In a recent commentary I referred to a letter to the editor written by an acquaintance.  He responded with the following.  I am including it here with his permission.

“I didn't even realize that got published.  Actually, despite my pridefully caring about ‘the little guy’(which I consider myself to be since I don't have millions of dollars to buy congresspeople) I opposed the smoking bans, helmet laws (and the attempted intervention with Teri Schiavo) probably for similar reasons to you--not wanting government that involved in personal decisions.  But you state "Conservatives, on the other hand, are attempting to preserve individual rights"  .  Say what?  Many conservatives are doing everything they can to impose their religion on me, their values about abortion on me, their medical ethics on me...

George Will, a conservative I frequently disagree with but respect for his thinking, noted that the intervention in the Teri Schiavo case did not represent true conservative thinking--it is just big government supporting a "conservative" instead of "liberal agenda." 

I would agree that "liberals" and "conservatives" don't necessarily share common goals--my point in the letter is that democracy is based on dialogue and compromise between different goals, not necessarily that we are going to all agree on everything.  Each side accusing the other of being traitors etc. will only weaken democracy, not strengthen it.”

Glenn Hirsch

My edited response:

I am glad that you opposed smoking bans and helmet laws.  We agree on those.  I agree with you that the government should not be involved in either.  I also don't believe that the government should be involved in trying to regulate my use of a seat belt since it is my life at stake.  As for abortion, I think it is wrong but believe that the federal courts should not control it since it is not an issue addressed in the Constitution.  As for Terry Schiavo, I believe the government needed to be involved.  She had no written directive and her husband was suspect in many ways.  I do not oppose choice regarding death but I do oppose a suspect husband who seems to want his wife dead despite the wishes of her family.  In that case, I believe that the government was correct in stepping in.  That case has led me to ensure that I have a written directive. 

As for religion, this nation was built upon Judeo-Christian principles, including the Ten Commandments (a Jewish document).  There can be only one reason for the left to try to destroy that foundation...to secularize America and to give power to the secular left.  The ACLU, founded and led for many years by communists has always had the goal of destroying the foundation of this country.  I cannot stand by and watch that happen.  No one is trying to ram religion down anyone's throat.  We are trying to preserve the history and Judeo-Christian foundation of America.

Where we differ most is that I truly believe that the far left (which controls the Democrat party) wants America to move toward European style socialism.  Socialism as an economic system has failed.  Collectivism as a social system has failed.  Yet Kerry and Kennedy and Dean and MoveOn.org and their ilk continue to promote both, viewing the collective as more important than the individual.  How else could the Supreme Court decision about property ownership have come about?  The Constitution in no way supports that decision (anymore than it supports the right of the government to take away the individual rights of Americans to own guns...another area that the left is trying to control).

I believe that most of the rights that I have lost in the past twenty years have been taken by the left, not the right. I further believe that it is to the advantage of the left to keep us dependent upon big government while it is the goal of the right to end that dependence.

Working in the field of social service as I do I see daily the result of big government programs that have promoted dependence.  My goal is to breed independence.  When that works, people are much more successful.  But I see over and over the result of the brainwashing done in universities and colleges that promote leftist views (read Brainwashing, Ben Shapiro) by student of the antiwar activists of the 70's.

I still recall Vietnam and the impact that the left had on the lives of those I cared for.  David Horowitz, by way of example, has admitted that the antiwar movement was controlled by Communists, of which he was one.  He has now confessed and chosen a path that has taken him to the right.  He admits that he and his fellows should have been tried for treason.  John Kerry also committed treason during the Vietnam War and got thousands killed as a result (i.e., his Paris visit.)  That is not hyperbole.  It is fact.  The same people (and their students) are creating a situation today that is undermining the war on terror.  The focus is on promoting a political agenda and not on dealing with a very real problem in the world.  Promoting democracy across the globe will bring about stability. Ignoring Islamofascism will create destruction. 

Anyway, I agree that debate is good for democracy.  And I enjoy doing it and am glad that you wrote back.  I do not agree that compromise is always possible. There are a few very intrinsic principles that cannot be compromised.  The fact that the left and the right has finally begun to own their principles is probably a good thing but it will probably also lead to a civil war…at least a civil war of principle.  I know which side I hope wins. 

Psych