Glenn Reynolds writes, in response to a Johah Goldberg column which, in turn, is a response to a Charles Krauthammer column:

I might be one of those "Stephen Green" conservatives who support gay marriage, drug legalization, cloning research and the elimination of excise taxes on alcohol (actually, I made that last one up, but I imagine Stephen would be willing to add it to the platform). But I don't think many more traditional conservatives would count that.


Mostly, I'm a proud member of the anti-idiotarian party -- which is growing by leaps and bounds, as best I can tell. And which, judging by the likes of Sean Penn and Trent Lott, won't lack for targets anytime soon.

This is the kind of intellectual taxonomy that I find tiresome. Neocons, traditionalcons, paleocons, whigs and libertarians--it's a frenzy of pigeonholing. I don't know why people do this, except as a kind of shorthand which is useful in dismissing someone you don't agree with on a particular issue. I agree with much of what Glenn Reynolds writes, but I disagree with him on drugs, alcohol (which is really a drug) and homosexual marriage, but I agree with stem cell research. I agree with most of what Virginia Postrell writes, but I think Jonah is a little too cheeky and glib for someone his age.

I'm a Mormon, and that carries with it a certain number of conservative principles. For example, I don't believe in abortion, not because it's murder (sometimes it is, sometimes not), but because it is rarely justified on the grounds of health or rape. Usually it's a means of terminating an inconvenient pregnancy, which is the result of irresponsible conduct.

I've become a Prohibitionist where alcohol is concerned from observing the price society pays for it in deaths on the highway, broken homes, spouse and child abuse and other idiotic conduct. If we have to have a legal drug, I'd prefer that it be marijuana than alcohol.

I suppose that in Krauthammer's formulation, I'm a traditional conservative, as long as that excludes Pat Buchanan. I believe in three core values: freedom, duty and tolerance. Freedom is essential to the purposes of life, growth and testing. Duty is essential to a successful society, especially one founded on democracy. Tolerance is required by secularism and freedom. The interplay of these principles can't be defined once and for all, but we have to honor them all. Too much freedom is bound to harm others, even when it only involves "victimless" crimes. The reason this is so is that we all owe duties of citizenship to our society, to respect the rights of others, to participate in self-government, to become educated and informed and to be self-reliant and contribute to the betterment of society. Tolerance is also a duty stemming from the concept of individual rights. I strongly believe in the following, written by the prophet, Joseph Smith:

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson�that [authority] . . . cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness. That [it] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the . . . authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the [innocent], and to fight against God.

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of [one's position], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile�reproving betimes with sharpness, . . . and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

This is part of Mormon scripture dealing with the exercise of ecclesiastical authority, but the principles apply to other authority as well.

Even when we are required to use coercive methods, as in the case of police or soldiers, it must be done with the right spirit. We can disagree and argue, but we can never let incivility and anger get the better of us.