Updated March 14, 2012 to include current events and incorporate comments.
On February 24, 2012 there was an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Santorum--Moralizer in Chief?" While I enjoyed the entire piece, written by Kimberly Strassel, I found one particular idea most intriguing. This idea was mentioned in two different places. The first place was in the subtitle, “Americans are open to candidates of faith. Less so to any hint they might impose their moral views if they're elected.” The second place was at the end of paragraph three, “They [Americans] are not thrilled by the recent trend in the social-conservative movement toward using government to impose a particular morality.” I think that Ms. Strassel is basically saying that Santorum is guilty of taking moral stands. I am pretty sure he would probably agree with that. But I believe she is also saying that some Americans might be afraid he would impose his “moral stands” on them. Hmmm. Isn't this perspective a little one-sided?
For the sake of argument, let us assume that the basic definition of “morality” is a belief in what constitutes right and wrong behavior (or good and bad). If this is true, then don’t the above statements by Ms. Strassel show a lack of understanding by some Americans (and maybe her, too)? Who, exactly, has the ability to impose their morals on America? Is it only leaders on the right (i.e. conservatives) or can leaders on the left (i.e. liberals) do this, too? Think about this…
Carrying that idea forward, doesn’t the United States already have a “Moralizer in Chief” in the form of our current president? (Or, perhaps, some might say "Immoralizer" would be a better term.) Aren't he, his party, and their judges currently “imposing” their definition of what is right and wrong behavior on this country? I am sorry to be so blunt, but to say Obama is not currently moralizing (or immoralizing) and that Santorum would be is, with all due respect, ignorant.
The current debate over health care is a perfect example of this idea. The Catholic Church, for many years, has taken the position that abortion is wrong. And yet, on January 20, 2012, the current administration, under the direction of President Obama, declared that the Catholic Church must provide abortifacient’s (among other things) to its employees via their health care plans. (According to the Catholic church, an abortifacient is a substance that induces abortion.) This sounds like a president imposing his moral values on our country to me (and I believe that Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the Catholic Church would agree with this). Cardinal Dolan plainly stated the new healthcare regulation is an imposition on the First Amendment right of religious freedom. On March 2, 2012 in an open letter to U.S. Catholic Bishops he wrote, “We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans.”
The bottom line is this—if there is such a thing as “morality” (and I believe there is) then any society, as a whole, has to make a choice as to what it wants it standards of right and wrong behavior to be. Secondly, that society must decide how to appropriately enforce those moral standards. For whatever the reason, what is truly right and what is truly wrong cannot coexist in a culture. Our own country is proof of that. In the 1860's the United States fought a war over a moral issue--is it right or wrong to own slaves? The U.S. learned in the hardest way possible that it could not have it both ways. (Thank goodness what is truly right prevailed in that situation.)
In the upcoming presidential election, one key question must be asked—Who’s “moral standards” are going to run this country, Obama’s or someone else’s? While no voter is “obligated” to vote for a candidate that shares his or her moral values, nonetheless, I believe moral values are a significant issue to consider as part of the decision process. Why? Because they are often the “root cause” of the kind of society we will eventually have. Referring back to the previous example, because Americans elected Abraham Lincoln in 1860 our country is now slave-free. In the future will we still be able to exercise our religious freedoms?
But I believe there is an even bigger question to think about—do moral values have an “end result?” Do they result in decline or greatness? Will the next president have the kind of moral compass that will lead this country into further decline or help turn this country around and get us back on the path to greatness?
I believe that no matter what the party affiliation is, in November we will be electing a “Moralizer in Chief” (or an "Immoralizer in Chief"). The question is, which moral (or immoral) values will he be imposing and where will those values lead this country?
