It is too easy to fall into the "bad news" mode; and this mode can lead in either of two directions. The first is the preachy, overwrought Jeremiad — we are all going to hell and deserve to because we are weak and selfish. The other is resignation rooted in a partial, overly pessimistic vision of human nature. The second problem is what Crunchy Cons seeks to address, I think. It is the view that the height of wisdom is the recognition that human nature and human reason are limited, that we are guided by our desires and appetites, that our emotions keep us from thinking too rationally, and that therefore we have to minimize the damage people and government in particular do to us, and that's about ALL we can hope for, other than some basic peace and enjoyment. Now, there is a good deal of truth in this, as far as it goes. But there is a crucial difference between mere skepticism and recognition of original sin. The religious understanding that we all are flawed, ruled too often by appetites, etc. is too often reduced to mere skepticism, but is in fact something much more.
Original sin is a recognition that we are fallen, that we always must struggle with a dark side in us. But it also is a recognition that this dark side is only part of us, and the part we can and should keep under control as we seek to live up to our higher nature, the good placed in each and every one of us on account of our being created in the image of God.

Human dignity is at the root of conservatism, I would insist, because it is a recognition that we are made to live with one another in a decent, worthwhile community and life. Conservatives know that the government can't arrange our lives for us in any decent way — sin and the limits of reason see to that. But each of us has a stock of virtue that we can and should develop in ourselves and share with others to build decent relations.

I know this sounds very pie in the sky, whereas "we're all part beast" sounds wonderfully "realistic." But people do, in fact, sacrifice for others, and especially for those with whom they share important connections.

And if we really want to see to it that the bureaucrats don't end up running our lives any more than they already do, it would seem wise to build on that capacity for virtue and for building intermediate associations in which we can live free lives, and which can protect us from the encroachments of the state.

Schools can help play this role, when they are rooted in our local lives.
So can home schooling when, as with just about every home schooler I know, it is part of a community. Mass public schools guided by public ideologies undermine all this, and so does too much emphasis on the dark side.