November 8, 2004 - Recently I had the opportunity to be victimized by ideological fanatics from both ends of the spectrum; the extremist left and a zealot from the radical right. One threatened to slander me publicly because I would not waste my time debating him on the tactics and political philosophies of Karl Rove, a ridiculous thought to entertain when one considers this was coming from someone who champions the under-handed and fanatical "win at all cost” mentality of Terry McAuliffe. The other threatened to smear me publicly unless I championed his totalitarian viewpoints on abortion even though I had never expressed any inclination that I embraced the practice. These are two examples of fanaticism disguised as political ideology. They are both dangerous.

Republicans stand for many things among them less government, lower taxes and I like to believe a tempered morality that makes us the party of choice over those who would rationalize extremist thinking. We believe that one should be able to worship in the way he or she sees fit without allowing political correctness to encroach upon that constitutional right. We believe that government should strive to allow each tax paying American the right to keep as much of their hard earned money as possible rather than allowing the government to accrue surpluses at our expense. And we believe that ultimately one has to be held accountable for ones actions, a conviction at a premium in today’s "its’ not my fault” society cultivated by the liberal left.

Since the re-election of George W. Bush, something that I worked hard for and celebrate, I have become concerned that some who comprise the Republican Party have become confused as to the differences between their political ideology and their political party. While the marriage between Republicanism and conservativism is a wonderful relationship it can be argued that they are not exclusive to one another. If they were there would be no Libertarian Party and no Constitutionalist Party. Conservatism is an ideology. Republicanism is a political effort. They are different even though they go well together.

We are witnessing a moment in time when the Democratic Party stands in disarray. They have been hijacked by the extremist left of their party and because of it paid the price of losing the presidency. While they try to blame everyone else for their self-inflicted demise, the fact remains they chose to dictate their version of ideology to the American people. Rather than feeling the pulse of the American body as a whole and representing what it is that we are they chose to dictate what we should believe to be right and wrong. In that respect, the Republican Party faired much better in understanding that there exists a fine line between embracing the morality of any given issue and championing the extremism of those same issues. The Democrats, in nominating John Kerry, embraced the fanatics among them, the "Deaniacs” and the "one-trick ponies.” It was their demise.

The Republican Party, still feeling the effects of our political victory on November 2nd, is in the very dangerous position of falling victim to the same kind of careless thought pattern. We need to recognize the fact that the definition of moral values is not dictated by the radical right but is defined by the term "common sense.” If we do not recognize this, and recognize it fast, we will open ourselves up to the same kind of vulnerability the Democrats are facing today.

Abortion. Everyone has an ideology on the matter. Personally, I consider myself pro-life but it is naïve bordering on foolish to say "never.” As I was taught as a child, "never say never for the moment you do you will be presented with an exception to the rule.”

While I abhor abortion on demand, especially for contraception’s sake, I do not agree with those who would force a married couple to choose to endanger the woman’s life in deference to her unborn child’s, especially if the mother would be able to procreate again. On the other hand, partial birth abortion is heinous and those who choose to champion this procedure – a procedure that almost every physician agrees is unnecessary almost all of the time – should be scrutinized.

In the end, abortion is an issue of both medical ethics and personal ethics based on personal responsibility. Ultimately the woman who makes the decision to have an abortion has to live with her decision. So does the doctor who agrees to perform the procedure. While those who embrace a strong pro-life ideology may disagree with me, they have no right to brand me unsupportive of the pro-life ideology. I couldn’t make the decision to take the life of an unborn child, but then I have never had to make the choice between my wife, someone I have chosen to make a life with, and a life that we have chosen to bring into the world. Many times ideology doesn’t play well when inserted into reality.

The same can be said for the ideology of less government. While this is a goal that we should continuously be striving for, there are always exceptions to the rule.

After September 11th, President Bush reluctantly established the Department of Homeland Security. It wasn’t because he wanted to, it was because he knew he had to. While some embrace the ideology of less government in a most vehement way – to the point of blaming President Bush for expanding government in the creation of the department – the reality of the matter is that in a post-September 11th world our country and our federal government had to adapt.

The Department of Homeland Security is a good creation and given the opportunity to evolve it will serve us well. Those opposed to it should attempt to look through their ideology in an effort to see the reality of the matter. People halfway around the world have been waging war – a declared war – against us for over a decade. It was past time that we established an entity that would secure our safety here at home.

It can be a good thing to have an ideology, a set of principles that guide us through life. It can be a naïve and destructive thing to allow ourselves to be ruled by our ideology, especially to the detriment of common sense. We as Republicans cannot afford to have those with ideological blinders establish totalitarian standards to which we are expected to acquiesce. That would be a sure way to destroy all of the gains we have made with the majority of the populace. We have to be the political party of common sense morality.

As for debating the tactics and political philosophies of Karl Rove with the extremist liberal from Atlanta…I will still take a pass. It isn’t worth my time.