Candidates should address slavery

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – In 1799, George Washington personally took a still-debated step against one of the most despicable practices in human society: slavery.

Standing near the spot where he freed his own slaves in a deathbed will, viewing every accessible documentary and file on the subject and paying my respects at the slave memorial here, I thought about Washington’s decision to defy the accepted standards of his time. What might have happened, had he advocated an anti-slavery position as president?

Sadly, despite Washington’s example, the Civil War, the outlawing of slavery in the United States, the fight for civil rights in this country, the end of colonialism and the moves by nations the world over to give at least constitutional attention to human rights, the scourge is more prevalent than ever. Some 30 million people suffer the indignities of one form or another of human trafficking, as the problem commonly is known today.

Modern slaves are found everywhere, including in the United States. Where are the 21st-century abolitionists? And, in the context of American politics, which of the leading candidates for the 44th U.S. presidency will follow in Washington’s footsteps?

Time is running out for them to make a difference in this campaign, and I do not mean in the sense of offering general statements. The top contenders should put serious thought and energy into no less than a global strategy to confront slavery. The U.S. government’s current program to monitor human trafficking, while commendable, falls short of the challenge.

My sense is that typical Americans care more about these matters than the candidates appear to believe, in part because they understand how many global issues – slavery among them – have local impacts.

But there is an even more significant reason for the candidates to focus on human trafficking of all kinds: Decency compels them.

If Washington began to realize, even before he was president, that slavery clashed with the freedoms that he was fighting to establish, then today’s presidential aspirants certainly should see widespread involuntary servitude as inconsistent with the liberties that the United States champions.

Similarly, it appeared as if Washington came to view slavery as wrong and contrary to the principles of a fledgling America during his presidency. In keeping with that spirit, presidential aspirants should condemn today’s version of that vileness, and emphasize how it insults the idea of a free and fair world order.

And, though Washington hesitated to launch a public fight against slavery for fear of ripping the nation in two, he did lobby privately for more-humane thinking on the issue, including these words in 1797: “I wish my soul that the legislature of this state could see a policy of gradual abolition of slavery.”

Those who seek the White House in 2008 have no reason to resort to the private or quiet defense of victims of human trafficking, nor should they fear a national schism. Indeed, to paraphrase Washington, I wish my soul that those who believe themselves worthy of this nation’s presidency would promise to exert all reasonable effort to rid the world of slavery. Furthermore, they should outline measurable ways to accomplish that goal before a decade passes.

By so doing, the next U.S. president would rank as the last to tolerate the steady expansion of an abomination that should have been relegated to history’s hall of shame long ago.