GARD RECEIVED THIS GREAT LETTER RECENTLY. FEEL FREE TO READ AND REFER IT TO OTHERS:

The TEXT:

The core difference between conservatives and liberals is supposedly the proper role of government. However, in issue after issue, I hear conservatives conceding this vital philosophical ground to their ideological opponents in an attempt to gain a temporary tactical advantage. I maintain that once you concede that the state has a legitimate interest in a particular area, you have given the liberals all they need. Everything that follows from that point on is mere quibbling over details and priorities.

Let's take a few examples from today's headlines, starting with illegal immigration. Modern conservatives, who allegedly support free-market principles, start to foam at the mouth when it comes to illegal immigration. They believe that local, state, and federal government should dictate whom business owners may hire. They enthusiastically support crackdowns against those business owners who dare hire the "wrong" people.

Once they go down that path, though, how do they then resist other government intrusions into private enterprise? How can one logically support restrictions against hiring illegal immigrants, but then oppose affirmative action, minimum wage laws, mandatory fringe benefit packages, or restrictions on at-will employment?

Another example can be found in public schools. Conservatives talk endlessly about improving (but never about abolishing) public schools, which are nothing more than socialized education. Once they take that stance, though, upon what principle can they oppose universal health care? What is the functional difference between these two services that the conservative can use to square his support of socialized education with his opposition to socialized medicine?

As you and Brett mentioned in the Wednesday show, George Bush vetoed the SCHIP bill (his fourth veto, by the way). Notice that his justification for the veto was that the bill "went too far," and not that the Federal government has no business taking money by force from some people to purchase goods and services for the benefit of other people. From this point on, any debate over government health care must necessarily devolve into a simple negotiation of how much wealth redistribution is "acceptable." The conservative side of the debate can no longer be a principled defense of private property and limited government, which should be their proper philosophical home.

Liberals believe that the force of government is a positive good, which only requires the guiding hand of enlightened individuals such as themselves to perform all things great and wonderful. They're hopeless. I focus on the Republicans, because you're always harder on the heretics than on the infidels. Conservatives should know better, and need to wake up to the fact that they are contributing to the growth of government by ceding the philosophical high ground to the liberals.

Understanding what your core principles are is the first step. Consistently defending them is the next step. In any policy discussion, the means matter just as much as the ends, because the way in which you choose to advance your position on one issue could end up eroding liberty overall. Even if conservatives win a battle today, the unprincipled path they are taking will ensure that they eventually lose the ideological war.

Stephen M. Smith