Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium

Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Acton Institute is co-sponsoring a symposium hosted by The Heritage Foundation at the University of Michigan’s campus. The event will take place:
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Michigan Union Building
530 South State Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan

The future of liberty depends on reclaiming America’s first principles. What are those principles, and what do they mean for today? The First Principles Initiative is one of the 10 Transformational Initiatives making up The Heritage Foundation’s Leadership for America campaign. The publications and programs of this Initiative seek to provide a much-needed education for students, policymakers, and citizens about the ideas of liberty and constitutional self-government, with the objective of reorienting our politics and public policy to the principles of the American Founding.

Director of Acton Media and Research Fellow, Jay W. Richards, will speak on the topic of Conservative Answers to Environmental Questions at 2:15PM

For more information, please contact Emily Sankot Kayrish at (202) 608-6266 or e-mail: specialevents@heritage.org
Bookmark Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium  at del.icio.us Digg Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium Bloglines Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium Technorati Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium Bookmark Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium  at Furl.net Bookmark Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium  at reddit.com Bookmark Heritage Foundation: First Principles & Public Policy Symposium  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Incrementalism and Public Policy

Monday, May 19, 2008
There’s a long-running debate among public policy commentators concerning the prudence of pursuing an all-or-nothing agenda or moving incrementally toward a particular goal.

How much accommodation is wise if that accommodation does make movement, however small, towards an ideal state of affairs, and yet also reinforces a system that is structurally opposed to the ultimate realization of that same ideal? When is it politically prudent to let the perfect potentially be the enemy of the good?

These questions in the context of all sorts of policy issues, but some examples include the libertarian concern to move toward a minimal or non-existent state, the pro-life concern to make abortion non-existent, and the gay “marriage” concern to legitimize and legalize same-sex partnerships.

The past week has seen a significant victory in this third arena in the state of California. When the state supreme court validated the practice of legal recognition of same-sex “marriage,” it cited the long history of the state government recognizing similar rights, privileges, and responsibilities for same-sex couples. That is, the incrementalist same-sex marriage approach, which sought sanction for same-sex adoption, same-sex partner health benefits, and so on, paved the way for the courts to recognize same-sex “marriage” as the last in a discernible line of logical public policy progression.

Citing a long list of moves by the state legislature to “equalize” treatment of same-sex couples (PDF of decision here, summary here), the majority concluded that “the current California statutory provisions generally afford same-sex couples the opportunity to enter into a domestic partnership and thereby obtain virtually all of the benefits and responsibilities afforded by California law to married opposite-sex couples.”

The perfectionist argument has been often based on a sort of Zeno’s paradox for public policy: accommodation or incrementalism may improve the state of affairs, but it likewise removes the possibility of achieving total victory. At least in the case of California and same-sex partnerships, that paradox seems to have been resolved in favor of the incrementalist approach.
Bookmark Incrementalism and Public Policy  at del.icio.us Digg Incrementalism and Public Policy Bloglines Incrementalism and Public Policy Technorati Incrementalism and Public Policy Bookmark Incrementalism and Public Policy  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Incrementalism and Public Policy  at Furl.net Bookmark Incrementalism and Public Policy  at reddit.com Bookmark Incrementalism and Public Policy  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Positive Freedom and Paternal Government

Wednesday, October 3, 2007
A quote from T. H. Green, refuting the view that the law’s “only business is to prevent interference with the liberty of the individual,” construed as doing what you like as long as it does not infringe on others’ rights to do what they want. Green writes:
The true ground of objection to ‘paternal government’ is not that it violates the ‘laissez faire’ principle and conceives that its office is to make people good, to promote morality, but that it rests on a misconception of morality. The real function of government being to maintain conditions of life in which morality shall be possible, and morality consisting in the disinterested performance of self-imposed duties, ‘paternal government’ does its best to make it impossible by narrowing the room for the self-imposition of duties and for the play of disinterested motives.

From Green’s Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation (PDF) [1883], quoted in Himmelfarb, The De-Moralization of Society, p. 152.

See also, “Moral Duties and Positive Rights.”
Bookmark Positive Freedom and Paternal Government  at del.icio.us Digg Positive Freedom and Paternal Government Bloglines Positive Freedom and Paternal Government Technorati Positive Freedom and Paternal Government Bookmark Positive Freedom and Paternal Government  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Positive Freedom and Paternal Government  at Furl.net Bookmark Positive Freedom and Paternal Government  at reddit.com Bookmark Positive Freedom and Paternal Government  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Tuesday, May 8, 2007
A new initiative pioneered by Sojourners/Call to Renewal is called “Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” Included in the platform are “calls for bills that would push for border enforcement while improving guest worker programs and offering chances for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status,” according to the NYT.

The NYT piece points out the potential for this to be a unifying issue for evangelicals, even though few if any prominent politically conservative evangelicals are overtly associated with Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. “The concerns of the coalition mirror those of many evangelical leaders who have often staked out conservative positions on other social issues or who have avoided politics entirely,” writes Neela Banerjee as she points to the cases of Dr. Richard Land of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Rev. Joel Osteen.

The signatories to the group’s open letter include the executive director of my denomination, Rev. Jerry Dykstra of the Christian Reformed Church in North America. Some of the language in the letter is a bit mealy-mouthed, as might be expected, but I think the statement does capture the spirit of some of the most relevant scriptural principles.

Perhaps the section that some conservatives will find most problematic is the fourth principle: “We believe in the rule of law, but we also believe that we are to oppose unjust laws and systems that harm and oppress people made in God’s image, especially the vulnerable (Isaiah 10:1-4, Jeremiah 7:1-7, Acts 5:29, Romans 13:1-7).”

Many argue that the rule of law regarding illegal immigration needs to be reinforced and respected first, before any of the proposed guest worker or amnesty programs can be effective, no ifs, ands, or buts. And it might also be debatable precisely how a shared “set of common moral and theological principles” ought to be translated into public policy. This raises the question of what is the intent or purpose of law.

The letter says that immigration reform must be “fair and compassionate.” Is the end of the law justice? Love? Mercy? Peace? All of the above? I’ve been trained to understand the normative principle for social ethics, and the behavior of supra-personal entities or institutions, to be justice, as distinguished from (although not opposed to) love. It seems to me that Christians working out of a shared and common sense of obligation to love our neighbors can have legitimate and valid disagreements over precisely these sorts of questions.

With all that said, I think the letter gets it mostly right, at least on this point:

“The current U.S. immigration system is broken and now is the time for a fair and compassionate solution. We think it is entirely possible to protect our borders while establishing a viable, humane, and realistic immigration system, one that is consistent with our American values and increases national security while protecting the livelihood of Americans.”
Bookmark Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform  at del.icio.us Digg Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bloglines Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Technorati Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bookmark Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform  at Furl.net Bookmark Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform  at reddit.com Bookmark Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

We're Doomed. Just Accept it.

Friday, April 27, 2007
Whoever wrote this deserves an award for managing to keep all of the various threads together. It’s almost a perfect storm of public policy ineptitude:
Just in case you lost track of the bouncing ball, here it is: Virginia has finally put the crisis-ignoring haters of truth in their place by passing a roads package to encourage the use of cars that are destroying the planet, so people can reach their sprawling subdivisions that Virginia is trying to keep in check with tax-subsidized conservation easements that will grow less popular as corn grows more expensive thanks to ethanol mandates from a federal government that is also mandating a cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay whose pollution will be made worse by corn farming.

I’m almost positive that there’s a really powerful moral to this story having to do with good governmental intentions going awry or something, but I’m laughing too hard to tease it out and I really need to get to bed, so go ahead and figure it out for yourselves.

HT: Planet Gore
Bookmark We're Doomed.  Just Accept it.  at del.icio.us Digg We're Doomed.  Just Accept it. Bloglines We're Doomed.  Just Accept it. Technorati We're Doomed.  Just Accept it. Bookmark We're Doomed.  Just Accept it.  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark We're Doomed.  Just Accept it.  at Furl.net Bookmark We're Doomed.  Just Accept it.  at reddit.com Bookmark We're Doomed.  Just Accept it.  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places

Thursday, January 11, 2007
With all this talk of health care reform this year, I couldn’t help but do some digging into the real aspects of the proposals. Ranging from the completely disruptive universal medical care plan from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the socialist-like plan from Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in the 110th congress, health care is big on the agenda for 2007. I am afraid that if the policies proposed by Schwarzenegger and Kennedy are passed, future generations will witness a detrimental effect on our economy. Kennedy’s home state of Massachusetts, being the first state to provide universal health care to its citizens, has already seen negative aspects in regards to business and job creation.

These arguments for universal health care come disguised in many forms, but all contribute negatively to the economy. The idea of making health care affordable and available to citizens is an excellent idea, however, Governor Schwarzenegger’s and Senator Kennedy’s ideas are the wrong way to go.

Forcing employers to provide health care and penalizing them for not providing coverage is not the right direction to head.
The state of Massachusetts employs a combination of subsidies and penalties to make insurance more affordable and to force people to buy it. The law requires employers with 11 or more full-time employees to offer health coverage or be subject to a $295 fee for each employee, as well as face being billed for services their uninsured employees get.

Because of this policy, employees are going to lose other benefits and suffer pay cuts, or even be fired. The cost of medical insurance is extremely high. The real solution rests in not forcing employers to provide coverage, but to make insurance more affordable.

The answer lies in eliminating all of the fraudulent law suits filed every day by money-hungry lawyers who are completely destroying the medical system. As lawyers sue doctors, malpractice insurance premiums increase. The number of personal injury litigations has steadily increased at a rate of 12% since 1975.
Jury Verdict Research, a database of plaintiff and defense verdicts, says awards in medical liability cases increased 43 percent in 1999, from $700,000 to $1,000,000. Jury awards in medical malpractice claims jumped 43 percent in one year—from $700,000 in 1999 to $1 million in 2000. Juries are compensating plaintiffs more generously than in the past. From 1994 to 2000, Jury Verdict Research found that more than half of medical malpractice jury awards were for $500,000 or more.

Seeing the direct correlation between health care cost and the cost of medical malpractice insurance for doctors (driven up by law suits), the root of the problem is obvious. This must be attacked before anything else. If Senator Kennedy and Governor Schwarzenegger want to see real progress, their plans must be disregarded and tort abuse must be solved first. There are various other aspects to their plans that are also misinformed and misdirected, but I’ll save that for another time.
Bookmark Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places  at del.icio.us Digg Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places Bloglines Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places Technorati Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places Bookmark Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places  at Furl.net Bookmark Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places  at reddit.com Bookmark Health Care Reform...In the Wrong Places  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2

Monday, November 6, 2006
In my previous article, Part One, I showed how a conservative political and social movement has evolved over the past fifty years in America and how the evangelical church began to get involved in this movement. This movement led to what has been commonly called the “Christian Right.” This abused, and misused word, is now used to disparage almost everything conservatives attempt to do in the larger culture. The result of this political debate over the past thirty years has been an increased partisanship in America that threatens to derail the church both missionally and culturally. As a result we seem to have reduced the public witness of the church to support for the Republican Party, or at least to a set of a few talking point issues, in some cases. It is time to take a new look at all this and ask, “How do we engage the public square in a more effective way?”

(Continue reading the rest of the article at the ACT 3 website...)

John H. Armstrong is founder and director of ACT 3, a ministry aimed at “encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening.”
Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2  at del.icio.us Digg The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2 Bloglines The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2 Technorati The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2 Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2  at Furl.net Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2  at reddit.com Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 2  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1

Monday, October 30, 2006
The role of evangelicals in the public square has been a major development in American life over the past twenty-five or thirty years. A recent spate of popular books has looked at this phenomenon very critically. The number of books from the political and religious left, arguing against the rise of the newer evangelical right, makes for a full shelf of books by now. Most of these popular and poorly written books sound like dire warnings about a coming religious takeover of the country. (Do not fear, blue state America is still pretty strong and this feared religious change is about as likely as a snow storm in Chicago on July 4th!)

The actual history behind all of this is really much more interesting than the fears. Historically, fundamentalism led conservative churches in America, since the 1920s, to pull away from public life in general, especially from politics. While mainline liberalism embraced a “social gospel,” evangelicals gave up on social and public involvement almost entirely. (The late evangelical scholar Carl F. H. Henry called upon evangelicals to re-enter the public sphere, writing several important books to that effect, more than fifty years ago, but few listened seriously to his intelligent plea until the popular revolts of 1980s gained traction.) In addition to this tendency to react to liberalism social gospel emphasis, evangelicals also developed escapist and over-realized millennial theories that fed a basic social passivity about the culture. This emphasis said, in effect, “Christ is coming soon so our only role in culture is to rescue as many souls as possible before he comes.” Many liberal Christians continued to engage the political process, even embracing a politics of personal destruction by the 1960s. But evangelicals, at least in my early years, saw politics as “dirty business” and not worth their time as serious Christ-centered Christians.

(Continue reading the rest of the article at the ACT 3 website...)

John H. Armstrong is founder and director of ACT 3, a ministry aimed at “encouraging the church, through its leadership, to pursue doctrinal and ethical reformation and to foster spiritual awakening.”
Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1  at del.icio.us Digg The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1 Bloglines The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1 Technorati The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1 Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1  at Furl.net Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1  at reddit.com Bookmark The New Evangelical Role in the Public Square, Part 1  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality

Thursday, October 12, 2006
Over at Jim Wallis’ Beliefnet blog, Ron Sider reflects on his interpretation of the landmark text, “For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” issued by the National Association of Evangelicals.

Citing the line, “faithful evangelical civic engagement must champion a biblically balanced agenda,” Sider concludes that of the seven areas the document addresses (religious freedom, family, sanctity of human life, justice for the poor, human rights, peace and creation care), “This document refuses to lift out one area to ‘value most.’ It says they all are on God’s heart and therefore central to faithful evangelical civic engagement.”

If we are to take this to mean that each of these seven areas of moral concern, and presumably more could be added, are of equal weight, we must ask whether or not this assertion coheres with the Bible’s own view. Could the evangelical search for a “biblically balanced agenda” in fact distort the teaching of Scripture?

Maybe so. To say, for example, that it is just as much the State’s role to provide direct assistance to the poor as it is “to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4 NIV) does not adequately reflect the true and primary role of the State in administering retributive justice.

It is equally as wrong-headed to assert that the provision “for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats” (as important as doing such is), is equally fundamental and important as legal recognition of the right to life.

Jesus did acknowledge that there are greater and lesser matters of the law. It often calls for prudential wisdom to discern the difference. But every aspect of the moral order is not equally weighty.

We are told that we as human beings “are worth more than many sparrows.” If Ron Sider is right in his interpretation, then despite my evangelical sympathies in many other areas, I would have to side against the NAE document and with John Paul II, who affirmed that the right to life is “the first of the fundamental rights,” the basis and foundation of all other human rights.
...civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being.

For more on abortion and Catholic Social Teaching, see this interview with Rev. Thomas D. Williams.

It has become popular for evangelicals like Ron Sider and Jim Wallis to often cull the sources of Catholic Social Teaching for validation of their views. We evangelicals would do well to reckon with the essential insight of the basicality of the right to life.

This truth might well mean that a truly “biblically balanced” agenda is one that is radically weighted toward the protection of the sanctity of human life.
Bookmark Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality  at del.icio.us Digg Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality Bloglines Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality Technorati Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality Bookmark Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality  at Furl.net Bookmark Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality  at reddit.com Bookmark Distorting the Bible, Flattening out Morality  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!

Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion

Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Last Wednesday, I was privileged to attend the Samaritan Awards Gala in Washington, D.C. I have to say up front that Acton’s Effective Compassion events are probably the most enjoyable for me to attend because invariably one comes into contact with a group of very special, very dedicated people who are completely devoted to what our society would term “lost causes,” and having great success.

Ken Ortman
While there were a number of award-winning programs at the Gala this year, I’d like to take some time to focus on the 2005 Samaritan Award Grand Prize Winners, Ken and Sheila Ortman of Lives Under Construction Boys Ranch in Lampe, Missouri. Ken and Sheila were joined in D.C. by their daughter Melissa, who serves as the Development Director for the Ranch, and 7 young men who are currently residents in their program.

Sheila Ortman
Ken, Sheila and Melissa are wonderful people - remarkably kind, decent, and humble - who are doing amazing work with young men who come out of shockingly difficult circumstances. They are hard workers - Ken remarked during a conversation that he couldn’t imagine working at a job like mine, which involves a lot of sitting at a desk - who moved from their South Dakota farm to southwestern Missouri in order to start a new life working with troubled boys. And they are successful - the LUC program has a 92 percent success rate over the last 20 years, turning many young men away from lives of crime and substance abuse and toward a productive life in society. They do so by establishing a structured environment within which the boys can learn respect for God, authority figures, and gain a proper view of themselves as persons.

Melissa Ortman
We had the chance to meet 7 of the young men who live at the ranch, and the transformation in their lives is evident and remarkable. By all outward appearances, these boys were just like any other group of young people touring Washington, D.C. You’d never know that each of them had likely had severe drug or behavioral problems and numerous encounters with the law. They were a group of normal, if somewhat rambunctious teens.

The LUC Bunch on the Mall in Washington, D.C.
It is truly a blessing to meet people like the Ortmans, and it was great as well to watch the boys - many of whom were on their first trip to a large city. As I noted earlier, I always enjoy Acton’s Effective Compassion events, but having these young men along added a spirit and sense of adventure to this trip that will make it unforgettable for me.

If you haven’t done so in the past, I encourage you to check out the many fine charities like LUC Boys Ranch that are in our online Samaritan Guide, which is an excellent resource for anyone looking for effective private charities across the United States. Many of the programs in the guide are very small, but doing amazing work, and are well worth your attention and support.

I had an opportunity to talk with a few of the boys and with Ken, Sheila and Melissa. To hear my conversation with the Ortmans, click here (4 mb mp3 file). To hear from the boys, click here (1.9 mb mp3 file).
Bookmark Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion  at del.icio.us Digg Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion Bloglines Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion Technorati Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion Bookmark Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion  at YahooMyWeb Bookmark Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion  at Furl.net Bookmark Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion  at reddit.com Bookmark Among the Little Giants of Effective Compassion  with wists Bookmark using any bookmark manager!