Mitt Romney’s comments on video games have sparked a lot of discussion in the blogosphere, though not surprisingly, many conservative sites have ignored it.

Nevertheless, there has been some interesting commentary. Consider for example the following excerpt a post at Law of the Game.

Both Presidential and Congressional approval are at historic lows, and yet, rather than deal with issues that matter, the politicos of the United States have opted to gravitate to video game violence. Why? It’s always easy to amass votes under the guise of “protecting the children” from the evils of society, whereas it seems like an impossibility to win support on a platform of parental responsibility. And yet, it has become apparent that many parents are, simply put, failing their children. But should the battle cry of those wishing to defend those who cannot defend themselves really be “The government should do it for us!” Do we, as a people, really want to leave the decision on how to raise our children in the hands of a body that is barely approved of by a fourth of the population?

The blog’s author ends with:

I don’t want Washington dictating what video games can and can’t be played in the privacy of my living room. Do you?

This brings up some serious issues. Sometimes conservatives find themselves attacking video games violence and promoting regulation as a way to convince voters that they have proper family values and ethics. Its kind of like the generic “I’m against pornography and alcohol” statement, although video games never feature graphic sexual intercourse or run the risk of harming vital organs. However, in making these statements about games, conservatives are essentially telling families that they don’t need to worry about their children because the government will.

Let me demonstrate how this is problematic. Imagine two families of similar characteristics that both have a 14 year old son. Family X’s son is very immature and acts more like a 12 year old. He hasn’t grown up yet. Family Y’s son on the other hand acts more like an adult and is extremely mature. His parents sometimes wonder if he was born into a body ten years younger than his mind. Family X, takes their son to Gamestop to purchase a new video game. While their son wants the new Grand Theft Auto, they recognize that the ESRB rates it Mature, and therefore they assume it’s probably not appropriate for their son. In making the same trip, Family Y decides that their son is mature enough to handle the violent content and allows their son to purchase GTA - even though he is younger than the recommended age. This scenario could even be modified to have Family X believe violent video games are morally wrong while Family Y believes them to be acceptable. You get the point.

In promoting regulation of violent video games, Mitt Romney is effectively telling families such as Family Y that he knows what’s right for their children and they don’t. He’s proposing measures that will curtail their freedom to decide what’s appropriate for their own offspring. In effect, his proposal would place the final decision on a moral judgement issue in the hands of the government. If anything, its anti-family.

Conservatives who support these regulations also find themselves at odds with the idea of limited government. Take Sam Brownback for example. On one hand he says things like the following:

“I think we have lost track of a core Republican principle of limited government…”

On the other hand, he has introduced legislation on multiple occasions that would insert the government into the ratings system and control how ratings are assessed - to protect the children of course.

In short, the video game issue while seemingly small is important for a number of reasons. The support of video game regulation via the government by some conservatives really calls into question their supposed belief in limited government and family values. Perhaps instead of writing about the same material week after week, conservative columnists and news sources should start to hold politicians like Romney and Brownback accountable for these inconsistencies. It would surely be more interesting than asking them about abortion or gay marriage for the 1,000,000th time.