Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 9, 1994 TAG: 9410220043
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: COEY LOWE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
It has become Ollie North's shibboleth in his race against Chuck Robb.
Though North sometimes talks as though Washington were the last city on Earth he would ever want to set foot in again, he seems to believe that he has been called to be a prophet to the miscreants. He is facile and passionate when he talks about "restoring values" to that place. His supporters sometimes talk about him like Jonah, who really didn't want to associate with the evil folk of Nineveh, but headed there only on God's command to straighten them out.
Robb, on the other hand, is rarely compared to biblical characters even by his fans, and he has never gotten the "values" talk down pat. When he does talk about morality he seems so preoccupied with avoiding the use of the word "adultery" that we haven't heard much else he's had to say on the subject of values.
We need to be savvy about all this values talk - or lack of it. We do want elected representatives to behave in ways that reflect values we treasure. We want them to be honest, to be above taking bribes, to place the welfare of others - their constituents - above their own, to consider whether legislation is "right" as well as whether it is expedient.
Nevertheless, no action of Congress has never made us a more moral, ethical nation. Its actions may sometimes have contributed to immorality or ethical deterioration, but there is no evidence I can think of where they have made us "better" people.
It's true that Congress outlawed slavery, but only after individuals and religious congregations persuaded a significant percentage of the population to believe slavery was wrong. We legislated desegregation, but only after much of the nation was already convinced segregation was wrong.
Our "goodness" comes from somewhere other than our law books.
Prohibition probably would be the most overworked example of a failed attempt to impose a social morality. Contrary to the arguments of some libertarians, Congress obviously can legislate morality. It is against the law to murder. But some behaviors just don't fit the bill. The failure of Prohibition was not in the legislation, but in the fact that most people just didn't think drinking was wrong - or at least not so wrong that it should be banned. It didn't fit the criteria society established for behavior so detrimental to the corporate body that it should be illegal.
In a larger sense, no laws can tame a populace bent on violating them. Not without a police state, anyway, which the United States is not. Hence the repeal of Prohibition.
Those of us who obey laws do so not so much because we know we'll be punished if we get caught breaking them, but because we voluntarily live by a set of standards that support the laws. We live by values. We can argue about whether enough of us really live by them, or about government's role in endorsing or enforcing those values. But without a consensus that our laws are valid - based on a common morality - there would be chaos.
Only in the most superficial sense can representative government impose values on the governed. If we have free elections and nearly universal suffrage, our representative government can only reflect the values of the society that installs it and gives it validity.
Defining, instilling and perpetuating values is properly the business of some other institutions of society. It is a job for synagogues, churches, mosques and, most importantly, homes. We can complain all we want about the decline of "family values," but it makes no sense to lay most of the blame for that on bad government, liberal religion or rock music.
"Family values" by definition must be passed on by families. "Religious values" by definition must be passed on by congregations. "National values" - in the sense of standards by which government conducts business - must be passed on by society at large, which elects representatives to govern.
I recently read a quote from a Californian talking about why he votes for Christian candidates: "I just want my 13-year-old daughter to have the same kind of life I had as a kid. We didn't have to talk about religious values, we just had them."
Maybe that was a failure, not a virtue. The attitude that we shouldn't have to talk about values raises at least the possibility that nobody knows what those values are. And undefined values cannot be passed on to the next generation.
Government can make it easier or harder for families and religious congregations to do their jobs of transmitting values, but it cannot take over the responsibility.
We are obliged to be watchful for tyranny in government and to defend our systems - plural - of values. But whenever we think we hear a tyrannous clamor from Washington, we should take a moment to clean our ears and make sure we're not mistaking static - the absence of a clear signal - for opposition.
And if we discover silence, we must remember that means we aren't speaking either.
by CNB