Here’s the problem: The president never defines what he means by “fair.” And this is for a simple reason: his definition is simply not recognizable to most Americans.

In recent months, electoral skirmishes and policy debates have hinged on the meaning of fairness. Defenders of free enterprise have often shied away from moral language, preferring to rely on facts, figures, or constitutional arguments to make their case. AEI president Arthur Brooks highlights free enterprise leaders who are changing, now making the moral case.

The Paycheck Fairness Act looks like common sense, but instead of helping women it will hurt all workers. The legislation, built on 30 years of spurious advocacy research, will impose unnecessary and onerous requirements on employers.

The White House has proposed a “Buffett Rule” mandating that taxpayers earning more than $1 million pay at least 30% of their income in federal income taxes. The unfairness the Obama administration has identified is only one limited, albeit  eye-catching, manifestation of more systemic problems in the tax code.

For some months now, President Obama has increasingly been couching his rhetoric in the language of fairness. But in recent weeks, a growing number of conservative elected officials have begun contesting Obama’s claim to be the arbiter of what constitutes fairness and taking the issue of fairness head on in public policy.

The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act would free state and local government from court orders that are unnecessary to protect rights, yet prevent states and localities from adopting to the lessons of experience and changing priorities.

Conservatives and free-enterprise advocates should seize the moment to show their own passion for the issues being debated—and, where appropriate, even embrace the protesters’ moral critique of America’s distorted and depressed system.