where, exactly 1) protecting the “civilizational veneer” (?) is a core function of government (especially at the federal level), 2) what we can do about it, really, and 3) how we can measure the effectiveness of said policies. The classical liberal arguments regarding government interference are as valid when it comes to governmental social controls as they are when it comes to economic controls, and when the social engineers won’t define terms or show examples of success, it makes the rationale for government involvement seem even more flimsy.

Decrying a long-term problem in society and calling for open-ended government action to resolve the situation is easy. When people like me point out that government policies A, B and C in countries X, Y and Z have done little to alleviate the problem (and point out that policy C resulted in the persecution or death of millions), we get replies comparable to sophistry on the left: we’re told that if we just keep trying our hand at government-run economies social systems, we’ll get it right eventually. We’re told that we just need “the right people” in charge who “understand the problem”, and that victory is only a step away. The truth of the matter is, we’ve had 10,000+ years of human development to get it right; if we haven’t gotten it right yet, we never will.

On that topic, it is striking that we see no examples of successful social conservative policy outside of those areas where it overlaps with libertarianism or other fellow travelers on the right. 80+ years of drug prohibition have not prevented drugs from being easily accessible to high schoolers, or done anything to help society here or abroad. Years of anti-prostitution laws have done absolutely nothing to stop strip clubs and brothels from springing up like weeds in locales small and large — from towns as obscure as Ray City, Georgia to metropolises as large as NYC. Gambling bans and media censorship all have similar stories to their name. We have — quite quite rightly — derided liberal policies whose record of failure is no more than that of the above social conservative policies. We have — quite stridently — mocked liberals for conjuring up absurd apocalyptic scenarios for what will happen if one of their cherished programs ends. In your case, you advocate for no policies directly in your OP. However, the article form that you OP follows is one that is poorly thought-out, and responsible for the unthinking support that obviously failed policies have among social conservatives.

If the intention is to create a society that puts a pious patina on a debauched society, then congratulations: they figured out the recipe for that kind of society centuries ago in the parts of the world that few envy and that even fewer admire. If, on the other hand, the intention is to change the culture and the people in it for the better, rather than simply maintain appearances, then you’d best look for how to help at your local church or synagogue. Getting involved in politics for those ends will end in nothing but bitterness, disappointment, and misplaced effort — something plenty of evangelical Bush supporters can attest to.

That’s… unhelpful

My point, as it were, is that the solutions you have proposed (eliminating no-fault divorce, fiddling with the tax code, making marginal changes to entitlements, making abortion harder to get) have been tried and found wanting for the purposes that you desire. Now, some of those things that you suggest are very good things for other reasons — ending abortion is a good in and of itself, I favor ending no-fault divorce, and depending on the changes to entitlements I could be game — but they have done nothing (or very little) to repair the moral fabric where they’ve been tried. Most of what you’re stumping for has been tried in Canada and some of the European states. Can you really say that Canada, or any European country, is more moral than the US? I’ve never lived in Canada, but I’ve lived in Europe and most of its countries are in a rut worse than ours as far as morality goes.

As far as “Dr Paul” is concerned, I have my own reasons for not supporting him, mostly having to do with his ineffectiveness, monetary policy, foreign policy and his troubling associations. None of them have to do with his drug policy, which is insane and utopian, but no less so than the current policy that we have in place. (More importantly, our federal policy in that area is completely un-Constitutional sans future amendments, so there’s another issue that’s best dealt with on the state level.)

Lastly, my suggestion to work through a church was not a throwaway line. I’m dead serious when I say that the church is the best place that a believer can go if he’s serious about effecting social change. There’s been no better instrument for reforming societies — it’s absolutely amazing and revolutionary to read about countries like S Korea, and see how their culture has been transformed through the power of evangelism. Can any government program claim similar transformational power? Reversing harmful federal legislation and judicial activism (school prayer, anyone?) is only going to be indirectly effective insofar as it frees up people to work in their communities for the better, as was done in S Korea and countless places before.

“can be a positive, significant and consistent presence in the moral sphere”. Certainly, government plays a role: we just don’t know how to control it in any effective, directed fashion, esp in a way that chains the impulses of government towards evil. Again, I cannot think of historical examples to back the supposition. Since you are the one venturing to impose on me and others, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the people and policies that will receive my funds are worth it (and yes, the tax dollars, loss of liberty and regulation that follow are an imposition, even if a small one).

Vis a vis the problems that you note, I have no easy answers, especially since those problems are national in scope. However, it’s my opinion that local, grassroots movements find purchase where political movements do not. South Korean Christianity, as opposed to the Christianity that developed in the European colonies, developed organically and voluntarily, and in many cases without significant centralization. Centralization came after change was already in effect in a significant minority of the country, and mostly as a way for already established Christian groups to pool resources, share strategy and establish accountability. This not only allowed S Korea go from > 1% Christian to ~40% in less than a century, but also dramatically improved the country: whereas a scant century ago all of the trappings of feudalism were present, today the country has a culture that respects women, values hard work, values life, and which is in every way comparable to Western countries. It still has its problems, of course, but it’s a dramatic improvement from how it was in all its years prior. Prohibition groups in the US (before the unfortunate drive to create a “dry” US through political fiat), and other revivalist movements/Great Awakenings were successful in a similar way: they started small, started voluntarily, achieved their goals at the local and *then* moved on to tackle the problem through the use of larger institutions. Usually this last step was less successful than local efforts due to infighting, but the fact remains that all of these movements had positive effects that are still with us: the prohibitionists were successful at reducing the rate of alcoholism, particularly among German-Americans.

Keeping these examples in mind, I’ve found it helpful to ignore broader American society and to concentrate on my immediate surroundings: my neighborhood and my city, Tucson. For myself and others who live in Tucson, I highly recommend the Gospel Rescue Mission: it’s an outfit in Tucson that attempts to help the homeless become a part of society once more, while ministering to them. Unlike many other such institutions, it tries to find jobs for these people, wean them of dependency, etc. The advantages of such an approach are that 1) I can see with my eyes when something I’m doing is working or not working, 2) I can see the results, 3), I can separate the good outfits from the hucksters or the incompetent, and 4) I have an incentive to create a good living environment for myself that I don’t have when it comes to areas I’ve never lived in, and whose problems I don’t understand. To some extent, we’re going to have to deal with pet peeves — baggy pants are one such peeve, but fortunately one that’s on its way out (mostly due to mockery of the “wiggers” who’ve adopted it — mockery, another fun, voluntary tool). Respect of elders, women and the vulnerable? Well, I think we can and should work on those things. In none of those areas do I see government as beneficial.

I conclude with a quote from Bastiat that should wrap up my sentiments quite nicely: “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

Regulation beyond the most basic sure hasn’t done that in many other industries. Mind you, I favor them because they’re great way to prevent abortion short of a ban, but I don’t think they’re particularly effective at increasing the quality of the institutions that they’re regulating — nor do I care, at least not anymore than whether the showerheads in the Nazi showers were up to spec or not.