BY WILLIAM F. GAVIN

In a well-argued essay, “Taking the Long Way,” Yuval Levin, the Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and editor of National Affairs, reminds us that “disciplines of the soul” are the basis of a free society. In other words, if citizens of a democracy do not develop and then adhere to the orderly habits of virtuous behavior, then the blessings of liberty are in peril. This is not an original thought.

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he wrote: “Of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.”    

Levin’s view is in no way partisan, sectarian, or ideological: he holds that progressives and conservatives, each in their own way, agree on the proposition that the “liberation of the individual from outside coercion” is the sine qua non of political action. But, Levin argues, it isn’t only outside coercion that is the enemy of human liberty. There is also the inability or unwillingness to inculcate those habits of virtue that can be transmitted only by the “intermediary institutions” (e.g., family, church) which stand between the individual and the state.

He writes: “The liberty we can truly recognize as liberty is achieved by the emancipation of the individual not just from coercion by others but also from the tyranny of his unrestrained desires.”

This “emancipation” is, in short, a self-imposed, voluntary, on-going universal responsibility which is the prelude to and foundation of good government. From Wall Street to high-crime urban neighborhoods, from those who work with their brains to those who work with their hands, no citizen is free from this responsibility. But no level of government can impose or even suggest a view of how that “tyranny of desires” can be combated. Government simply does not know and cannot know how to answer that question. It is up to the people themselves.

All of which brings me to Tip O’Neill’s father. According to the late Speaker of the House, it was his father, not O’Neill himself (as is commonly believed), who first said “All politics is local.” This bit of street-wise wisdom has rarely been questioned, but for many years I have disagreed with it. I believe all politics is universal. Let me offer one example: a debate over where a traffic light should be placed. The issue is local, the debate is local, and the light will be local. So this proves Mr. O’Neill’s statement, right?

Wrong—or, at least, not totally right.

Underlying all the local matters is a larger question of why we have traffic lights in the first place. Well, that’s a no-brainer: we have them in order that accidents will be reduced. But once that is agreed to, another, deeper question arises: why should we want to reduce traffic accidents? Because on a bedrock, elemental level we all believe in the unique quality of human personhood. Some might call this quality “sacred”, others may speak of “human brotherhood”.  Whether this belief comes from religion, philosophy, or custom is irrelevant insofar as practical politics is concerned.  It is just there, like concepts such as honesty, integrity, and fairness (i.e., justice).

So, whether we debate about traffic lights on Main Street, or sending troops to Iraq or the cost of Medicare, it is all the same: once we get past the particular questions involved, the issue is always about the application of moral beliefs to changing circumstances. No political question is without a moral basis, even the most obscure regulation on technical issues. We are told “you can’t legislate morality.” True. But you can’t create legitimate legislation without morality as the foundation.

It is here, however, that a practical problem arises: how should the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 go about conveying this truth without seeming to be preaching or “being judgmental” or being accused of wanting a theocracy that will “impose views”? It is a difficult question to answer. Go too far and you turn off young voters who feel you are interfering in their private lives. You can, of course, resort to a kind of code in which you talk about generalities like family values, but I’m not quite certain that particular kind of argument reaches many voters who are not already convinced. But making the argument for what George Washington called the “dispositions and habits” of moral behavior and the importance of those institutions that transmit them is, I believe, a practical political necessity.

Yes, in a pluralistic society we disagree on the morality of specific public policy issues. But we all know what basic honesty and fairness and integrity and honor and responsibility mean. As Samuel Johnson said: “On matters of morality, most of us need to be reminded rather than be instructed.”

The Republican presidential candidate in 2016 must have specific criticisms about Democratic policies in the last 8 years (an easy job). But there must also be a broader, larger, positive message of why the voters should choose a Republican. And that means not just the hardy perennial promise of lower taxes and more jobs, but some idea of how Republicans connect the prosperity and security of the nation not only with government actions but on how citizens implement the dispositions and habits George Washington spoke of.

In my view it is not too early for Republicans to start to craft a rhetoric that will speak of morality without sounding sectarian, condescending, or holier-than-thou. I just have a feeling that many voters are hungering for an argument stating that national prosperity isn’t only about local jobs and local income but about universal virtues that give prosperity meaning.

Editor’s Note: William F. Gavin was a speech writer for President Richard Nixon and long-time aide to former House Republican Leader Bob Michel. Among his books is his latest, Speechwright, published by Michigan State University Press.