Yes, it’s a pun on a RedState blogger’s screen I.D. but it really fits. Pilgrim, himself/herself, took a segment of an old speech and changed but one word in it to say this:
If abortion is right, it ought to be extended; if not, it ought to be restricted — there is no middle ground. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality — its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension — its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant, if we thought abortion right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think abortion is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation.
Mr. Lincoln, stated thus about the issue of slavery in 1860. My reply to the entire missive that pilgrim wrote was that this one segment encapsulates conservative ideals because you can interchange any issue barring those of a federal nature such as national security and use the same argument over and over again.
The more we continue to look to the federal government as the cure to all ills, the less freedoms we have, as outlined in the Constitution.
Read the whole entry at RedState. It’s a very good one. This is the message that conservatives should carry first and foremost and why we need strict Constitutionalist judges. Were they all so, then California could enjoy its socialist state, as well as some others, and those states that reject such ideology could employ what they deem best without the fearsome fighting that is eroding the heartstone of the Constitution itself: individual liberty protected by a small central government with all other rights accorded to the individual states.
If necessary, perhaps it’s time to divorce conservatism from the Republican Party and carry the message to the people. With the state of current affairs, the relationship between conservatism and the Republican Party reminds me of a marriage wherein one spouse is forced to stay married to the other, in spite of the other’s chronic infidelities.