Published for The Wall Street Journal, February 8th, 2011:

It Mitch Daniels afraid to talk about abortion?

If you think going to war is contentious, look at what happens when you call for a truce. Ask Mitch Daniels.

In a June profile by the Weekly Standard’s Andrew Ferguson, Indiana’s Republican governor declared that to get the country running again, “the next president would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Since then, Mr. Daniels has been digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself by trying to redefine “truce” without abandoning the word. Now it’s back in the news after another possible contender for the GOP presidential nomination, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, went on the attack.

“[F]or him to say that those issues need to be put in the background, I just, I’m stunned by it,” Mr. Santorum told radio host Hugh Hewitt last Thursday. “Obviously, the economic issues are front and center. But you have to talk about the economic issues even in the cultural and moral context.”

Let’s stipulate that no matter how softly you put these issues, the strong feelings on either side can make for an acrimonious debate. Let’s concede too that, with the Middle East in turmoil and President Obama spending—er, “investing”—away our future, it’s simply common sense that Republican messaging concentrates on taxes, spending, and keeping America safe from attack. Unfortunately, Mr. Daniels’ “truce” is probably the worst way to get there.

Here’s why. To begin with, the aggression on social issues today emanates mostly from the left, whose preferred vehicle is a willing judge inflicting his private social preferences on the law. Anyone who believes that a Republican call for a truce will end this is living in dreamland.

Full article here