The right combination is between a free economy and social policy that addresses the needs of society and creates equal opportunity.
I don't support gay marriage. I'm just not there, as far as believing in my heart that we should change 2,000 years of social policy in favor of a redefinition of the family.
By establishing a social policy that keeps physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal but recognizes exceptions, we would adopt the correct moral view: the onus of proving that everything had been tried and that the motivation and rationale were convincing would rest on those who wanted to end a life.
In social policy, when we provide a safety net, it should be designed to help people take more entrepreneurial risks, not to turn them into dependents. This doesn't mean that we should be callous to the underprivileged.
I'm interested in current affairs and social policy as a whole, but I don't watch politics for sport.
The Supreme Court is not elected, and it is therefore not a proper arbiter of social policy.
So when the only domestic social policy is tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans, we say, 'Where is faith being put into action here?'
A handful of works in history have had a direct impact on social policy: one or two works of Dickens, some of Zola, 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' and, in modern drama, Larry Kramer's 'The Normal Heart.'
If you don't have 30 years to devote to social policy, don't get involved.
If the government wants to do social policy, it should not be done in a quasi-public company. If you have a mortgage guarantee company which is done by the U.S. government, it should be guaranteed by the originators, i.e., the shareholder.