Ryan Streeter
Twice in the past month, John Boehner has prominently spoken about America’s moral obligations.
Of the situation in Libya, Boehner said in a statement yesterday that the United States has a “moral obligation to stand with those who seek freedom from oppression and self-government for their people.” This was Boehner’s first public statement since operations in Libya commenced. He issued it as a public challenge to Obama to do a better job communicating to the public and Congress what the end-game in Libya is.
Three weeks ago, addressing the National Religious Broadcasters in a widely covered speech, he said, “We have a moral responsibility to deal with this threat to freedom and liberate our economy from the shackles of debt and unrestrained government.”
Now, the language of moral responsibility is not new. Obama has used it to talk about nuclear disarmament. As a candidate back in 2000, George W. Bush said we have a “moral responsibility” to reform Social Security, and in his 1999 book, A Charge to Keep, he wrote, “Our greatest export is freedom and we have a moral obligation to champion it throughout the world.” Nearly a year ago, Eric Cantor was invoking the language of “moral obligation” while talking about the nation’s debt and future generations.
But Boehner’s recent, prominently chosen “venues” for the language of moral obligation are noteworthy. He should continue this rhetorical track, for three reasons.
A moral obligation does not necessarily imply war, but it does rightly frame foreign policy. Boehner’s remarks yesterday have already elicited some critical chatter on the right for sounding too much like neo-con justifications for war. But Boehner said we should “stand with” those who seek freedom around the world. When prisoners in the Soviet Gulag found encouragement in Reagan’s tough words to their national leaders, it was because he was “standing with” them. But Boehner did put himself on the side of “values-based” diplomacy with the statement, and other Republicans should follow in kind. It is precisely this stance on foreign policy that should set them apart from their colleagues on the left, whose caucus favoring moral clarity in foreign affairs has dwindled to near non-existence.
Our moral responsibility on the debt is a matter of freedom and opportunity. Boehner’s NRB speech equated moral nobility with economic liberty. This more than rhetorical flourish. The recent CBO projections on America’s debt in just the next ten years are recipe for sluggish growth and limited opportunity. Grover Norquist and the “leave us alone” crowd have always treated government spending as a matter of purely personal liberty – i.e., it’s part of a system of public confiscation of money to which I’m entitled to do with what I want. But our debt is more of a moral crisis than that. It threatens to un-do an environment of opportunity that, at its core, defines America. Confronting our debt is more than protecting me and my household; it’s about preserving America for others. It's not just about me keeping more of what I have earned; it's about promoting opportunity for working families and today's young people whose hopes for the future stand on uncertain ground.
Our moral responsibility on the debt is a matter of intergenerational justice. Anyone who “kicks the can down the road” on America’s fiscal challenges is effectively raising taxes on the next generation. Slow-rolling entitlement reforms is the same thing as pledging economic malaise to our grandchildren. The left succeeded in making climate change into an intergenerational issue. The right needs push this same line on the debt and the deficit.
Boehner’s recent foray into the arena of moral obligation is a welcome one. I recently heard pollster Frank Luntz say that expressions of “moral obligation” don’t go over well with the public, but no matter, the Speaker should use his position to change that.
Comments