George has had considerable influence outside the academy, having been a member of both the US Commission on Civil Rights, and the President's Council on Bioethics. But his centre of operations is in Princeton's elite academic environment and it was there that we talked about his ideas and his hopes for America. 

Central to his work is the task of understanding and helping others to appreciate what he describes as "the profound, inherent and equal dignity of every human being and all that follows from that about how we should lead our lives, and govern ourselves as communities". According to George, this takes us to a true humanism that identifies principles of conduct (including justice and human rights) by considering the various fundamental and irreducible aspects of human wellbeing and fulfilment. 

In George's view, religious faith illuminates these principles and helps us to grasp their full meaning and significance, but they may be reasonably affirmed even apart from divine revelation: "That is what it means to say that they are principles of natural law." At Oxford, he studied under John Finnis, another Catholic and a leading figure in the "new" natural law movement to which George is a prominent contributor. Aware of cultural resistance to these ideas he notes that many people "especially those who regard themselves as especially enlightened" deny them. So the principles need to be defended. "Intellectual work can help people to grasp, for example, the compelling reasons they have for affirming the dignity and fundamental right to life of every member of the human family — and for supporting marriage as the life-long, exclusive union of husband and wife." 

While in the previous two election campaigns Catholics appear to have favoured the Republican candidate, in 2008 there was a greater division of support and a good deal of internal dispute among Catholics. This raises questions about their political loyalties and about the conflicts within the American Church. George's assessment is that US Catholics are no longer a voting bloc and politicians cannot appeal to them en masse. Yet, he notes that in presidential and other polls the candidate who wins the votes of a majority of self-identified Catholics almost always prevails. Although historically Catholics tended to associate with the Democratic Party, that is no longer true: "No one doubts that the Democrats lost the allegiance of many Catholics when the party embraced socially liberal policies, beginning with abortion in the 1970s."

This leads to a provocative reflection on correlations between religious commitment and political outlook: "Broadly speaking, those whose commitment is more intense (as evidenced by regular Mass attendance, daily prayer and the like) tend to be morally and politically more conservative. Those who are less firmly committed — especially the so-called ‘cultural Catholics' — tend to be more liberal." He also contends that Obama tried to appeal to conservative Catholics by claiming that he was actually pro-life because while he would expand abortion access, his economic policies would reduce poverty and with it the "need" for abortion.