- - Tuesday, June 3, 2014


Recently, I removed the “Carson ‘16” bumper sticker from my car. While Dr. Ben S. Carson possesses most of the fine qualities many people look for in a president, he sadly lacks the commitment to the principles I hold most dear, as evidenced by his past two opinion pieces in The Washington Times (“Charting a course between principle and pragmatism,” Web, May 20, and “Why the greater good sometimes necessitates compromise,” Web, May 27).

Dr. Carson advises that voters accept and support candidates who hold a particular position with which the voter might not agree — for the “greater good” of electing Republicans to office. As I consider the issues confronting our nation, I agree there are many on which I could compromise. The economy seems to be the foremost concern for voters, according to the pundits. While I prefer that an elected representative espouse the teachings of Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek and work to establish those principles in our government, I can compromise on a candidate who might embrace different economic practices for the sake of the “greater good.”

The welfare of citizens who have needs beyond their ability to meet them are of concern. Personally, I prefer a candidate versed in subsidiarity to be elected to support those in need, but I can compromise on this issue, too, for the “greater good.” To my mind, education in this country would be vastly improved by getting the government out of it. Will I compromise on this issue? Yes — for the “greater good” of electing Republicans to office.

However, for me and others like me, certain principles allow no compromise. Did not the Founders clearly state the rights of all men, and then go on to say, “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”? The Founders were emphatic about securing and protecting the unalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Is it not destructive to make exceptions to the right to life?

The deaths of more than 56 million unborn, innocent babies, the active or passive extermination of disabled persons, even the creation of human life in a petri dish with experimentation and death as their end — all are unquestionably destructive. The right to practice one’s religion, to protect one’s life and property and the right to utilize one’s own property are among those liberties facing extinction. The heavy boot of government regulation and taxation infringe upon our daily lives and stifle our pursuit of happiness as we strive to provide for ourselves and our families and practice our moral codes. We are now a nation gasping for “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

“Let’s make a deal”? I think not.


Leesburg, Va.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide