In some ways my spite-driven motivation for buying the book was appropriate considering the at-time spite-driven content of the book.  Much of her chapters about the 2008 presidential election campaign and its aftermath seemed somewhat, dare I say, catty.  She closes one chapter by describing an outing she had with a group of reporters soon after she announced her resignation this past summer.  She took them along with her on a fishing expedition, and she laments the fact that it turned out to be a nice day, prompting her to comment, “Instead of a typical Bristol Bay weather, it was sunny, hot, and flat calm, so – dang it – none of them got slimed.”

One’s reaction to that reflection hinges on one’s disposition towards Palin.  Either it’s indicative of a petty mind, or it shows that she’s got a little spunk – and a sense of humor as well.  After four hundred pages of reading I lean towards the latter, though I can’t help but think that there’s a little bit of the former thrown in as well.  But after the press’s treatment of her, and the left blogosphere’s repeated attempts to slime her – including one sick blogger’s obsession over the birth of her son Trig – I can’t say I blame her.

In general, the book was better than expected.  It’s difficult to disregard the fact that it was ghostwritten, though Palin’s voice clearly comes through in much of her autobiography.  Certain critics have lamented the fact that she does not display a greater deal of policy understanding, but this book is not meant to be a sequel to Reflections on the Revolution in France.  It’s an autobiography, not a political treatise.  Honestly, it is an attempt to humanize her in light of the mass media’s treatment of her.

So was she successful in that effort?  Admittedly I am pre-disposed to liking her, but I’m also not a blind Palin partisan.  In terms of presidential politics, though she’s clearly better than most of the other mainstream candidates like Huckabee and Romney, she is not necessarily my first choice.  She is not nearly as dumb or ignorant as both her left- and right-wing opponents make her out to be, but I have questioned whether she’s really fit to be the leader of the free world.  After reading her book, those doubts have been softened.

She’s not as revealing as you’d like her to be, and there are aspects of the book that are vague and hurried.  She seems to rush through various parts of her life, and yet she lingers on seemingly banal bits of trivia about people who have visited her state and other random bits of information.  Yet her obvious love of Alaska shines through in an endearing and charming sort of way. And when she spends more than a brief paragraph on a certain point of her life, she does reveal more about her personality.  Her description of her miscarriage, as well as her recounting of finding out that she was pregnant with Trig, and then finding out that he was going to be developmentally disabled, and the aftermath of finding out and going through all the concerns and fears she had, followed by the acceptance and embracing of what was to come – all of that was touching but not overly sentimental.  In fact, I think the book could have used a bit more of those moments of self-reflection.

There are a couple of things the book did for me to improve my view of Sarah Palin.  Her personal religious devotion is made manifest throughout.  Despite my own religious beliefs, I sometimes get a little skittish seedbox when political figures talk religion because it can sound disingenuous.  I wonder how much of what they are saying comes from a desire merely to impress the base.  But in Palin’s case it seemed to me anyway that she was incredibly sincere, and she draws on her faith in a positive way.

She also eased some of my concerns about her populist rhetoric.  When political figures start droning on about “the people,” I naturally recoil.  Not necessarily because political leaders should ignore the will of the people  – nor should they be slaves to the popular will – but because, again, it normally sounds completely disingenuous.  I roll my eyes when politicians describe themselves as outsiders or mavericks, especially those who have been involved in the political world for several decades.  One of my particular pet peeves is the way that so-called independents or “independent-minded” thinkers always like to remind everyone on a seemingly constant basis that they are independent-minded thinkers.  They act like they expect a treat or pat on the belly for their “ferocious” independence of thought, as though everyone else on planet Earth but them is a sheep.

Sarah Palin has a bit of that – look at the title of the dang book.  I sometimes cringe when she delves into that “aw shucks, I’m just a regular gal” talk.  But as the saying goes, “show, don’t tell,” and Palin indeed does show.  Her accounts of the insider machinations of Alaskans politics are not easy on the blood pressure, and when you stop to consider that she’s talking about Alaska, you realize how much it is in larger states and especially the federal government.  Of course not everything she says should be taken at face value, but her description of what she dealt with against the Establishment is eye popping.

I did say that this book is not a political treatise, but in her final chapter she delves a little deeper into her political philosophy.  While much of this contains a lot of vague generalities and populist talk about “commonsense” conservatism,” it does contain the clearest and best description of conservatism that I have ever heard a political figure – or just about any writer for that matter – express since Ronald Reagan.  This was the highlight of the book, and the part of it that convinced me that she should be the leader of the new conservative revolution.

She answers the question, “what does it mean to be a Commonsense Conservative?”  Her answer is simply magnificent (emphasis below is mine).

At its most basic level, conservatism is a respect for history and tradition, including traditional moral principles. I do not believe I am more moral, certainly no better, than anyone else, and conservatives who act “holier than thou” turn my stomach.  So do some elite liberals.  But I do believe in a few timeless and unchanging truths, and chief among those is that man is fallen.  The world is not perfect, and politicians will never make it so. This, above all, is what informs my pragmatic approach to politics.

Yes yes yes yes!  In a couple of sentences she has completely captured the essence of conservatism.  It’s not just about tax cuts (though an important manifestation of conservative principles) or opposition to spending.  It’s about appreciation for tradition, and for the fallen nature of mankind and the inability of us mere mortals to create paradise on Earth through government intervention.  Bless her heart she’s got it.

Later she adds that she’s a conservative “because I deal with the world as it is – complicated and beautiful, tragic and hopeful.”  Then, as if she were writing this just to impress me, she discusses Thomas Sowell’s dichotomy in A Conflict of Visions between those who have a constrained vision and an unconstrained vision.  I have blogged about this before, but Sowell’s book is one of the most perceptive and insightful works of political theory ever written, and if Sarah Palin has actually read it, then I think I love her.  Even if she has not, and she’s only picked up the theme elsewhere, I praise her for citing Sowell here because it he nails the fundamental difference between the right and the left.

As Palin goes on to explain, it all comes down to our understanding of human nature.  Conservatives believe it is flawed and not perfectible, and therefore trying to achieve utopia is folly.  Leftists also believe that man is flawed, but believe that humanity can be perfected.  I know some will argue that the preamble of the Constitution contains the phrase “a more perfect Union,” but the Framers are talking about creating a better form of government than what came before, not about altering human nature.

Palin then adds:

We don’t trust utopian promises from politicians.  The role of government is not to perfect us but to protect us – to protect our inalienable rights.  The role of government is to protect the individual and to establish a social contract so that we can live together in peace.

Once again, Sarah Palin has perfectly captured the essence of conservatism.  Even if the rest of the chapter is a little short on specifics, that she has gotten this much elevates her beyond so many others.

Having said all that, I return to my concern about possible small-mindedness.  She admits that she basically blew the Couric interview, confessing that she became upset about the questions Couric was asking and the tone that the interviewer struck, and so she let that annoyance show in her responses to some of the questions, especially when Couric asked her what newspapers she read.  Palin deserves some credit for recognizing her own foibles, but it’s worrisome that she would have let perceived mistreatment alter her demeanor so much, especially during such a critical moment of the campaign.  And while I am willing to cut her some slack based on the way she has been treated by the media, at certain junctures I thought that perhaps she was being a tad whiny about everything.  Not much, but enough to worry that she might be a just a little thin-skinned.  Then again, maybe I’m just looking for things to be critical about.

So is this a good book?  Is it worth your time? Yes.  You don’t exactly learn everything you may want to know about Sarah Palin, but it’s an interesting look at her time as a public servant.  No, she does not lay out a 50-point, detailed plan for Republican revival, but again, this is not what the book is about. Surprisingly, I enjoyed it very much, and I do have a deeper respect for her as a result of it.

Hudson argues that the public option will end up extending federal funding for abortion. He says that the courts will step in even if Congress doesn’t mandate abortion coverage in any such plan. Mind you, the courts have not stepped in to over-rule the Hyde Amendment lo these many years. The federal health insurance coverage that members of Congress enjoy does not include abortion coverage. Federal Medicaid funds do not support abortion. So, why would the federal option, which would be modeled after the insurance that members of Congress get, necessarily end up mandating abortion coverage? Hudson does not say.

I can’t speak for Hudson, but the Courts won’t even have to get involved in order for Congress to skirt the Hyde Amendment in order to fund abortion through the public option. As has been pointed out by numerous sources—and I’ll start out with the National Right to Life Committee—the Hyde Amendment only applies to annual HHS appropriations.

Since the Hyde Amendment applies only to funds appropriated through the annual HHS appropriations bill, the Hyde Amendment will not apply to any of the funds used to establish or operate either the “public option” or the premium-subsidy program created by H.R. 3200. Members of Congress who assert that the Hyde Amendment would prevent federal government funding of abortions under H.R. 3200 are misleading their constituents, in some cases perhaps inadvertently and in other cases perhaps by design.

It has been well established elsewhere that H.R. 3200, particularly as revised by the “Capps Amendment” (or Capps-Waxman Amendment) that was adopted in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 30, 2009, would (1) authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to pay for elective abortions under the “public plan,” and (2) allow the “affordability credits” to subsidize both the public plan and private insurance plans that cover all abortions. See, for example, the August 21, 2009 FactCheck.org analysis “Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating,” and the August 13, 2009 NRLC factsheet “What Do the ‘Health Care Reform’ Bills Backed by President Obama Have to Do With Abortion?” The sole purpose of this memorandum is to correct the erroneous assertions that the Hyde Amendment would somehow prevent those results.

The NRLC goes into greater detail as to why the Democrats cannot hide behind the Hyde Amendment.

Even if one allows that there might be some reasonable arguments against the NRLC position, the next two paragraphs contain just a stunning amount of mendacity.        

Actually, I can think of one scenario in which this could happen. If the USCCB follows Hudson’s lead and opposes health care legislation that includes a public option that does not include abortion coverage, their moral voice will have been so weakened that perhaps they will not be able to perpetuate the Hyde Amendment or its health care corollary.

This is just amazing. In order for the Hyde Amendment to retain its teeth, the USCCB and other Obamacare skeptics just have to shut up and support this horrendous legislation or else their moral voice will not be heard. The pro-life Catholic rabble might disturb the utopia that will be brought about if Obama and his minions get what they want, so Winters spins a noble lie that we’ll just make matters worse by expressing our disagreement with the proposed plan. This is a disgusting and transparent effort by Winters to silence the opposition.

One hopes that Winters isn’t this naive. Does he actually think that the secular left really is interested in any sort of dialogue? Then again, maybe we should take Winters at his word. He is essentially saying that if the pro-life community expresses its outrage about the health care reform package, then the Democrats—out of spite—will do everything in their power to reverse the Hyde Amendment. If the party currently in power is motivated by such petty concerns, then where is the nobility in continuing to support such a party?

Now here’s the big whopper:

We are all waiting to see what the final legislation looks like. The bishops are right to insist that no federal dollars go to cover abortion: The Hyde Amendment is nearly as settled law as is Roe.

This is wrong on so many levels. The Hyde Amendment is a piece of Congressional legislation that can be repealed at any time for any reason. Roe v. Wade is a decision handed down by the Supreme Court that cannot be reversed until at least five Supreme Court Justices vote to overturn it, and they can do that only when a case comes before them that touches upon the issue.  Moreover, federal legislators are not bound by the (absurd) doctrine of stare decisis, and therefore are subject to no theoretical limitations on their ability to repeal legislation. They can do it at any time, for any reason.

The claim is also absurd because it just ignores political reality. The Supreme Court rarely reverses itself. It happens, but reversing a nearly forty-year old decision is about several orders of magnitude more difficult than repealing federal legislation. Furthermore, while the Hyde Amendment has been around for nearly as long as judicially mandated abortion rights, it is nowhere as ingrained in our culture as the Roe decision. Does anybody rationally think that the repeal of the Hyde Amendment would cause even remotely the same type of stir that reversal of Roe would create?  I’m willing to wager that a majority – probably a super majority—of Americans don’t even know that the Hyde Amendment exists. And while a majority might theoretically oppose federal funding of abortion, the mere fact that the Hyde Amendment is not steeped in the public consciousness means that those who seek to repeal it have a far easier political path to trod than those who seek to reverse Roe.

For his sake, I truly hope that Winters is simply unaware of the facts and is not just spinning.

If I’m on the right track, pro-life arguments are not likely to succeed by simply continuing to stress the humanity of the fetus. The opposition already knows this, as probably do most women who have an abortion. Rather, the pro-life movement must take into account the larger cultural context of the sexual revolution that invisibly but surely sustains the triumphant advocates of abortion.

It won’t be easy, but somehow the case against abortion must include a case against sexual libertinism. It is time to return to the drawing board.

I’d take slight issue with this in that I don’t know that we’ve truly convinced the larger public about the humanity of the unborn child, and as such efforts should continue on that front. But I think DSouza is on the right track.

Hargrave adds his own thoughts:

The strength of the pro-choice movement has never been derived from outright denials of the humanity of the unborn child, but from the manner in which it presents itself – as a champion of women, and particularly poor and minority women. Abortion is almost always referred to as a “woman’s issue” and all too often pro-lifers end up stuck in the rhetorical boxes created for them by their opponents. We end up somehow arguing against women. Of course much pro-life literature and propaganda focuses on the harm that abortion does to women as well as children, but all this tends to do is reinforce the notion that abortion is then, if not a “woman’s issue”, a mother’s issue.

Perhaps you can tell where I am going with this. In my view, what is often missing from the abortion debate are men. Behind every unwanted pregnancy is a man, and behind many abortions – possibly the vast majority of abortions – are the actions of men: of husbands, boyfriends, friends and fathers. Abortion is not always (and I have to imagine, hardly ever) the decision of the idealistically independent, strong-willed woman determined to do as she pleases in spite of a patriarchal society. This is a radical feminist fantasy.

Hargrave marshals the evidence that demonstrates why abortion is not just a woman’s issue. He then continues:

I don’t doubt for a moment that almost every pro-lifer understands the role that fathers play in the abortion of children. But what we need to do is incorporate it into our political program. The role of men in abortion must become more widely broadcast, it must be expanded beyond the occasional nod it gets in an obscure journal or pamphlet. When abortion is discussed on national television, in the major newspapers, on the radio, in any venue where a multitude of people will be listening or watching, the role of men must occupy a much greater place that discussion.

It must be done, first of all, because it is the truth, and as studies have shown, a truth that must not be ignored. Secondly, it must be done in order to demonstrate that to be pro-life is not to oppose women, but to oppose all who would abandon their parental responsibilities and obligations. It is high time we acknowledge the partial truth behind one of the most commonly used pro-choice slogans: “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal” or some variation thereof. It is only a partial truth, of course, but it does highlight a failure to hold men accountable for their own sexual promiscuity and often appalling behavior towards their pregnant wives and girlfriends.

I think Hargrave is on the right track here. It’s a fact of political life that controlling the narrative is essential to advancing one’s cause. Despite the fact that a wide majority of even pro-choicers have difficulty with the morality of abortion, the pro-choice cause has been aided by the feminist narrative that abortion is a woman’s issue, and that abortion rights somehow are essential for the cause of equal rights. And D’Souza’s argument about sexual libertinism is also correct.

There are plenty of ways those of us in the pro-life movement can make our case. Lucky for us most of the arguments favor our side of the debate.  There is no harm in using every tool we have at our disposal.

Local officials and state police are confirming that a pro-life advocate was shot and killed outside a high school in this Michigan town. The person, who is described as well-known but whose identity has not been released, was shot multiple times while protesting abortion outside Owosso High School.

Officials say the shooting occurred at 7:30 a.m. local time and most students were inside the school building at the time of the incident.

State police have also confirmed they apprehended a suspect about 8:15 a.m at the suspect’s home in this small community northeast of Lansing.

Something tells me this will not receive 1/10 the attention of the George Tiller murder.

Part of the angst seems to come from a mistaken understanding of the doctrine. Rand and her followers believe that the doctrine of original sin means that we are all born evil, but this is a gross exaggeration. Commenter Dale Price helpfully linked to the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s definition:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

This rankles the objectivists, but the doctrine as stated above is hardly much different than how many secular-minded philosophers have described human nature. When James Madison wrote than men were not angels, he was essentially hitting upon the notion that man is an imperfect beast. In fact, I don’t think he’d much object to the idea that human nature is “wounded.” In the Federalist Papers, both Hamilton and Madison—especially Madison—were influenced by David Hume, who wrote that it in “contriving any system of government, and fixing the several checks and controuls [sic] of the constitution, every man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all his actions, than private interest.” Hume’s statement is not necessarily a reflection of his view of human nature, but many of the Framers of the Constitution adopted this philosophy. I’d go so far as to say that they dropped the “supposed” part from their ruminations.

Rand doesn’t like the concept of original sin because it’s not fair, but she also claims to be expounding a purportedly realistic philosophy. What is so realistic about rejecting a view of human nature that common sense and experience tells us has quite a lot of merit? One need not be a bible thumping Fundamentalist to appreciate the imperfections of the human condition. As I said in my review, Randian utopians are no better than Marxist utopians or any other utopians in their completely naive outlook. Even if one does not fully accept the doctrine of origjnal sin, it is a rather extreme jump to embrace a doctrine of original perfection.

University of Louisville men’s basketball coach Rick Pitino told police that he had consensual sex with Karen Cunagin Sypher at a Louisville restaurant where he’d been drinking on Aug. 1, 2003.

He also told police that he later gave Sypher $3,000 to have an abortion, according to Louisville Metro Police reports The Courier-Journal obtained under the Kentucky Open Records Act.

But Pitino denied Sypher’s allegations that he raped her at Porcini, after the restaurant closed, and again a few weeks later at a different location, police records show. And prosecutors who have reviewed Sypher’s claims say Pitino won’t be charged.

Pitino’s lawyer is now saying that the coach gave the woman money for “insurance,” not an abortion, though that just seems to me a way for Pitino to assuage his conscience.

As horrible as this story is, I can’t help but see one tiny sliver of hope. I listen to a lot of sports talk radio and read various sports-related blogs, and the moral revulsion at what Pitino has done runs very deep. Now some of this is probably related just to the extra-marital affair, and others are pointing out the “hypocrisy” (Pitino is a Roman Catholic, and at one point met with Pope John Paul II). But there is clearly an undercurrent of disgust that Pitino apparently paid for  an abortion. These are not Catholic or politically conservative blogs and talk shows I’m talking about. Clearly, there is still some kind of social stigma attached to abortion that extends beyond the pro-life community.

We see this with the people who go out of their way to describe themselves as pro-choice, not pro-abortion.  And while I certainly have scoffed at those who so proudly declare themselves to be “personally opposed, but,” it’s not entirely a bad thing that even the pro-choicers want to wash their hands of the moral evil that is abortion.

About half the people in this country believe that abortion is absolutely wrong and should be prohibited.  Among the other half of the country, a large percentage have at least a subconscious revulsion towards abortion.  My feeling may be misplaced, but that gives me just the slightest bit of hope.

I don’t know exactly what about me threatens them so much, other than that people are listening to me. Malkin has the No. 1 book on The New York Times bestseller hardcover nonfiction list, but I have nearly twice as many Twitter followers as she does. And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published by the hyper-conservative publisher Regnery—which will be bringing you Carrie Prejean’s new book and published one of Ann Coulter’s.

It’s depressing that someone can actually think this, let alone write it.  Even more depressing is the fact that the observation about young people is probably correct.

I gave the same message everywhere. Americans should cleave to their Jeffersonian heritage.

Normally I would shoot mental shockwaves of negative energy towards any man who uttered such blasphemy.  But I read on and Hannan was kind enough to publish an email from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  Ebell has a much different (and accurate) take on Mr. Jefferson.

Jefferson may have said that that government is best which governs least, but he never had a useful thought about how to keep limits on government except to recommend revolution in every generation. Which is of course disastrous. But he was a very silly man—a true, because superficial and calculating, product of the Enlightenment.

Ebell proceeds to carefully delineate the differences between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.  Ebell’s preference for Adams shines through.

Unlike Jefferson, Adams was obsessed with how to keep elites in check by dividing power and balancing power against power. In this he is in the tradition of Harrington and Montesquieu and Hume rather than of Locke (Jefferson on the other hand admired Rousseau). He was the deepest thinker of the Revolution and also the most important political figure (as distinguished from leader)—he made the strategy that led to independence, he led the public campaign for independence, and was the leading proponent for independence in the Continental Congress both rhetorically and behind the scenes.

Mr. Ebell, if I ever meet you, the next beer is on me.

I’ll admit to a certain bias when it comes to Mr. Jefferson.  My doctoral dissertation was, in essence, a diatribe on why the Jefferson/Rousseau philosophy was leading us down a path of destruction and it continues to annoy and distress me when I see conservatives hold Jefferson up to such lofty standards.  The man was no conservative—in any sense of the term.  The fact that he claimed to support limited government makes him no different than any of his peers, and in fact—as Ebell aludes to—his ultimate governing philosophy had quite the opposite impact.  His true progeny are men like FDR and Barack Obama, not Ronald Reagan.

I’ve said on this very blog that some of these abstract academic musings are somewhat futile because America is not a deeply ideological country.  I stand by that, but it is important to have some kind of grasp of our philosophical heritage. We need to understand that there are two decidedly different pathways: the path of Jefferson and Rousseau, and the path of Adams and Edmund Burke.  Choose wisely.

That being said, it’s hardly time to begin celebrating. Bill Clinton rebounded after the 1994 election debacle, and our current president is still savvy enough to take advantage of even the slightest opening.

More importantly, even if the all of the pieces of the President’s disastrous agenda are not put into place, what’s done is already sufficient to justify conservative gloominess. (And as an aside, since when is pessimism considered a negative trait for conservatives?) Furthermore, even if Obama doesn’t get universal health care and cap-and-trade passed, he can and almost certainly will do enough around the edges to put our country on even worse footing. There can be another Supreme Court retirement, and it might not be another case of a liberal replacing a liberal. Is a weakened Obama really going to have his Supreme Court picks blocked? Bush managed to get two in post-Katrina, so I think not.

And even a grossly unpopular president is still the head of the Executive Branch, and considering the bureaucracy he’s structured, that in and of itself is perilous. For example, take a look at cap-and-trade. Sure the Senate might defeat the bill, but EPA has been given enough authority that it can implement some kind of regulatory structure that might be even worse than what Congress is considering right now. So Barack Obama doesn’t even need the backing of Congress to achieve much of what he desires.

Finally, the opposition is still fairly pathetic. I believe that the grassroots has done more than an admirable job in raising public consciousness, but they’re hardly getting any help from inside the Beltway. We have certain Republican Senators focusing their ire instead on those evil Southerners in the party. We also have a National Republican Senatorial Committee backing moderate candidates at the expense of more conservative and frankly more promising candidates. And the problems aren’t just relegated to the national party, as “outsider” candidates are pushed to the back in favor of insiders. Unlike in 1994,  there seems to be a lack of  coherent organized movement on the Hill.

So yeah, there is probably a bit more call for optimism than I would have thought possible at this point in time.  But we have a long, long way to go.

The harder part of your question, particularly for libertarians like me, is about the division of public and private roles if the public role is being performed competently and diligently. Here, I side with the Founders. Google any Founder’s name and the word “virtue” and you will find lots of quotes. Here are some examples. The common thread is that limited government cannot work without virtue in the public at large and in their leaders in particular. I agree adamantly with that conclusion, and attribute much of the current loss of limited government to the loss of that kind of virtue. In that sense, people in high positions (private as well as public) serve as exemplars–”role models” doesn’t begin to cover the gravity of that function. They don’t have the option of being reprobates, even lovable ones.

So that’s why I don’t cut unvirtuous overlings any slack even if they are competent. Mind you, I don’t want us to pass laws to make it easier to get rid of them. I just want all of us to look upon them with withering scorn. I bet you didn’t know it is possible to be both a libertarian and a grouchy old prude.

The reason I find this intriguing is that libertarians are usually the first to claim that we shouldn’t judge politicians by their private behavior, but I think Murray hits upon why that reasoning is flawed, especially from a libertarian point of view.

As a social conservative who has libertarian sympathies, I recognize that most behavior simply cannot be legislated. While the  phrase “you cannot legislate morality” is frankly silly and completely contrary to our experience, there is a kernel of truth contained in it.  Social issues generally lie outside the realm of legislative politics. But as Murray observes, the Framers stressed that a republican society needs virtuous people in order to thrive. (Thus Benjamin Franklin’s famous quip about our form of government—”a republic, if you can keep it.”)

Libertarians often forget this. In correctly noting that a polity cannot truly mandate private virtue, they seem to forget that private virtue is nonethless a necessity in preserving the polity. We absolutely must hold our public officials to a high standard precisely because we hope to live in a society of free and virtuous individuals. It’s called leading by example. And since a libertarian should theoretically prefer example to force,  they should be at the forefront in demanding greater virtue out of our public officials.

It also occurs to me that this jibes with the general tenor of Pope Benedict’s encyclical. The Pope acknowledges the great potential of the free market, but urges us to keep in the mind the common good. Freedom is worth nothing if we behave irresponsibly and selfishly. Surely we can appreciate the difference between a libertine and a libertarian ethic, a distinction that Charles Murray certainly seems to understand.