Who are we? The Future of the G.O.P. from New York

That's the question many Republicans started asking in 2007 as dozens of G.O.P. contenders for the presidential nomination, ranging from the more liberal Rudy Guilianni to the right-libertarian Ron Paul, struggled to define the legacy of Republicanism. After the defeat of moderate-maverick John McCain, that debate continues.

There is nothing new in the history of the moderate-conservative war to own the G.O.P. identity. After the death of the party's leader in Lincoln, the more hardline Republicans impeached the former democratic-moderate President Andrew Johnson in order to prosecute their reconstruction agenda.

Many see the current struggle in New York's 23rd congressional district - a struggle which saw dueling between G.O.P. titans such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich and ended in the more moderate candidate suspending her campaign Saturday - as a similar conflict between the hardliners and the pragmatists. In that case, they see this as suicide for a minority party crucified on a cross of a "take-no-prisoners" ideology, sacrificing any chance of regaining power for the pleasure of platform purity.

I agree that this purification strategy is what my friend Julie Robinson termed "playing tennis without a net." A "litmus test" conservatism, which hauls to the guillitine any candidate without total adherence to a list of true-believer stances on everything from immigration to the campaign finance reform, is unwise and doomed to fail. It is indeed better, as Reagan noted, to support someone you agree with 70% of the time over someone you disagree with all the time. Realism is important. But I do not think that is what is happening in New York's 23rd.

Republican Dede Scozzafava's specific positions that caused the likes of Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck to endorse the Third Party conservative Doug Hoffman are significant. She was pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage, and pro-Obama stimulas package. I would argue that these issues are uniquely important. The government "stimulas" that borrowed billions and bailed out mortgages is a fundemental question of the individual's responsibility in society. The social questions are fundementally about the definition of family and personhood, or the basic nature of humanity. In fact, I submit that these issues frame the ultimate question which is at the root of all political debates in every generation of Americans.

That question is this: will Americans self-govern our society under the rule of laws founded in the enduring moral order - the self-evident "laws of nature and of nature's God" - or will we govern our nation on the whims of force and man, devoid of any transcendent truth? This question isn't a question that can be answered with a compromise. You can't agree with me on the answer to this question "70% of the time."

In my view, and I think in the view of those who bucked the G.O.P. establishment and endorsed the conservative third party candidate, the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and government dole-outs are the issues that most clearly frame that fundemental quesiton. If someone disagrees with us on these issues, when it really comes down to it, he or she doesn't share much common ground with us at all. Electing someone who disagrees here is anything but realistic or prudent toward Republican ends.

My hope is that between now and the 2010 congressional elections, the G.O.P. will realize that who we are, and who we have been, is the party that first embraces the freedom of self-government under enduring, transcendent law. I hope we will begin setting up a diverse "big tent" that is staked emphatically on that firm, unifying foundation.