” “She was pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-Obama stimulus package.” Of these three things he lists, only one would not be truly conservative.”

Conservatism is about principles, Mr. Lichtman. Russell Kirk, who defines the conservative movement, argues, above all, not for the antinomian “freedom” you apparently desire, but for permanence, an “enduring moral order.” By mistaking liberty for license, you do a disservice to genuine advocates of ordered freedom under law.

Your hasty generalization of abortion and homosexuality as functions of choice is at odds with the founders of country, who asked us to consider the consequences of our actions, warning that freedom depends on virtue. And as the once virtuous American society has eroded, so has freedom. Consider the welfare state. But your argument becomes more clear in the following statement:

“Choice is an inherent risk in freedom; some people will always make the wrong one. The true litmus test of freedom-lovers is to be accepting, not of the things which appease us, but the things which appall us.”

What you are really arguing for, Mr. Lichtman, is not freedom, but “tolerance” – that we should accept those things that appall us, regardless of their impact on society. Let us accept, then, the taking of human life, at 28 weeks after conception. Far be it from us to declare any right or wrong, for tolerance provides only that each may do what is right in his own eyes.

But all to often, those in the media are quick to generalize Conservatism as simply a disdain for gay marriage and abortion. Genuine Conservatism includes a belief in limited government. Your socially liberal “Republican” candidates, aptly demonstrated by Ms. Scozzafava, fail this test of conservatism as well. When it became clear she would not win, she endorsed her leftist opponent rather than her Conservative challenger. Such politicians really have no belief in principle whatsoever. Consider former “Republican” Arlen Specter, now an eager advocate for the radical agenda.

So if misguided libertine “freedom” is what you’re really after, you are in the wrong party. And if you resent the growth of government, as do I, you should reconsider the mold of candidates you are supporting.

I have read Mr. Gaiser and your counterpoint. The one thing I am struck with is your lack of understanding of the “rule of law” and our nation’s founding documents assertions that rights come not from man or his ever changing opinion on morality – but from God. This was a very wise thing for our founders to do. First – it cements the idea that NO ONE is above law – and that rights are not given by governments of men. Second – this gives all who are in this form of government – equal standing to appeal to a higher authority. This is vastly different than a king who is above the law, or even a pure democracy in which the “will of the people” is the only standard.

To these ends – no government or society can function without law – and this nation based it’s initial set of law on moral principals derived from God.

I don’t think Mr. Gaiser is advocating a “theocracy” – surely limited government is what “Self-Government” is all about… but he who will not be self governed – will be externally governed. It is just that if you will have a standard of law – from where do you derive it? Where is there an unchanging code of morality that will not slip and slide? Is murder wrong? Is stealing wrong? Perhaps today – but how about tomorrow? No sir. Freedom is not the ability as you say in so many words – do “do what you want” or “to each his own” – but the POWER to do what you ought. That mantra is the fastest best way to chaos. An erosion of our nation from within.

This does not mean there cannot be even religious diversity. An atheist has the same protection in US code as does a Muslim or Jew or Christian. But to function – we have to agree on the standard of rule of law. And – laws are moral statements by the way – of what one should or should not do.

So in questions of protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… it seems “life” is a requisite to the ability of liberty and happiness. Unless you propose eliminating our founding documents and starting over – I would say that moral codes which are enumerated as laws are very conservative in nature (as opposed to a liberal casting off of restraint) and thus “Republican”.

Think hard about that my friend.

With vested interest in freedom,
Nathan Lichtman

I’m honored that you took the time to write a detailed counter-point to my previous article. I remain unconvinced, however.

I think you and I should start talking about finding a public forum to discuss this topic, as you and I both have a vested interest in the future of this party and this nation. I find you entirely wrong and your logic very invalid, as you have said you find mine, but there are good people who hold your conclusion and good people who hold my conclusion and I think it would be to all their benefit to debate this topic in public.

Your adamant dissenter,
T. Elliot Gaiser