Government and Right and Wrong

Over at the Daily Beast, they're ranting about libertarian conservative Rand Paul's seeming tilt to the traditionally conservative side on social issues. He has introduced, along with Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), a bill which defines life as beginning at conception. It is their plan to sidestep the Roe v. Wade abortion ruling of 1973.

The fear seems to be that the newly elected Republicans are more intent on addressing social issues than what the Tea Party as a whole appears to be. But why not address them? What we stand for as a nation is important, and there's no reason conservatives should take the flak they do over standing up for the moral points they believe in. Liberals social issues activists certainly aren't subject to the general disdain which is heaped on the GOP.

The fact of the matter is that things such as health care, education, and aid to the poor and unemployed, even questions of the exact nature of the state in our lives, are just as much social questions, are themselves as fully moral issues, as abortion and gay rights. Why should conservatives be expected to check their morals at the door when what is important to them is at stake? No one asks the pro-death crowd (those in favor of abortion) to leave their creed private.

Governments can, do, and indeed must address the critical social issues which face humanity day in and day out. It is time that people learned to accept that the sum of good government is in truth government which does only what it should, even, or, perhaps, especially, where important moral rights and wrongs are at stake.

The First Obamabomb?

It seems that the new President has found it not so easy to keep certain campaign promises. He has eased up on his exceptions to political appointees doing lobbying work apparently because it's too difficult to find people with political experience who have not lobbied at one time or other.

That may well be, given the state of things in the Capitol. Influence peddling has, is, and always will play some part in government activities. Personally, I really could care less about someone's lobbying. I am concerned, though, with the amount of slack that many seem willing to offer Mr. Obama. Almost everyone seems to be taking the approach that it isn't that big of a deal to back off from what was called for in the campaign.

Would they have given former President Bush such a grace period? Methinks not. But as that shall always be nothing more than conjecture I will content myself with the thought that, along with Tom Daschle's tax problems, we may have seen the first dropping of an Obamabomb. I highly expect it will not be the last.