Agreeing with Michelle Obama

Now I just knew that would get your attention! How can a man who so persistently communicates his disagreement towards the President's policies be complimenting Michelle Obama all of a sudden? Well, I'll tell you how.

First and foremost, it's because I don't get personal over politics. I don't "hate" those who typically disagree with me, although I might tremendously disagree with their policy proposals. I don't instinctively attack every statement by my political adversaries simply because they are my adversaries. And when I agree with what someone says, or how they say it, I'm not afraid to endorse that regardless of who said it.

Therefore, when Michelle Obama recently gave a speech asking restaurants to serve healthier foods, my blood pressure didn't boil over as it apparently did for so many other non-Democrats (based on comments I've seen about the story). It appears the first natural reaction of many of those opposed to the President's policies is to attack anything and everything he or his wife say – which to be sure, is sometimes warranted and very easy to do. But not always.

What seems to be lost in the kerfuffle over this issue with her detractors is the following: Michelle Obama asked restaurants to voluntarily change their menu to serve healthier foods. Would that more politicians chose voluntary persuasion over government coercion, the world would be a much better place to live.

At a time when so many of our choices and decisions actually are increasingly being limited via government coercion, it is a breath of fresh air every time I see a key figure using the power of persuasion over the power of coercion in order to achieve a specified end result. So whether you agree with the First Lady's goal or not (and I do), it only seems logical to me to at least approve of her methods in this case. After all, she was just asking restaurants to change their ways, rather than proposing policy to actually force them to do so (which of course has already been known to happen.) The moment she does advocate government policy prescriptions, you will find me first in line to denounce it.

The reason I highlight this story specifically right now is because the use of persuasion over coercion is one of the central tenets of my political philosophy, and thusly I will highlight it and promote it whenever I see it being applied, by friend or foe. It lies at the heart of how I approach all public policy issues.

Therefore, I did not support the state-wide smoking ban that recently went into effect, while I do support persuading smokers to voluntarily quit smoking and persuading restaurant owners to voluntarily disallow smoking by their own choosing.

And while I don't support government dictating what food should be available for us to eat, I do support voluntarily donating a dollar each time I shop at Whole Foods to support their private efforts to get healthy salad bars into school lunch rooms.

While I don't support a state government ban on raw milk sales, I fully support individual and group efforts that try to spread information regarding the risks, or non-risks, of partaking in such activities.

And on the most divisive issue of all, abortion, I have preferred to expend all of my efforts aiding private charities that take in women with unwanted pregnancies, rather than focusing on governmental coercion that is highly unlikely and would have serious unintended consequences if it happened without a necessary change of attitudes and values.

In short, I tend to support voluntary efforts to achieve social goals over government mandated coercion.

In today's society it is frequently not a difference of opinion about the ends to be achieved that creates so much disagreement amongst individuals, but rather the methods used to achieve those ends. Therefore, when a restaurant decides it will no longer use trans-fats in its cooking, no one gets upset. Those who don't like the decision won't eat there anymore. But when the government dictates it to all restaurants through coercion… well, you can be guaranteed there's going to be some angry citizens.

In his essay "Persuasion vs. Force," Mark Skousen states that a "vision of civilized society as the triumph of persuasion over force should become paramount in the mind of all civic-minded individuals and government leaders. It should serve as the guideline for the political ideal." I agree with that philosophy.

Skousen laments politicians who are "too quick to pass another statute or regulation in an effort to suppress the effects of a deep-rooted problem in society rather than seeking to recognize and deal with the real cause of the problem, which may require parents, teachers, pastors, and community leaders to convince people to change their ways." [Italics mine]

Yet it is all too easy to resort to the power of coercion, applied by the only entity with a legal monopoly on the use of physical force: Government. The fact that this coercion rarely solves the root of problems, often leads to unintended consequences, and inevitably fans the flames of division is ignored at our own peril.

I'll conclude with this closing advice from Skousen, which most people likely agree with, but too few actually heed: "You want to persuade people to do the right thing not because they have to, but because they want to … Character and responsibility are built when people voluntarily choose right over wrong, not when they are forced to do so."

This all may seem quite idealistic, and if so, charge me as such. But I find it no more idealistic than the notion that we can somehow achieve the society we want, and the society we long for via laws, regulations, and government coercion. And if you disagree, just try and persuade me otherwise.