Iraq War Memorial Sparks Fight Over Property Values, Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, 6 Jun 2007, p. B1.

Scuttle Diplomacy, Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday, 2-3 June 2007, p. A11.

It is stories like this that really get me angry. While I disagree with anti-war protestors, I not only support their right to engage in protest, I also respect those who are willing to stand up for their morals. But people like Shelly Valerio mentioned in this WSJ article really irk me. Shelly is against the war, and like so many, she has developed a deep appreciation for and understanding of international relations through her career as a personal trainer. Of course she can afford to protest, she obviously has enough money given she lives in a house she bought in 1998 for $469,000.

Well good for Shelly. She is very principled in her protest, except that one of her neighbors is also protesting the war by displaying 3000+ crosses on his property. Well heavens, this affected Mrs. Valerio’s property value and she might want to sell her house. I have to admire such upstanding, principled citizens like her. She will protest unless it affects her property value.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, we have outstanding young men and women fighting the war on terror, fighting to give the Iraqis basic freedom, all of which Mrs. Valerio opposes, but she doesn’t want to protest too much because she lose a few tens of thousands of dollars on her house sale. Most of those who are fighting will probably never be able to buy a $496,000 house but I would take anyone of them over Mrs. Valerio. The men and women in Iraq have values that are not affected by their property values.

Contrast this article to the editorial Scuttle Diplomacy published in Saturday and Sunday’s WSJ which discusses President Reagan’s work in scuttling the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOS) 25 years ago. Reagan saw this treaty as “global socialism” and, although it was set to be passed by the UN, he instructed Alexander Haig to oppose it. They then set about on a journey and garnered support to kill the treaty.

Reagan opposed 150 nations on the sure passage of this treaty because he thought it was wrong. The President was listening to SecState Haig review the treaty when:

The president looked bored—we all were—and then puzzled. Finally, he broke in. “Uh, Al,” he asked, “isn’t this what the whole thing is all about?”

None of us could fathom what Reagan meant. Mr. Haig asked him. Well, Mr. Reagan shrugged, wasn’t not going along with something “really stupid,” just because 150 nations had done so, what the whole thing was all about? Our running? Our winning? Our being here? Our governing? Wasn’t that what the whole thing was all about?

President Reagan knew that the treaty would fail. France was even taking the position that they would vote for its ratification because they knew it would fail so why make people angry by opposing ratification? Reagan had moral conviction and he took the hard road.

We see the same thing with John McCain and his stance on torture and immigration. His views are, according to the pundits, “unpopular”. McCain surely knows that his positions are hurting him in his quest for office, but he sticks to them anyway. He is determined to do what he thinks is right, regardless of what others or the polls say he should do, and that is why he has my support.

Reagan had and McCain has moral convictions and they do not waiver regardless of what the personal costs may be. Shelly Valerio and her neighbors in San Francisco may have moral conviction, but they are willing to compromise those as soon it hits their pocketbooks. Reagan and McCain have my respect, Mrs. Valerio and her neighbors have my contempt.