Anticipatory News and the Role of Government

The headline of a post published earlier this morning at The Politico, by Kenneth P. Vogel – "Rivals try to deflate F. Thompson campaign" – suggests FT's nomination opponents are actively attacking his record. Later, the author clarifies:

"Opponents and their researchers have begun working – mostly behind the scenes – to highlight perceived soft spots in his conservative bona fides."

Despite that lapse in journalistic accuracy, the post still contains some worthwhile insights into Thompson's record, suggesting (among other things) that he may be more centrist than he has been portrayed, including on the abortion issue.

On page 2 of the post, we learn that Thompson once wrote this clarifying note re: his opposition to a Constitutional amendment "protecting the sanctity of human life."

"I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people."

Exactly. Thompson may or may not be the right candidate for the GOP nom, but in those words, on this issue, he articulates what I believe is the true conservative position: Limiting government means seeking new policy or policy changes in only the most rare of circumstances and only when voluntary citizen-based actions fail. Laws and regulations are rarely the answer. The modern U.S. Liberal starts from the default position that government can offer productive solutions. In contrast, the pre-Bush U.S. Conservative starts from the default position that whether or not the government can offer productive solutions, it rarely should (and rarely does); private (and local) action is frequently better informed and better equipped to deal with the major questions of freedom, life, death, etc., than any law at any level of government.

That's why, despite Roe v. Wade's violation of states rights, I support it because it levels the playing field for individual liberty; it sets a baseline: the abortion issue should be generally decided on the plane between an individual's conscience and the non-legislated morals of her community. I further believe that's why (if I remember correctly) the rate/number of abortions declined during Clinton's presidency, because the focus was not on law or policy, but on real life, on education about choices, on pregnancy prevention, etc. (And yet again, fodder for my contention that Clinton was the best Republican president since Reagan.)

In short: Government is rarely the answer, and if someone wants to reduce the number of abortions, the best path forward is not a divisive focus on policy, but on a unifying, conciliatory, kind, gentle and loving approach to the "hearts and souls of the American people," one person at a time.