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.

If he runs, I will support Governor Perry for the Presidency

This column originally appeared at Big Jolly Politics.

There is nothing quite like a vacation to allow you to clear your head and look at issues and ideas from a fresh perspective.

As I was finishing the first vacation in years during which I have done virtually no work and just focused on fun and family, I picked-up and read a newspaper article about the unfolding Republican Presidential race. As I finished the article, I reached a decision that really surprised me: if Rick Perry runs for President, I will support his candidacy.

Now before I explain why I will support Governor Perry’s candidacy, I need to write a quick disclaimer. I am declaring my support as an individual, and not as a representative of any group or club of which I may be a member or officer. Moreover, no one asked me to do this—this decision and the timing of this post were driven purely by me.

Ok—with that disclaimer behind me, let me explain why I am surprised by my decision, and why I reached decision.

I am surprised primarily by the change of fortunes and political viability of Governor Perry since 2006. Remember, that when he ran for re-election that year, he won with only a 39% plurality in a four-way field—not exactly a conventional predictor of a future presidential candidacy. Then, he pursued at least two policy initiatives that set his base on fire against him: his attempt to impose vaccinations on the young women of Texas without legislative approval; and his advocacy for the Trans-Texas Corridor development. When I ran for an appellate judicial seat in a ten-county district during 2007 and 2008, the negative reaction against the Governor and his political future were expressed openly in virtually every Republican meeting I attended. In fact, few openly predicted he would (let alone advocated that he should) run for re-election in 2010, and many were discussing Senator Hutchison as his successor.

Then, the Tea Party movement exploded. This new movement gave the Governor a new platform that he used effectively to articulate and advocate his political vision, and an attentive audience hungry for the message he was giving. The combination seemed to give the Governor a visible injection of energy and purpose as the 2010 campaign ensued. Eventually, he steamrolled over Senator Hutchison and Debra Medina without a run-off, and over the popular former Houston Mayor, Bill White, in the general election—a truly amazing turnaround. And it was a turnaround based on substance, which mixed the message of growth, frugality and federalism with the accomplishments of his tenure as Governor.

Given where his political fortunes stood a few years ago, and my own reservations over some of his specific decisions and positions over the years, I never thought I would be considering Governor Perry for President. But, in a time when our country needs a President who understands the need to down-size the federal government in order to reduce public debt and return political power to states, local governments and individuals, and in a year when there are obvious short-comings in each of the announced candidates for the Republican nomination, Governor Perry has emerged as the right man at the right time. He is the only candidate who seems to be clearly articulating the vision of the proper role of government at all levels.

Now there will be some who say that his prior political inconsistencies are too many to allow them to support him. To them, I recommend that they remember what Emerson said about “a foolish consistency.” In an essay about Self-Reliance, Ralph Waldo Emerson asked us to not judge consistency on the day-to-day life decisions and actions that we often make in reaction to events that we had not previously planned to address, but on an individual’s character that can only emerge from looking at a lifetime of decisions and actions. With the Internet and the 24/7 news cycle, such perspective is harder and harder to apply. However, if we look at Perry’s career over three decades of public life, his positions evidence a remarkable consistency in support of the economic and social conservatism that forms the core of the modern Republican Party. Moreover, his stated positions are closer to the vision for the “new” Republican Party that Reagan first espoused in 1977 than any of the other candidates in this year’s field.

As I write this post, there are two concerns I still have about a Perry candidacy, which I hope he and his team will address if he chooses to run. First, he must address the schizophrenic view of government held by most Americans—the view that simultaneously wants a smaller government that lives within its means, and low taxes, but wants no change to the government benefits they, or their family members, currently enjoy. Over the last 100 years, we gradually have allowed the federal government to use public tax dollars to provide charity to the less-fortunate and to underwrite economic risks—the risks associated with disability, retirement, health, home purchases, a college education, small business creation, and many others. Any Republican, who wants to beat Obama and actually obtain a mandate to lead this country through the changes needed to address the size and debt of the federal government, must explain to the independent voters who leaned Republican before 2008, but who voted for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, how these changes will affect their lives—how will charity be provided to the less fortunate, and how will the risks of currently underwritten by government be addressed? Will government have a role? If so, what level of government will have that role, and what role will that level of government have? If government’s role is to be reduced, what will be expected from each individual in order to provide for charity and to protect against the risks of life that we all will inevitably face? If the answers to these questions are not clearly articulated, a Perry Presidency may not ever occur—but if it does, I fear it will fail.

Second, Governor Perry must address the concern that many outside of Texas will have in electing another Texas Republican so soon after both Bush Presidencies. Part of this concern will be addressed by the story of Texas’ economic growth during his tenure. However, I think Governor Perry also needs to consider a running mate who is from another region of the country, and preferably one who is addressing the current economic and governmental problems effectively. Ideally, one of the Republican Governors from Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio or New Jersey, would fit these criteria while also giving the ticket a better chance of picking up a state that Obama carried in 2008.

I know that this post (and its early timing) will surprise some of my friends and allies, as well as some within our party with whom I’ve had disagreements in the past, but I feel that, as Governor Perry makes his decision, it is important that he know the breadth of support he will have. To that end, I feel it is important for many of us in Texas to indicate our position about his candidacy now—one way or another. So, for what it’s worth, I pledge my support to his candidacy if he chooses to run.