(Dr. Keyes recently founded and serves as chairman of the Declaration Foundation, a communications center for founding principles. To visit their website click here.)
On that front, at least, we are covered, or so it may seem.
The Post claimed that the appointments of our new president add up to “the most conservative administration in modern times, surpassing even Ronald Reagan in the ideological commitment of his appointments.” The article emphasizes the surprised contentment that “movement conservatives” are expressing with the course of events since the inauguration. Paul Weyrich is quoted as saying, “This administration is shaping up to be the best.”
This is good news, and in what follows I don’t mean to doubt the truth of the Post article, or of the judgment of my friend, Paul Weyrich, and the other good people it quotes. But I think it is important that we continue to reason carefully about what I believe is a difficult situation for those who sincerely believe in the moral heritage of our nation, and who recognize what a crucial period we are now entering. C. S. Lewis once asked a friend for prayers precisely because everything was – apparently – going so well for him. Riding on a “plane called ease,” he understood that the greatest temptations to complacency and sloth arise at such times.
There is a natural tendency now for much joy and elation, not only from the relief we feel at having Bill Clinton out of the White House, but also from some early indications that the Bush administration will be free from tone-deafness to conservative principle that so marred the first Bush administration. But we must remember that the issue exemplified for the country by the Clinton presidency was not – and is not now – the issue of one man’s character, behavior or difficulty. Bill Clinton represented a fundamental corruption of this nation’s soul and spirit, a corruption which has not been dealt with. Our problem is rooted in the fact that when the nation was founded we understood that our rights come from God, and that today we live under a regime that holds those rights to come from human will and human choice.
As long as corruption is unrepaired, our liberties have no sure foundation, and our freedom has been gutted of its essential substance. However relieved we may feel about a change in personnel in the executive branch of the federal government, our republic is not safe. And we face the particular new danger of complacency, now that we are being invited, even by some moral conservative leaders, to believe that the executive branch is now substantially in the hands of the good guys. It is absolutely crucial, in such a moment, that we sustain our ability to look past the particular victories or defeats of the moment to our ultimate goal of restoring the real character of the American regime.
More particularly, we must continue to examine each policy choice of the administration by principled criteria, derived from a clear understanding of our ultimate goal. Despite the current ascendancy of conservatives in some appointed positions we must not become distracted. If we become so lazy and lax that we begin to accept incorrect or even damaging policy decisions because of a false assumption that “our guys” must have good reasons for what they are doing, we will deserve what we get.
President Bush has made some very good appointments, such as Attorney General Ashcroft, and some very poor ones, such as EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitmann. Perhaps the poor appointments represent a judicious incorporation of an olive branch to the liberals in an overall strategic plan of conservative principle. But perhaps not. In any event, it will remain our duty to speak the truth in charity about each policy decision the administration makes, particularly those that bear on issues we understand to be central to the agenda of moral renewal. When policies are advanced that are clearly incompatible with the moral conservative path, we need to say so. Let me give an example.
We should evaluate the Bush proposal for education vouchers in light of the objective we seek – why are vouchers a good idea? I believe that school choice is important not primarily because it will put money back in the pockets of some parents, but because it puts initiative, responsibility and authority back in the hands of parents, where they belong. A school system throughout the country based on parental initiative, responsibility and authority will be better for our children and for our society. Above all, it will enable restoration of the connection between faith and education, a connection without which education has no real substance.
So it is in view of this objective that we should assess any proposal for vouchers. But the administration's proposal for vouchers makes them contingent on a diagnosis by the federal government that a particular school has failed to perform acceptably. Rather than allowing parents to decide whether the public school is appropriate for their child, the Bush plan places that responsibility with the Department of Education. The Bush proposal for returning respect for parental authority in education requires the previous surrender of that authority to government bureaucrats. The plan stands our objective on its head, and we should be able to recognize this, even though the plan is put forward with the code word “voucher” attached.
School choice must mean that parents have the first choice, and are the arbiters of which schools are good, and which are bad for their children. It must be the choices of parents that determine which schools fail and which succeed. This prerequisite for any truly effective voucher program follows naturally enough from the objective of increasing parental control. But we won’t see this if we are too busy celebrating the fact that “our man” in the White House has put forward a plan for “vouchers,” and we neglect trying to think through the real implications of that plan for our principles.
I offer this criticism of the administration’s voucher proposal as an example of the kind of thing about which we must take care. The administration is still young, and I don’t think it is clear yet whether we are going to see a steady stream of such ill-conceived policies, or merely the occasional lapse amidst a generally coherent commitment to true conservative policy. On either account, it is the duty of moral conservative citizens to insist that there are enough designated drivers at the post-Clinton celebration to keep the administration on the road back to liberty.
If moral conservatives in and out of the administration can stay focused on the true long-term objectives of the moral conservative movement, we won’t have to spend much time diagnosing motives of this or that administration official – we can just analyze the policy in light of our principles, and invite others to do the same. Principled political reasoning is no respecter of persons, or administrations, and no one whose friendship is important for us to keep will object to carefully argued criticisms of policies with which we disagree.
Our duty is not to “support the Bush administration,” but to work with all men of good will to restore allegiance to America’s founding order, which in all its institutions acknowledges the God Who is the source of our rights and of our happiness. God willing, there will be great harmony between this task and the practical work of the new administration, but we must not confuse the two. Success that matters will not come merely from the pursuit of political victories for a particular administration, but rather from the steady striving of all those who, because they love their country, will only act on the basis of their love of God.
It is a good thing that many such people are entering the new administration, but it will be a better thing if, at the end of the day, the policies of our national government consistently reflect our fundamental national principles. It is the job of those of us on the outside to offer not just a supportive hand, but a watchful eye as well, to the team the President is assembling for this crucial work.
