Wesley J. Smith on collectivism and individualism:
Collectivism is always a potent message for those who feel a sense of oppression and/or economic strain. Thus, it was the very economic difficulties experienced by my friend’s touted demographic cohorts that made Obama’s message of inclusion and “fairness” resonate more deeply than did Mitt Romney’s free market/equality of opportunity/importance-of-the-individual arguments.
Also today, Robert P. George on the unity of economic and social conservatism:
Although a decent society need not be a dynamic one (as the Amish example shows) dynamism need not erode decency. A dynamic society need not be one in which consumerism and materialism become rife and in which moral and spiritual values disappear. Indeed, dynamism can play a positive moral role and, I would venture to say, almost certainly will play such a role where what makes it possible is sufficient to sustain it over the long term.
And in our third feature, Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap, on fighting for religious freedom:
The President has many personal strengths. But the people who staff his administration—including Catholics who clearly know better—have consistently misrepresented the serious issues involved in the HHS mandate debate. As a senior federal judge told me recently from his own case-load experience, key people in this administration simply do not seem to believe in religious freedom in the sense the American Founders originally intended it—in other words, as a distinct human liberty and a priority human right. This is the political terrain we face for the next four years.