In Ron Paul, an ideology more sensible than critics will admit.

I take exception to Star Parker's shallow and inaccurate assessment of Ron Paul and his supporters ("Now we're seeing the real 'me generation,'" Jan. 3).Among those who are following Ron Paul, many, I think, tend to understand what they are supporting. Thus it is a bit disingenuous for Parker to insinuate that we have no sense of purpose. And how she comes to marry "self-centered" materialism with support for Ron Paul, I have no idea.

Just because we don't see "values" as she does doesn't mean we don't value such things as honesty, responsibility, morals, family, community and our country.

Parker writes about conservatism advocating for individual liberty and limitations on government -- but conservatives have ignored such issues. And "traditional values" are hard to take seriously amid all the infidelity scandals, closeted homosexuals who act homophobic, and divorces among the value-centric conservative politicians.

The reason why we are concerned about economic issues is because we are libertarian-leaning. Libertarians are open to differences in the social fabric, but economic liberty is an area where we libertarian Republicans agree with conservatives.

The exclusive traditional "values" climate among conservatives drives away many minorities. That's why Democrats capture most of their votes -- primarily because they aren't so judgmental of cultural traditions. Not everyone in the world is a Christian living by your standards.

People who take such a harsh stance on nontraditional families and relationships were against interracial marriage 50 years ago. I have news for you: Cultures change. It is inevitable; it is human nature -- and alternative lifestyles and nontraditional families will continue to become more prevalent. Culture will continue to evolve and accept them just as it did interracial relationships. The white Christian nuclear family is not the standard in human history. One doesn't need to be a cultural anthropologist to understand this.

I have studied cultural anthropology. There are many different family structures, gender roles and acceptable sexual orientations. There are polygamist cultures (some even with women as the head of household), matriarchal family types and many more.

What is with this unfaltering support for Israel and anything Christian, anyway? Parker's article suggests that we should help out Coptic Christians in Egypt, and the surging Christian population in Israel and elsewhere. Why -- because they are Christian? That is a very thin argument for intervening across the globe. And please don't patronize us with the idea that we need to save Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, because their human rights are being trampled on by oppressive regimes. If that were the case, we would intervene militarily in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Somalia -- most of Africa, really -- and so on. Yet we don't.

There is no surge in isolationism. Talking heads constantly label Paul and his supporters as isolationists. We are not isolationists. We advocate for noninterventionism. There is a major difference. Either Parker is purposely misusing "isolationist" as a pejorative or she is ignorant of the two meanings.

Parker seems to recognize the importance of youths in Paul's success, but then criticizes them for their failure to see things her way. If youths are the future, and they are embracing a Ron Paul ideology, doesn't that tell you something?

If the GOP were smart, it would embrace this voting bloc that usually votes Democratic. Cultivating their support would make the GOP a force to be reckoned with.

Ultimately, I think that both parties have eroded the "shining city on the hill" -- not us libertarian-leaning supporters of Ron Paul.