In Which I Agree With...George McGovern!?

That's right, dear readers.

Former U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, the far-left, anti-war politician who helped drive religion out of Democratic politics and helped Nixon win almost every state in 1972, has written an op-ed with which I almost unreservedly agree. This has left me feeling dazed, but I write on. Read the whole thing, because it's a fantastic column about specific health-care and home mortgage policies, but here's a sample:

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

Apparently the former senator has realized that an America filled with citizens who have to take care of themselves is superior to one in which 536 federal officials (435 representatives, 100 senators, and 1 president) try to make life smooth for everyone.

It isn't just that that sort of interventionist government typically restrains or eradicates economic growth; it's that it is just plain wrong. When did we stop being concerned primarily with citizens' freedom to act autonomously and become concerned primarily with delivering the most pleasurable and least painful life possible? When did we reduce human beings from creatures imbued by their nature with dignity, freedom, and responsibility to simple creatures whose highest goal is the fulfillment of their appetites?

Treating human beings this way is dangerous. The modern liberalism whose excesses even its bygone champion must decry operates on the assumption that the highest form of fulfillment is physical, and so it concentrates on access to food, health care, and sex. Freedom entails responsibility for our actions; it is a paradox and a universal truth that seeking freedom without obligation will leave us with only obligation and no freedom. Freedom and obligation are two necessary characteristics of humanity; modern liberals have done their best to eliminate them and reduce us to the level of animals. Barack Obama is not particularly talented because he can present this philosophy in lofty terms; history is filled with those who eloquently convinced humans out of their natural dignity.

Why else do you think, according to a recent study, conservative college students have goals that embrace social obligations, while their liberal counterparts seek to break them?