Mitch Daniels has royally peeved a whole lot of social conservatives by calling, at different times and in different ways, for a “truce” between liberals and conservatives on social issues so that we can do the hard work of getting our fiscal house in order. His logic isn’t totally without merit: if the country implodes under the weight of its own debt it doesn’t matter much what your laws are vis-a-vis abortion.
But also, it is a sound Christian principle that even the government ought to live within its means, so his idea also isn’t entirely ignoring sound Christian principles of governance.
Witness a fine example of a place where an economic argument yielded a marvelous result from the standpoint of social conservatism: the removal of state funding of Planned Parenthood.
I wrote about Daniels before and his potential Presidential run back when Jeb Bush endorsed him. I’ve really been back and forth on him, especially because I’d hate to support someone who will go with a horribly immoral policy because it will save money. I want to like Daniels. He has done a great job in Indiana, righting their fiscal house, and has real, bona fide executive experience: something we sorely need these days.
And with someone like that in mind I think: when is it ever more cost-effective for the *government* to decide when and where to invest money rather than the private sector? When is it ever more cost effective for the government to control an industry (or *merely* dip in a toe as another competitor)? If an executive operates on the principle that the government ought to have its tentacles in as few areas of life as possible, and merely act as the dispassionate referee, protecting the interests of those who ought to be protected, regulating the free exercise of commerce so that no one can take an unfair advantage, then how or where would the government be directly involved in immoral activity?
A musing, for now, but just some thoughts to keep in mind considering whom to support in the future.