This is not to be in any way derogatory, but simply to say that we moderns have turned inward. Though this is, in a way, recent history. Pericles went far beyond what any American in 2011 could stomach in his Funeral Oration, but wasn’t it JFK who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”? I’m not sure that Obama said anything to justify another government program, as Charles above has also mentioned. But I do think you’ve brought up an interesting dilemma which every American has to deal with – the ordering of his private and public life.

Tocqueville happily reported that the Americans had some “ancient liberty” running through their veins – meaning thereby a public-spiritedness absent in Europe. It wasn’t quite that they had some sort of reverence for government so much as they had a community which got stuff done on its own, in the “townships.”

What we consider adequate for the fulfillment of our public roles will be, I think, *the* question which distinguishes between libs and conservatives in the next few decades. But conservatives can’t fall back on the notion that it is enough to have their family, and that’s that. They must insist on a community of some sort, one effective enough to care for the legitimate needs of fellow Americans but sensitive enough to recognize that the highest virtue in a man is “the virtue of human being and citizen” (cf. Plato’s Apology of Socrates).

For years we have had so many ultimately disastrous policies wrapped up in ‘do it for the children’ rhetoric, that I share your apprehension with that part of the President’s remarks—and I also agree that it was one of his best speeches. I do find it interesting that the last comment posted here shows exactly the kind of ‘vitriol’ (to use the word of the week) that one has come to expect when daring to express an aversion to the ‘do it for the children’ meme.

No, the President did not argue for ‘specific liberal government projects’. Does he need to? His entire world view and the policies he has pushed does that already. It is not un-American to wonder just what the use of an oft used and very loaded phrase portends. When has ‘do it for the children’ ever not ushered in a Trojan horse—regardless of intent? When the President urges us to make the country better for the children, I do not believe he has my vision of what would make it better for the children in mind.

And how remarkable that, just as liberals could not restrain themselves from going too far in their accusations, neither could Charles. “Maybe you do Not want an American (sic) in which fewer abortions are performed, since you’ve given up on trying to make the country into what you’d like it to be?” The implication is, of course, that the President’s vision of a better America includes fewer abortions. Brings to mind something about the Brooklyn Bridge. And for whatever it’s worth, I see no indication that you’ve given up on anything. What is that about?

An atrocity occurred which makes no sense and ever since we have been subjected to utter nonsense as to why it occurred delivered in the most scathing manner. Charles’ rant would seem then to be quite fitting.

By the way, the very parts of the President’s speech that you have trouble with are the very parts my priest latched on to for his homily today. Given that last week we were treated to a very impassioned diatribe blaming this atrocity on political rhetoric (never mentioning conservatives per se but clearly echoing the hysteria in the media), I found the turnaround quite extraordinary. While I have no doubt that some (many?) of my fellow parishioners found it eloquent and moving, I did my best not to squirm.

“It isn’t enough that we as husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, children, brothers, sisters, and friends strive to live up to the innocent and trusting expectations of our children (at least those we project onto our children), but we have to make the country live up their expectations.”

Talk about not being able to resist bigger game! Nothing Obama says in this remarkable speech justifies this reading—this attempt to force him into the mold of the bete noir of the right, someone bent on “making the country” live up to his expectations.

Should we stop saying that we want a more hopeful future for our children or our country? Or believing it? Do you really mean that you do NOT want our democracy to be as good as a child like Christina wanted it to be? You do NOT want a better America? Maybe you do NOT want an American in which fewer abortions are performed, since you’ve given up on trying to make the country into what you’d like it to be?

Are you not tacitly conceding that your conservatism is not really about what might be best for future generations?

Obama doesn’t parlay this trope of a better American future into an argument for specific liberal government projects—raised taxes, new departments, or whatever. I doubt he’s grateful that you’ve tried to do it for him. I see no reason why a small-government conservative cannot hope for the very same things—a better democracy, a better America—unless of course you’re conceding that limited, pro-business, conservative-style government is not really about contributing to a common good that is better for our children and our children’s children.

To be sure, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. But that dark horse stalks the good intentions of all of us, not just liberals.