This reader gets it right:
I took the time to read Klinghoffer's essay on NRO and I hit this line like a speed bump:
"If everyone were in control of his appetites, there would be no need for the government to be involved in endorsing some sexual relationships while withholding endorsement from others."
I am basically a Red Tory, so perhaps I need it spelled out in slow sentences and small words. Can you please explain to me what in pragmatic, limited-government, conservatism requires government to 'endorse' the behavior of consenting adults? I think what animates the anger towards you from The Corner and other, er, corners is that you have hit a point of vulnerability i.e. their claim to be the voice of conservatism.
If you were to integrate the sectarian, infinite-government authoritarianism that seems to be the stance of the National Review these days into a political movement, it would be labeled Christian Socialism or some such. Certainly not Conservatism.
They want to use government to enforce divinely-mandated laws. If the constitution forbids this, they are all too happy to amend the constitution. In a nut-shell, that's a key part of my argument in the book. Their personal attacks are correlated with their philosophical incoherence.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.