ore praising Bush? Yesterday, exactly one year after the massacre of twelve students and one teacher at Columbine high school, the presidential candidates were busy trying to score some points by explaining why such tragedies occur, and how they might be avoided in the future. Unsurprisingly, Bush and Gore had different views on the subject. Where they agreed, however, is where Bush missed the mark.

Gore's comments were predictable, but annoying nonetheless. When given an opportunity to explain what he thought we should learn from the tragedy, Gore stated that school violence has no "easy, glib, silver-bullet answer." He then went on to give an easy, glib, silver-bullet answer stating, "The one thing that all of these events have in common is that they involved guns...[W]e have to stand up to the NRA and the gun industry and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them."

So, just as masses of mourners gathered to remember the lives of those that were lost that terrible day, the would-be successor to the highest and most revered office in the land chose to sermonize that the way to stop young men in black trench coats with a will to kill from carrying out their wicked deeds is to "stand up to the NRA"? Has this man no shame? Is there no limit to his willingness to blatantly exploit tragedy for political gain?

Bush should be given credit, as his comments were much more poignant and much less exploitative. Bush described the events of a year ago as a "rampage of hate" that has caused America to "[search] our soul and conscience." Waxing eloquent, Bush explained that "[u]ltimately, the safety of our children depends on more than laws, it depends on the values we teach them and the kind of culture we create and condone." He noted that "Columbine was a sad lesson, but it's a reminder to all of us to love our children and to be mindful of teaching our children what's right in life and what's wrong in life."

Essentially, Gore blames the NRA and Bush blames culture, values, and the hateful quality of the perpetrators. Simple logic buttresses Bush's argument: if the murderers were not hateful and valued obedience to society' s laws, they would not have carried out their rampage. Gore's argument does not withstand the same test — his argument being that if Americans had "[stood] up to the NRA," there would have been no tragedy. We know this argument to be false on its face, as the young thugs of Columbine did not deem obedience to gun laws among their top priorities.

Republicans should take pride in the ways Bush and Gore differed in their comments on the Columbine tragedy. Bush recognizes that one must look beyond the tools and methods of murder to find solutions to such heinous acts. He deserves credit for his willingness to speak of true responsibility. Gore, on the other hand, should be embarrassed for his utter lack of principle and his willingness to exploit any tragedy for political gain.

But intellectual honesty compels further explanation and a critique of the Bush solution to the problem of Columbine. Bush is proposing to triple the amount of money the federal government now spends on "character education" from $8 million to $25 million. This is where Bush parts ways with the better philosophy of his party and, as a result, receives praise from Gore. "I compliment him for doing that," Gore said, referencing Bush's plan to increase spending on character education.

But Bush's plan defies true conservative principles, compassionate or not. Greater government spending to educate children in the areas of development that should be reserved to the family is not a solution to a valueless population of young people.

Time and time again, government has failed at doing those things that should be carried out by private units of society. By thus intruding, government only provides a greater incentive to those who view the bureaucracy as "mommy and daddy," abdicating their own responsibilities in favor of the "nanny state" and its consequences. While well intentioned, Bush's spending proposal is not worthy of the laud of conservatives, but is — apparently — worthy of the praise of liberals, intent on ever greater intrusions into the private realm.

One should rightfully take heart in the comments of George W. regarding "hate, conscience, and right and wrong," especially when these comments are put up against Gore's predictable, but pathetic, exploitation. One should raise an eyebrow, however, at calling for greater federal involvement in the character-building of a nation. Bush's proposal seems to fit the necessary strategy of the general-election — move toward the middle — but pushes aside an important Republican principle in the process.