Mercy, Trust, and the Future of the Republican Party

This post originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

Though I’ve paused from a lot of blogging about politics this year, I haven’t stopped thinking about it. It’s just that, because there is so much going on that troubles me, it is hard to process it all and remain positive—and I didn’t want to write much again until I could offer something I felt was positive to consider.

What I kept coming back to was a conversation I had with two lawyers during a dinner in New York over 20 years ago. As we paused from discussing the cases we were working on together, our discussion turned to politics—both local to New York and nationally. Both of my colleagues from New York were liberal Democrats, and as I listened to them a thought came to my mind that—being young and a little impetuous—I offered to them. It went something like this:

I think the biggest problem in politics today is that politicians don’t seem to be addressing the issues that government was designed to address, and I think that is because, in part, we’ve forgotten how to show mercy to our fellow man.

Remember that at the end of the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Christ posed the question: “So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” And the lawyer answered, “He who showed mercy upon him.” Then Christ affirmed the lawyer’s answer by saying, “Go and do likewise.”

I look around and too few people in public life are showing the mercy that truly loving their neighbor requires of them. Today, we still have people walking down the road, like the priest and the Levite, who avert their eyes and keep walking—they’ve always been among us. But now it seems as though the people who do stop to help the stripped and wounded man on the side of the road do one of two things: they either stop others, demand contributions from them (like taxes or tolls), and then give the donations to the man on the side of the road; or they sermonize to the man on how his own mistakes led to his current predicament and how he should change his life to avoid such calamities in the future. Then, both men leave, feeling good about themselves and the help they believe they provided to him; meanwhile, the stripped and wounded man on the side of the road is still left to die.

There are no Samaritans among us today.

I remember my dinner companions stopped and looked at me, and said nothing for what seemed an eternity. Then the senior attorney looked at me and said, “Ed, I can’t find any basis to disagree with you. Sadly, we are all at fault for this.” Then the conversation moved quickly on to a sailing regatta the other attorney would be participating in that weekend, and we never broached the subject again.

Based on this reaction, I rarely tried to express this idea again publicly, but I still believe it to be the primary problem we face today—and it has only gotten worse over the last two decades. I believe that the political party that correctly embraces the ideal of the Samaritan as the core of our society will be the party that captures the imagination and the trust of the voters. The ideal of the Samaritan should be the natural position of American Conservatives and the Republican Party, if only we will embrace it.

Our Settlers and Founding Fathers understood and accepted the challenge of trying to create a society around the Samaritan ideal on this Continent, even though they were woefully blind in their initial application of this ideal when it came to Catholics, Native Americans, Africans, Irish and Women (just to name a few groups)—a blindness that would haunt us for centuries. But the ideal itself became the correcting force that eventually changed our society for the better.

It is the Samaritan ideal that led us to form families, congregations, civic organizations, and private businesses; to create the neighborhoods where these institutions would take root and flourish; to push those neighborhoods across a continent; to form colonies and states to preserve and protect those neighborhoods; to create a nation to protect this societal structure; and, finally, to open our society’s promise to all its citizens.

The limited nature of the federal government wasn’t designed to oppress individuals, but rather to protect the sanctity and vitality of these neighborhoods of free people, in which most of the decisions that would guide day-to-day life would be made and performed.

This model only works, though, if the ideal is taken seriously—that each citizen, in his or her own way, accepts the challenge to show mercy to our neighbors. Unless each citizen accepts this responsibility, the trust necessary for the model to sustain self-governance at the local and state level evaporates and creates a vacuum—a vacuum that is subject to being filled by an expanding federal government that is not institutionally competent to fill it. Forget the express limits written into the Constitution for a minute, and just remember that far-away agents, bureaucrats, and social workers with one-size-fits-all assignments, regardless of their best intentions, will never provide the mercy that our Settlers and Founders believed would be necessary to build and maintain trusting neighborhoods of free people.

We can argue until the cows come home over how and why we got into our present mess, but the time for political change is now and the blueprint for that change has always been within our grasp—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (as amended), and the Federalist Papers. What is needed now is the will to embrace the Samaritan ideal and our founding blueprint, and to apply it to our diverse 21^st Century society. What is needed now is the willingness to seriously address the reforms at each level of government—from Washington to our school boards—that is needed to restore the mercy and rebuild the trust needed to apply our American blueprint to the 21^st Century.

We will never corral and control public spending and debt until we make this reform, we will never fix public education until we make this reform, we will never fix both the security of our borders and our immigration policies without this reform, and we will be unable to meet the commitments we promised to the rest of the world after World War II unless we commit to this reform.

If the Republican Party embraces this reform, and explains how it will improve the lives of each of our citizens by giving them the means to control their lives and accomplish their dreams for themselves and their children, we will regain the trust of voters needed to win elections and govern. But to do that, we Republicans must practice what we preach among ourselves, too—we must show mercy and trust among our own factions, for as Lincoln reminded us so long ago, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

As a life-long Republican who continues to revere the life’s work of Lincoln, Goldwater, Dirksen, Reagan and Kemp, I believe we can—we must, we will—accept this challenge and embrace this reform.

Is There a Right to be Wrong?

This column originally appeared at US Daily Review.

Before the recent Iowa Straw Poll, Republican Presidential contender and former Pennsylvania Senator, Rick Santorum, paraphrased Abraham Lincoln during a debate on Fox News by saying that “the States don’t have the right to do wrong.” Santorum made this statement as a criticism of those conservatives, like Governor Rick Perry (and me), who believe in the application of Federalism and the limitations on federal responsibility confirmed in the 10thAmendment to the U.S. Constitution, even when those limitations are applied to certain moral issues that touch the very fabric of our society.

When Santorum made that statement, I was reminded of the statement made by another Republican Senator a generation ago. During the Iran-Contra Congressional hearings, Colonel Oliver North defended the Reagan administration’s decision to secretly facilitate the funding of rebels in Central America, in part, by claiming that Congress had been wrong to cut-off funding in the first place. In response, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire said: “the American people have the Constitutional right to be wrong.”

As we conservatives attempt to re-establish limits on the role and responsibility of the federal government and return responsibility to individuals and states, we need to address the question posed by these apparently conflicting statements—who is right? I believe the answer is that both men are right, but Senator Santorum’s application of the principle is wrong.

I come to this answer by going back to the Declaration of Independence and the original conception of Federalism. Our Founders believed that the primary purpose of a legitimate government was to secure God’s gifts of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” to each individual. Any government—state or national—that deprived individuals of these gifts, or impaired an individual’s exercise of these basic rights without due process, committed a wrong that gave individuals the license to alter or abolish that government. When it came time to create a federal government, our Founders preserved State governments as the primary laboratories for the development of democracy by creating a unique, federal republic. The States’ role as the primary laboratories in this ongoing experiment was further secured by the 10th Amendment.

The Republican Party emerged from the great social and political upheavals in the America of the 1840s and 1850s. Central to all of the upheavals was the institution of slavery. Slavery was a wrong that deprived men and women of their God-given rights to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Slavery was a wrong that could not and should not have been condoned, and those governments that legalized it were altered and abolished through war and constitutional amendment. It was during a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858, when talking about the wrong of slavery, that Lincoln said, “but if you admit that it [slavery] is wrong, he can not logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.” It is that statement that Senator Santorum apparently paraphrased last week.

But the concept of liberty, arising from the gift of free will, requires that individuals, and the states they form, make choices. The very existence of the power of choice foresees the reality that some choices will be right and some choices will be wrong. In fact, the metaphor of the laboratory to describe the role of state governments implies that states will experiment with public policy choices, and the process of experimentation leads to many wrong choices during the search for a right result. Of course there are consequences that arise from our wrong choices that can be dire, and we arguably are now paying for many wrong choices that we have made and tolerated—as individuals, as communities, and through our governments—over the last 100 years, as we have confused liberty and the pursuit of happiness with license and irresponsibility. In fact, we theoretically can make enough wrong policy choices that we can destroy the fabric of our society and bankrupt our economy in the process—such is our right. But as severe as those consequences may be, liberty and federalism require that individuals and their governments have the right to be wrong—as long as our wrong choices do not deprive men and women of their God-given rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

What our Founders hoped was that we would continue to value the development and use of responsibility, moral character and wisdom as a guard against making wrong choices; that we would make more right choices than wrong choices along the way; that those wrong choices would be relatively minor; that we would learn and grow from the experiences and consequences of our wrong choices—individually and as a people; and that we would not long tolerate either the wrong choices or the consequences arising from such choices, and eventually correct our mistakes and make right choices in the future.

So, both Senators Rudman and Santorum were right. Senator Rudman was right that, generally, we have the right to make mistakes in our public policy—moral, economic, diplomatic, and military—even to the point of being so irresponsible that we put the whole fabric of our society at risk. Senator Santorum was right, too, because when those wrongs transgress our inalienable rights, they can not be tolerated and they must trigger our right to alter or abolish the offending government—typically, and properly, by election or amendment.

So, why do I say that Senator Santorum’s application of his principle to the example of gay marriage is wrong, and Governor Perry’s position is right? It is because gay marriage, like it or not, does not deprive anyone of Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. I happen to agree with Santorum and others who believe that licensing gay marriage is a wrong policy choice that reveals a collective collapse of responsibility, moral character, wisdom and judgment; and that such policies, if adopted throughout the country, may threaten, eventually, our social fabric. However, such policies do not threaten anyone’s inalienable rights. So, the states have the latitude in our system to experiment with this wrong policy, just as Texas had the right to adopt a constitutional amendment to prohibit such an experiment—this is the frustrating genius of the Federalism of our Founders.

One can only hope that as we conservatives win elections and re-invigorate the development and use of responsibility, moral character and wisdom through our families, our schools and our neighborhoods, that these wrong policies will be corrected. In the meantime, sadly, our citizens, and our governments must tolerate our right to be wrong if we are to preserve our Federal Republican form of government that our Founder’s designed.

The "Compassion" Trap

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

As has so often happened during great debates over domestic policies since the 1930s, Republicans seem to be walking again towards what I call “the Compassion Trap”. If you’ve been involved in, or watched and listened to these debates long enough, you know what I mean.

The Compassion Trap arises when liberals play the last card in their hand—when they claim that a policy promoted by conservatives will hurt groups of individuals by changing, reducing or eliminating a financial benefit currently provided by government. In response to such accusations, enough conservatives try to avoid being labeled as heartless that they refuse to support the policy. In turn, their decision splits conservatives so that the policy initiative fails. In the end, the liberal policies that keep or expand government power and control continue by default.

As our Republican representatives cruise toward the August 2nd debt-ceiling deadline, the Democrats and their media allies are again setting the Compassion Trap. The short-run question is, will enough Republicans avoid the trap and hold the line to accomplish meaningful change, or will enough of them fall into the Compassion Trap again and raise the debt ceiling without gaining meaningful, long-term policy changes?

In the long-run though, the real question is, how can we conservatives destroy the Compassion Trap before it is set again?

I, for one, don’t think it will be destroyed by labeling ourselves, or our movement, as being “compassionate”. George W. Bush tried that approach and it didn’t work. It didn’t work with conservatives because it offended many of us who believed we already were compassionate, and it seemed to imply that some of us had not been compassionate. It didn’t work with independents, because the label ran counter to the long-ingrained perceptions they held about conservatives. Advertisers and marketers will tell you that you can’t simply change the public’s perception about a brand by changing its label.

Quite frankly, if we are going to change the way this game is played and avoid the Compassion Trap in the future, conservatives are going to have to look in the mirror and realize that our approach to political debate must change. We must reflect on the most basic reason politics and governments exist, and reshape our approach to voters accordingly.

What do I mean?

First, let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence and really look at what it says—

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What Jefferson is saying is that the purpose of a legitimate government is to secure the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to its citizens, and to allow for the exercise of those rights within an environment that “shall seem most likely to effect” the “Safety and Happiness” of its citizens. Jefferson is not focusing on abstract ideas and formulas—that will come later during the Constitutional Debates during 1787-88—instead, he is stating that for government, and therefore the politics of government, to be legitimate, it must create and secure an atmosphere in which individuals have the freedom and opportunity to achieve their full, God-given potentials and dreams. That means that Jefferson envisioned people—living breathing people—living and working as family members and neighbors in communities, with the freedom and safety to live the lives they wanted to live.

Now here’s a news flash: both liberals and conservatives care about people. The difference between us is what Thomas Sowell has called “A Conflict of Visions”. Unfortunately, our conservative rhetoric rarely engages the public in a debate over these visions and how these different visions impact their lives.

Sometimes we conservatives talk about politics as if we’ve forgotten about those living, breathing people—including ourselves, our family members, and our neighbors—that Jefferson envisioned, so we fail to talk about the hopes and dreams they have, which government is supposed to allow and protect. Instead, we talk about formulas and models and constitutions and markets and theories and rights and history, but too often we never talk about people. On the other hand, liberals incessantly babble about people and how government should not just provide a secure environment for them to flourish, but should actually dictate what peoples’ hopes and dreams should be, and how and when they can achieve those hopes and dreams. By talking about what they will do for people, rather than about the proper mechanics of government, liberals have convinced voters that they care about the common man and that we don’t.

We won’t change that perception with new labels—the perception is simply too deeply ingrained. We will only change that perception when we start talking about our neighbors as living, breathing people, and about how our vision, and our policy ideas, will help our neighbors pursue their happiness. In essence, we need to paint a picture of the Shining City on a Hill and explain how we get their and how it will allow our neighbors, and our neighbors’ children, to live better lives.

So, to those Republicans currently in the trenches fighting over the debt ceiling and facing the Compassion Trap, and to those Republican candidates who will face the voters (and the Compassion Trap) during the next campaign, re-arm yourselves by changing the way you talk about what you believe and how you would perform in office. For example, talk to Americans about what a reduced federal government will mean for their lives, their schools, their communities and their local governments; how greater local control and individual responsibility will allow them greater freedom to improve their lives and their communities, and greater opportunities to fulfill their dreams for themselves and their children. Help your neighbors see how individual volunteering and activism changes lives and builds communities, in contrast to the deadening dependence on government and bureaucrats that is at the end of the liberal vision of the future. Help your neighbors see a greater future—to see themselves living, working, volunteering and raising families in that Shining City on a Hill—and you will not only win the next election, but we will finally destroy the Compassion Trap and we will be able to enact the policies needed to again create and secure the society Jefferson envisioned.