To the editor:

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker is partly right, but mostly wrong. In a recent column she described the difference between Democrats and Republicans as big city vs. small town. Now living in New York City she’s learned big-citiers accept regulation because they need it. Eight million New Yorkers cannot all fire up hibachi grills at the same time. North Carolinians, she says, don’t need protection from a neighbor’s grill while New Yorkers, who face anarchy, do.

That, she says, is also the justification for NYC outlawing trans fats. But, really? My hibachi smoke may pose a risk of harm to others; but trans fats? I doubt there’s a risk my cholesterol sludges out into your arteries. And do Republicans truly abhor government regulation? What about laws prohibiting marijuana, gay marriage, abortion? Aren’t these government limits upon individual freedom?

No, the difference between Democrats and Republicans isn’t about acceptance of government regulation; rather it is about the good we hope to achieve from government regulation. Democrats are more willing to use government to protect us from physical or material harm, while Republicans want government to protect our moral selves. Which political party advocates government imposed regulation of freedom to choose marriage partners, or a choice of abortion? And which party would have government increase regulation of workplace safety, or consumer product quality?

The choice of political parties is not about the use of government to regulate our lives; it is merely about that part of our lives we would regulate.

William J. Skepnek,

Lawrence