Dear Sarah,

Please forgive my presumption in writing you, but since no one else seems willing or capable of saying these things, which I think sorely need saying, and since they concern you, and what this country is all about, namely: freedom, individuality, and character, I've taken this liberty and beg your indulgence.

I'm somewhat appalled by all those who publicly and privately have presumed to know what prompted your decision to step down as Governor of the State of Alaska, and even more appalled by those who presume to tell you what you now ought, or even must do. Not one of them, it seems to me, is concerned about you, but what you can be or do for them. It is obvious to me that all of them consider you some kind of political pawn to be used, directly or indirectly, for their own political ends. It is disgusting that so many cannot think except in terms of politics, particularly party politics.

It may seem strange, therefore, that what I want to write about is party politics—though not so much about it, as against it.

Let me tell you something I know that may have bewildered you, but knowing the kind of mind you have, maybe not. If you have wondered why there seem to be so many people who hold such negative views toward you and yours (I'm being kind to many whose expressions are outright hate), it is because they perceive you as a threat. I know that will surprise you, as it does many who have experienced the same. What may surprise you even more is what there is about you that threatens them.

It is your character—your undaunted and uncompromising willingness to live by your principles. Your obvious sense of personal integrity and responsibility, your certainty in the face of crises or decision, and most of all, your frank unapologetic stand for what you believe terrifies them—because they know what is, though they will never name it, it is called independence. And that is an indictment of all they are, because they are by nature compromisers, dependent on the approval, agreement, and sanctioning of others. They live for the praise of others and will sacrifice anything to that; the individual that will say what is right and do what is right, and doesn't need their approval or agreement, is their worst enemy.

Ayn Rand said it best. "It is hatred of the good, for being the good."

Perhaps you think I admire you—if you think that, you would be correct. What I admire you for is the very thing others despise you for. (I'm sorry they do, but you could not be the kind of person you are without raising the ire of the least among us—which is what they are.)

As a fellow human being, a fellow American, and a lover of individual liberty, I cannot help being interested in you and what you do, so long as your life is a "public" one. I also cannot help being concerned for you and yours and for the principles you both hold and live by. I do not, however, feel privileged to address these things at a personal level, and certainly am in no position to advise you, so I will address these things in terms of the principles.

Perhaps you will allow me to quote someone else I admire, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote, "If I could not go to Heaven but with a party I would not go there at all." Nevertheless, it was party politics that got Jefferson elected as the second President of The United States.

But there is a lesson in that. The United States Government, under the Constitution, was not designed for party politics. Madison, who literally wrote the Constitution, meant for elections to truly be the means for the people to choose their leaders. Elections were not meant to choose policy represented by parties. That is the primary difference between a representative republic and a "democracy."

But it was Jefferson's election that changed this country from a "republic" to a "democracy," because it was really a "party" that was elected, not individual leaders.

As I know you will recall, in the presidential election of 1800, Jefferson had chosen Aaron Burr to be his vice presidential Democratic-Republican party running mate against the Federalist party’s John Adams. Jefferson’s seventy-three electoral votes easily defeated John Adam’s sixty-five votes, but Aaron Burr also received seventy-three electoral votes. The electoral college had not been set up for formal party politics, so, to determine which candidate, Burr or Jefferson, would be president, the election was sent to the House of Representatives.

The Federalists in Congress favored Burr over Jefferson and for six days neither received a majority vote in the house. Not until Alexander Hamilton, in spite of his opposition to Jefferson, supported him over his fellow New Yorker, Burr, whom he bitterly hated, was the election finally resolved with Jefferson the winner on February 17, 1801.

The grand plan had already failed. The third President of the United States was not elected as the representative of the people, but appointed by the decision of Congress led by the arch politician and compromiser, Alexander Hamilton. Party politics has ruled the country ever since.

Jefferson said something else. "Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct."

While Jefferson did not explain this, it is the nature of politics itself that makes it true. "Politics is the art of compromise," which means, "it is the art of sacrificing principle to the politically expedient," and the day one begins to seek political office they have to begin acting and speaking in ways that will garner the favor and approval of his political party and the electorate.

Not all compromise is wrong, but almost all political compromise is wrong, because it is always a compromise between some right government action (based on the principles of individual liberty, property, and justice) and some wrong government action (based on some collective or "socialist" view of man involving redistribution of wealth, government meddling in the economy, or a violation of property rights and individual liberty).

That kind of compromise is a compromise between the truth and a lie, a compromise between good and evil, and in every such compromise the truth and the good loose. Again, Ayn Rand said it best:

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."

There are other ways to say it. "It is always wrong to do wrong. It is never right to do wrong to get a chance to do right." Another: You cannot make poison safe by adding some food to it and you cannot make a lie right by adding some truth to it—such action only makes both more dangerous.

This is the art of politics, a disgusting continuous watering down of truth and virtue, and a continuous compromise between freedom and oppression, between liberty and slavery, between individualism and collectivism, which has brought this country to the brink of totalitarian statism.

I do not believe it is possible to be a politician today without being corrupted by this process. If there are one or two that stand above it all, none of what they stand for will have any influence on the political process, and they will, for the most part, be despised and repudiated, especially by those who claim to be for freedom and individualism and true liberty, but are in fact political compromisers and moral lepers.

It is because I regard you as both an American hero and moral hero that I write you. I have no advice for you, except to do what you know is right, which I know is just what you will do. Whatever you choose, I understand one thing few understand today, your life is your own and belongs to no one except those with whom you choose to share or devote it. No one belongs "to the people," or "to a party," or "to their constituency." The essence of freedom is, every individual owns their own life and they owe no man anything but what is required of all civilized human beings: respect, honesty, and decency.

I wish you the best of everything in life, because you have earned it. I leave you with one more quote by Jefferson:

"The happiest moments of my life have been the few which I have passed at home in the bosom of my family." It is the pursuit of "happiness," after all, he regarded as a fundamental freedom, as do I. Please be free.

Sincerely yours,

Reginald Firehammer