoo-in Barack Obama, he [Wellstone] cared more about public morality (the policies that define a culture's decency) than private morality (the actions that determine an individual's character)."

Yikes! If that is not the definition of a police state, then at the very least it's the manifesto of a ruling elite for whom the individual is but a means to the end of their utopian vision. It's the blueprint for a society that is not held together by the inherent morality of its people but cemented by whatever coercive policy is required for the state to enforce a collective view of "social justice."

Collective morality is insidious. It robs individuals of the necessity of making individual moral decisions that build individual character. When government uses force to impose pseudo "public morality," it destroys authentic morality that otherwise naturally governs the voluntary interactions of individuals one with another. It robs recipients of government largess of their self-esteem. It robs coerced benefactors of their natural ability to be truly benevolent. It robs society of its moral vigor.

Where is the moral virtue in A and B getting together to rob C for the benefit of D, which is the format of so many Democrat proposals?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, like Wellstone's.

Westover turns the corner into the real topic:

Such moral myopia presents real opportunity for conservatives. But as Democrats dismissed the moral sentiment swirling about issues like gay marriage and abortion, conservatives are guilty of conceding to Democrats and moderates within their own party the moral high ground on domestic issues. There is no reason to do so.

Traditional conservative principles of limited government and free-market solutions to domestic problems are morally superior positions to positions that deny individuals choice about the schools their children attend, the kind of retirement plan they want or the kind of health care they need.

Because the policies that conservative principles beget are justified by their results rather than just good intentions, conservative policies are not far removed from the traditional liberal belief that government policy ought to empower the less powerful, not domesticate them.

But there is a catch. Taking the moral high ground from Democrats on social issues requires more than conservatives serving lunch to one another or blogging among themselves. They won't win converts to their cause by reaffirming their virtue to each other. They can win - they can unite the country - only by repeatedly making their case to now captive Democrat constituencies that aren't particularly predisposed to hear their message. That takes some guts, and, dare I say, "moral courage." It requires authentic conviction in one's beliefs. Conservatives might even, occasionally, have to lead with their chins.

There remains the little matter of convincing a population that's grown up being indoctrinated in the virtues of collectivism that these are in fact good things - especially difficult in Minnesota, with its crippling Scandinavian communitarianism.

But this touches on a subject of long-standing, intense interest; Republicans can, indeed, only win if we drive the moral imperatives of our campaign - the morality of choice, of liberty - into the "Blue" areas. It's something at which the GOP has made slow, painful gains; numbers among blacks and hispanics were sharply up in this past election. And yet here in Minnesota, the GOP has largely written off the inner cities, paying them only the most perfunctory lip service, using them to try to draw some funding away from races in more electorally productive suburban and outstate districts.

That's why the Bret Schundler campaign in New Jersey has me so jazzed; if he can win (and he's a dark horse), he can help introduce his brand of pragmatic, deeply moral fiscal and governmental conservatism into the GOP's national dialog. It's one we need to have, and Schundler is one of very few I've met in the GOP that can lead it at a national level.

Posted by Mitch at December 2, 2004 08:51 AM | TrackBack