Uniting the Right


Visit National Review Online.

Anyone who pays attention to politics can see that when Democrats attack, they speak from the same text, and when they vote, they march in lockstep. If one Democrat says the wealthy must pay their “fair share,” all Democrats do — regardless of the merits of the charge. If their leaders say Republicans want to shut down the government in order to deny Americans affordable care, the rest of the party will follow their lead — whether the claim is true or not. When a key program like Obamacare is the issue, not only do Democrats back it with one voice, but every player on the political left — journalists, professors, talk-show hosts, union heads, MoveOn radicals, and Occupy anarchists — falls into line and promotes it with virtually identical words. They act in “solidarity” in fair political weather and foul, and they do it even for a program like Obamacare, which (as some of them must surely see) is ill-conceived, falsely presented, incompetently executed, and fiscally unsustainable.

When the voices of the Left all come together, the amplification is stupefying. The result is that a morally bankrupt, politically tyrannical, economically destructive party is able to set the course of an entire nation and put it on the road to disaster.

Republicans, in contrast, speak with multiple voices, and in words that often have no relation to each other. If one Republican says “defund Obamacare,” another says, “fund the government,” even if that might mean funding Obamacare. The argument and the dissension are over tactics, not substance, since all Republicans oppose Obamacare. If one Republican says “don’t intervene in Syria,” another says “don’t hesitate”; if one says “Obama-supported immigration reform is a dagger aimed at American sovereignty,” another says “opposition to immigration reform is a death-knell for our party.” This, again, is a tactical division, since all Republicans support enforceable borders.

These contending party voices are multiplied by conservative talking heads in the nation’s media who march to their own political drums. The result is a cacophony of talking points, which in the end point nowhere. Because Republicans speak with many voices, their message is often difficult, if not impossible, to make out.

To continue reading this article, click here.

  • Fred Glass

    Do the majority of Americans value maximizing individual freedom? If the answer is no, then uniting around the moral banner of freedom will not have the weight to hold the the left at bay


      Even if a majority won’t rally around the banner of freedom, enough may do so to form the nucleus of a majority coalition. The GOP’s biggest problem is that they don’t really stand for anything, except large business interests, and David’s prescription is aimed at remedying that deficiency.

      In fact, should a majority-freedom coalition become impossible, our only remaining hope would lie in the direction of nullification/secession. But that too will require motivating people through the ideal of freedom.

  • http://europa-antiqua-arca.blogspot.com/ para_bellum

    The problem is that a variety of opinions indicates normal people who have their own thoughts. A single voice on all topics, no matter how insignificant, is creepy and a sign of brainwashed ideologues. Furthermore, some of the core Dem voting blocs — college students and professors, the unemployed/welfare recipients, Hollywood actors and tech/green billionaires — have more free time than other people to spend on political involvement. Or, in the case of unions, big city machine functionaries, and the media class, their jobs are tied to politics. And finally, for many progressives, their politics is their identity and religion. Conservatives on the other hand have a longer view of the ultimate importance of politics, belong to traditional religions, and have more traditional identities tied to ancestry and place of birth.

    So it’s going to be hard to beat such obsessive people at their own game. They’re a bit like someone who joins an amateur bowling league and then slashes the tires of the opposing team so they have to forfeit the match. “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.” – F. Nietzsche

    Fortunately for conservatives, radicalism usually collapses under the weight of its own nonsense. None of the following attempts to “fundamentally transform” nations lasted more than 100 years, and all are viewed today as failures: the French Revolution, the USSR, Nazi Germany, etc. We can see this on a smaller scale with Obamacare, but it doesn’t affect enough people for its lesson to be well enough learned.

  • truebearing

    This article points out the Right’s fatal flaw when it comes to politics. The Left adheres to their political religion, while the Right adheres to fragments of what used to be their religion. The Left unites with fervor around Marxist delusions of utopia. The Right talks about fiscal responsibility, only to end up back on its heels trying to deny the inevitable charges that it hates the poor, blacks, or women. They don’t offer their own grand vision of prosperity, happiness, and freedom — like Reagan did — and end up with a message as palatable as Cod Liver oil. Yes, it may be good for everyone, but the spoiled majority doesn’t want to swallow it.

    Religious fervor can only be matched with religious fervor. That is one of several reasons why so-called “fiscal conservatism” will never out-duel the false promises of utopia, or the opportunity for just revenge that the Left offers. And self-rule by libertarianism, without a broad, sustaining set of moral beliefs, is laughable. Liberty isn’t possible in a nation with weak morals. And for those who haven’t figured it out…all legislation, by the victorious adherents of any ideology, is “legislating morality,” one way or another.

    The Left has successfully forced the nation into perpetual politicism, which fits their agenda and temperment perfectly. Conservatives don’t want endless political struggles, preferring instead, to have diverse, prosperous lives, where they build something for themselves and their families. Too late. That can not be the primary conservative goal ever again, unless and until the Left, and its pernicious political religion, is thoroughly discredited and defeated….and that will require conservatives to unify like they never have before. Conservatives have to engage in collective behavior under a unifying ideal.

    The idea of collectively defeating collectivists makes some conservatives nervous, though it shouldn’t. Any team sport is a collective effort, but they aren’t trying to rule the world with it. Collective effort is what our military employs. All corporations rely on collective effort. Marx observed the power of collective effort, so he turned it into a religion that worships power. It isn’t the collective effort that is immoral. It is turning it into a syncretic, totalitarian political religion that is evil. It will require collective effort to defeat collectivism.

    The reason Marxists expunged religion from politics was to create a vacuum they could fill. Communists like Antonio Gramsci believed that the destruction of Christianity was essential for a successful Marxist revolution. Conservatives should recognize the irony that Christianity is percieved by those who hate it as more politically powerful than most on the Right believe it is today….”Oh, yee of little faith.”

    The ideals expressed in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were understood to be granted by God. The drifting away from that belief is what has ultimately left the Right in fractious disharmony…..and vulnerable to yet another power-mad cult, Islam. We will unite, once again, under God, or we will lose.

    • monostor

      There is a huge difference between collectivism or democratic centralism imposed from the top – as the Left does – and the benevolent collectivism that starts at the bottom and it works itself up in the ranks, those need not be an enourmous pyramid though. The TEA Party is the best example for how this can be done. Having the GOP (establishment) doing “Democrat-Light” does not unite and the last election is the proof of that. What is needed in order to unite the Right is the right vision, the right goal and the right channels to convey the message.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “There is a huge difference between collectivism or democratic centralism imposed from the top – as the Left does – and the benevolent collectivism that starts at the bottom and it works itself up in the ranks, those need not be an enourmous pyramid though.”

        But “collectivism” refers to any “ism” that subverts individualism. You can’t be collectivist if you’re not coercively taking away individual rights. Acting “collectively” is not necessarily “collectivism.” The key distinction is subverting individualism.


        What Bush 1 was saying with his “thousands of points of light” rhetoric was that we’re better when we volunteer for the greater good than when it’s top down central planning welfare state collectivism. We can still be coherent and do great things without unnecessary collectivism.

        • monostor

          Doesn’t matter what you call it, the bottom-up approach also needs to mobilize groups of people. The difference is in the message: doing something for an undefined greater good is not the same as doing something according to the constitutional principles that are the foundation of this country. The TEA Party is not a movement promoting self-serving individualism but it is a grassroots movement that energizes people and brings them together to reinstate the economical/political commonsense that once was so successful.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Doesn’t matter what you call it, the bottom-up approach also needs to mobilize groups of people.”

            It doesn’t matter what you call it unless people misunderstand you.

            “The difference is in the message: doing something for an undefined greater good is not the same as doing something according to the constitutional principles that are the foundation of this country.”

            The biggest problem is leaving it up to the “new oligarchy” to define. Which is precisely what it’s all about.

            “The TEA Party is not a movement promoting self-serving individualism but it is a grassroots movement that energizes people and brings them together to reinstate the economical/political commonsense that once was so successful.”

            That’s a valid generalization I’m sure.

      • truebearing

        What the Tea Party is doing is acting collectively, not as collectivists. Collectivism is an ideology that worships the power of collective effort. One can engage in collective effort without being a collectivist. Collectivism is essentially a perversion of collective effort.

        • monostor

          That’s what I said, that there is a difference between the two. BTW, I have been there and done that, the collectivist part, I mean.

    • James

      > Liberty isn’t possible in a nation with weak morals.

      Yes, this is the crux of the problem. We as a nation of citizen-rulers no longer have sufficient virtue to sustain a republic.

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Which virtue are you talking about?

        • NAHALKIDES

          I would suggest the virtues that are lacking – at least among Democratic voters – are honesty, courage, self-reliance, and not coveting one’s neighbor’s goods.

    • Seek

      We have enough fervor. Fervor inevitably starts when thinking ends.

      • truebearing

        Maybe for you.

        Emotion is what wins football games and elections. When one has has more intensity and willingness to sacrifice for their cause, they will likely win. Obviously, thinking is necessary, but quibbling and squabbling only end up slowing momentum.

        How are a band of singularly individualistic people going to defeat a mindless horde of goose steppers? By lightening up on the Right’s tendency to be self-righteous, put the exigencies of keeping our liberty over the ego-driven desire to “be right,” and start cooperating with each other.

        What was the only significant win for Republicans in the last seven years? The Tea Party’s 2010 victory. Who led it? Sarah Palin. What aroused the voters on the Right? An honest message and sincere emotion. Did the know-it-all Republican pundits help, at all? No. The Republican Party achieved victory, in spite of itself, on a wave of genuine emotion. Differences were put aside and people focused on issues everyone agreed with….but the sniping from behind the lines by Republicans who feared the Tea Party made sure unity was never really achieved. In 2012, the Republican Party boxed out the Tea Party wherever possible, and the results were disastrous.

    • wildjew

      You wrote: “Liberty isn’t possible in a nation with weak morals.” I agree. Historically, nations and peoples are united under the the guidance of great leaders. A moral leader is essential to uniting the political right. I would argue the conservative movement lost its way; it became disorganized under the leadership of former President George W. Bush. What moral leadership did Bush project? Bush repeatedly lied about the enemy, calling it a religion of goodness and peace. Bush gave aid and comfort to our enemies, while he betrayed our allies. Then in 2012 Republican nominated a chameleon of a Republican in Mitt Romney. Romney like Bush lied about the enemy. Romney said “jihadism” is not a tenet of Islam. Near the end of his piece, D. Horowitz wrote: “National-security issues are off the political radar because the Left wants to keep them off ….” and for good reason. Obama’s foreign policy is a disgrace. Romney did pretty good on domestic issues but when it came to national security / foreign policy, Obama crushed him! Why? Because Romney is unprincipled and he was our leader? Romney surrogate (former Sen. Jim Talent) fought conservative Christian delegates at our August 2012 national platform writing committee for America’s enemies. Romney and Talent fought for God’s enemies. Was it reported on this site anywhere? I did not see or read it. Did you? Where are the morals in the Republican leadership? Where?

  • SteveMGD

    ‘Republicans, in contrast, speak with multiple voices, and in words that often have no relation to each other.’
    Ayn Rand explained this almost a half century ago and still conservatives do not understand. The reason is simple. The Democrats are united because their politics and ethics mesh while the Republicans are not united because their politics and ethics clash.
    The issue is not politics, not even culture but something higher. Until those who support freedom realize this they will continue to lose ground.

    • wildjew

      I have read a little about Ayn Rand. I’ve not read her seminal work, Atlas Shrugged. No human being is perfect, least of all me. Didn’t Ayn Rand set a very bad example in her personal life? I seem to recall there was a good deal of exploitation and selfishness in her interpersonal relations. Why should I trust the integrity of the philosophy she propagated?

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Would you trust a slave-owning Jefferson on the issue of liberty? I would … and so would the founders. A good message is greater than the man who utters the words.

        • wildjew

          Not really. Not entirely. Libertarian icon, Thomas Jefferson is not one of my favorite Founders. Jefferson had an introspection problem. He had an honesty problem when it came to his own short-comings. Who was it that wrote, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Johnson, a Tory, of course! Naturally enemies of liberty are eager to diminish the cause by the lack of immediate perfection.

            In the public realm Jefferson took steps to limit slavery in colonial Virginia which was shot down by the crown, added that complaint to the Declaration (removed by the committee), fought to limit slavery in the Northwest Territory, and ended the international slave trade when he was President (the only aspect of slavery in the federal jurisdiction). My only disappointment was that during his retirement he didn’t push for abolition during the Missouri compromise as he did during the establishment of the Northwest Territory.

            He articulated the opposition to slavery and during his active years gave whatever support he could in the public realm. Adams had it easier in that there was little support for slavery in New England. It’s what great men do in the public realm that affects our lives and changes history.

          • wildjew

            I think Johnson’s saying about protestations of liberty among slave-drivers is a good one. Don’t you? I like this one too: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” I have made use of that one often by substituting patriotism with any number of qualities I see on the far left.

            It seems to me, according to my recollection late in Jefferson’s retirement, when the slavery issue was hotly debated (I think Franklin took the side of the abolitionists), Jefferson fell ignominiously silent. He could have, but did not, weigh in on the side of liberty. Did Jefferson, like Washington, order the freedom of his slaves (Sally Hemings) upon his death, in his will? No, I do not think he did. I think he might have freed some of Heming’s children who reportedly resembled Jefferson himself in appearance.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Again, you’re focusing on his private life. As a public figure, especially during his active years, he was a leader for liberty–second to none.

          • wildjew

            Maybe you know, Thomas Jefferson was Andrew Jackson’s inspiration for Indian removal. It was Jefferson who first proposed that Indians that did not assimilate to white man’s ways – give up their dominant way of life based on hunting culture – should be forcibly removed west of the Mississippi River. Jackson forcibly removed the “five civilized tribes” by means of his 1830 Indian Removal Act. Jefferson envisioned white European settlement from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean, in what he called an Empire of Liberty. You might call men like Jefferson, Jackson, James K. Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, etc., imperialists. American empire and imperialism has led the United States into a kind of hegemony over much of the planet.

            This is not new to empires. Rome was a “benevolent” hegemon; an “Empire of Trust” like America. American hegemony has led her to give foreign aid to tiny (dependent) nations like Israel so that she can buy influence in that part of the word. Over the course of the past few decades, American administrations have expended a lot of political capital trying to wrest (take) land that Israel gained in her several wars of self-defense against Muslim and Muslim-Arab aggression.

            Where do you think imperialists like Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson would stand on this policy? More importantly, where do you stand on the American policy that both Democratic and Republican administrations support?

          • NAHALKIDES

            So you think America is an empire, now? Yeesh! Can’t tell whether you’re a Libertarian or a Buchananite, but either way, you place an awful lot of importance on minor matters.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Would love to talk about Jackson’s policy, but here’s not the place. Fortunately I wrote on this back in June of 2008: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html

            Leave a comment there. I’d like to know your thoughts.

          • kikorikid

            So you were around during Jeffersons retirement?

          • wildjew

            I have read about it. How about you?

          • kikorikid

            A great deal. I hold an earned Professional Clear
            Teaching Credential, History.

          • wildjew

            What does this sentence mean to you?

            “…but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence.”

            When was it written and why? Was slavery mentioned in the text of the Constitution in Jefferson’s day? If so, where is it? Do you know where slavery was mentioned in any of Jefferson’s and Madison’s correspondence? Can you produce it for me?

            Why did Nathaniel Macon say, “Tell me if Congress can establish banks, make roads and canals, whether they can free all the Slaves in the United States.”

          • kikorikid

            You are trying to play me like a “undergrad”,piss off,
            what are your credentials.

          • wildjew

            What are your “credentials.” I read. What were George Washington’s credentials beyond his military prowess and political leadership abilities? What were Jesus’ credentials? What were Moses’ credentials? You are a ‘typical’ self-important, arrogant SOB.

          • kikorikid

            You put yourself into some mighty fine company.
            You were asking questions that might have come
            from an academic. Not so! They came from a
            Leftist intellectual fascist.

          • wildjew

            Leftist intellectual fascist. How so?

          • kikorikid

            Excuse me.
            A Jewish Leftist intellectual Fascist.
            There’s a bunch of em around.

          • wildjew

            Would you like to compare our respective positions on the issues?

          • kikorikid

            Try this. You tell us what you are.

          • wildjew

            I self-identify as a political conservative with some Classical Liberal or historic or Biblical “liberal” leanings. How about you?

          • kikorikid

            You had me fooled. I think what has happened
            is that , after dealing with taqiyya spewing Islamist I have become overly cynical.
            General Grants favorite Aide-de-Camp was a
            Seargent who wrote everything for the general. Majors
            and Captains were puzzled but could not do better.
            Finally several officers asked him how he was able to write
            so well? He replied,”Read and Read,and Read, then
            you can write.

          • NAHALKIDES

            And does that somehow negate his words in the Declaration of Independence?

          • wildjew

            There are some things in the Declaration that are good and some things that are questionable. I know Lincoln, to make his argument against slavery, invoked Jefferson’s statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

            I do not hold it self-evident that all men are created equal by God. Clearly all men are not created equal. Nor do I believe liberty is a “right.” Liberty must be earned. Sometimes liberty must be fought for. Maybe that is why dictators largely hold sway in the Middle East, in the Muslim and Muslim Arab world; because these people are unruly and do not know how to control their passions but for a strong hand. America seems to be moving toward despotism. Like they say, people get the government they deserve. Don’t we?

            The author wrote: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

            As a believer in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I do not know Nature’s god. What god or goddess is nature’s god? Ba’al? Ashtoreth? These were nature gods. I don’t know what the laws of nature are. Do you? I know what God’s law, the law of Moses is. People, even Catholics or Christians talk about natural law. What kind of pagan law is natural law? There is much in the natural world I would not want to see people emulate. That is why we call people who behave like animals beasts or savages. My cat has not mercy, no compunction against killing for the sake of killing. That is “nature.”

            PS: Ideally, governments should be instituted by God; not by men. Ideally, a great leader would derive his power from the consent of blessing of God.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            Your philosophy differs considerably from the founding fathers. We are on very different pages.

          • wildjew

            My philosophy is rooted in the word of God; God’s prophets. Where our Founder’s philosophy was grounded in God’s word to His prophets (Moses, Isaiah,, Jeremiah, etc.), the Founders and I agree. On many issues such as the importance of private property and the evils of wealth distribution in order to achieve equality, we agree.

            I think you are wrong. My philosophy differs somewhat (on some matters) from the Founders; not “considerably.” Obama’s philosophy differs “considerably” from that of the Founders.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            On a fundamental level you differ from the founders. When Jefferson was asked about the sources for the ideas in the preamble in the declaration (which you clear find objectionable) he said: Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney. (He didn’t say the Bible.) Jefferson wasn’t expressing his own view but what he (and the declaration committee) thought was the prevailing view of societal thought–creating a document that everyone could sign. This is the [classical] liberal tradition based on classical Greco-Roman thought. This is what you reject.

            No doubt Americans found Christianity valuable for their personal salvation. The founders, however, were creating a secular societal order to support and maintain liberty. For this they employed the natural rights philosophy of the four authors mentioned above. You have sympathy for the results: a just order based on the protection of private property. But you have a completely different path to arriving at that goal.

            It appears we share an important goal but differ on the foundation to support that goal.

          • wildjew

            The word of God supports and maintains liberty. What you are saying is Jefferson worshiped, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney? You also worship these gods? Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Sidney? These are your gods?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I’m telling you where our founders got their political principles. John Adams, for example, worshiped Cicero. This is why: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

          • NAHALKIDES

            Wow – you seriously misunderstand how other people use language, so communicating with your is very difficult. When we speak of Liberty a “right” we mean that every man has the right to be free; we are not failing to acknowledge that in order to force would-be tyrants (such as every progressive) to recognize that liberty we will have to fight them at some point.

            The laws of nature are just that – the rules of the game, what is. Jefferson meant “God” in the Christian sense, perhaps non-denominational, but certainly not some pagan god – what a strange idea! And since God is not in the business of instituting governments, we’ll just have to do it ourselves – a limited government, limited to securing our freedom and not “providing” for our every need by stealing from others.

          • wildjew

            Thomas Jefferson denied the divinity of Jesus; i.e., Jesus was not part of a Triune deity, God or Trinity. Is that a Christian sense? Jefferson was essentially a student and a product of the Enlightenment. Some believe Jefferson was a deist.

          • kikorikid

            Your “PS,ideally…” This is the rational behind Global Jihad.
            Throw away manmade law and replace it with God made law.
            I think you are a taqiyya spewing Troll tool.

          • wildjew

            It is true, Orthodox Jews like authoritative Islam believe governance and power come, not from man, but from God. The difference is, we worship the one true God, not an idol like you and the Muslim world serve.

          • kikorikid

            Oh Really!

          • puciferaneous

            Islam and Orthodox Judaism are the same faith.

          • wildjew

            Very different Gods. Do you see Orthodox Jews blowing themselves up as martyrs for YHWH?

          • puciferaneous

            “True Judaism has more in common with Khomeini and Islam than it has in common with Thomas Jefferson, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, or Adam Smith” – Rabbi Meir Kahane

          • wildjew

            You look to be a pathological liar like Barack Obama. Do you have any good or solid source to confirm this quote was said or written by the late rabbi?

          • puciferaneous
          • wildjew

            OK. I retract my charge. It is unfortunate he uses Khomeini as any kind of a model. He is right when he said, “it was G~d who created man, and that one has to obey G~d’s law,” but the man should know, Khomeini did not worship God (YWHW). Kohmeini and those like him worship a monster. That is why I am not a follower of the late rabbi. In part because of these silly analogies that undermine his argument. Saying true Judaism has more in common with Khomeini than it has in common with Thomas Jefferson would be akin to saying Judaism has more in common with Adolf Hitler than Thomas Jefferson.

          • kikorikid

            And you sure don’t know who I “serve” swami!

      • ADM64

        You should read her works and evaluate the ideas she puts forward on your own. The truth or falseness of an idea is the basis upon which it should be judged. Anything else is wrong. Looking at the person alone is not enough. Rand’s basic point about the contradiction between Republican values and politics is a legitimate point of analysis. Ducking that point by looking at her life – and even then not rigorously – isn’t really advancing the conversation.

        • wildjew

          Not to compare the two, Obama and Rand – there is no comparison – I looked primarily at the person Obama, his life, his adult associations, etc., in order to determine what kind of president he would likely become. Was I wrong to look at the person? Lots of Americans voted for Obama based on the ideas he spoke to but he lied. What Republican or conservative values did Rand take issue with?

          • ADM64

            It’s fair to consider a person’s character when evaluating their statements, but one has to look at them taking everything into account rather than looking for signs of error or weakness in order to justify dismissing their views. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing; it’s a more general observation.

            With respect to Rand, the areas where she disagreed with conservatives dealt with what she saw as the contradiction between the economic-political system they wanted to defend – capitalism and limited government based on individual rights – and an ethical system based on Judeo-Christian principles that she saw as emphasizing selfless sacrifice and charity as the principle virtues. To her, these were incompatible with the defense of the right to pursue (and if successful achieve) happiness, which by definition had to reflect an individual’s self-interest. She also argued that capitalism was in particular based on self-interest and that trying to justify it on utilitarian or traditional grounds, or that it really served the poor best by improving their lot was doomed to fail. More generally, she saw conservatives as sharing a similar ethical system to liberals and thus unable to effectively oppose them. It should be noted that her view of self-interest was that of an independent individual pursuing productive work and interests without injuring others, not merely that the person intended to benefit himself (criminals after all are not selfless).

            Rand’s second major disagreement with conservatives was over religion and reason. She saw reason as man’s principal means of survival and our only means of knowledge. She distrusted justifications based solely on tradition and especially was scornful of the Burkean view that integrated, coherent intellectual systems were inherently suspect. She thought it insane to concede reason to the left or the status of intellectuals as this meant, in effect, that the small government right could not advance an intellectual defense of markets or individual rights as a matter of truth. With respect to religion, Rand was an atheist albeit not of the Dawkins-Hitchens variety in that she saw herself more as an advocate of reason than of hostility to religion.

            Rand’s major weakness – in my opinion – was that while she started with the correct principle that reason is man’s principal tool of knowledge and survival, and that man’s rights have a basis in reality, she tended to deduce a set of conclusions from those premises that did not include other relevant and indeed rational knowledge about human behavior and needs. Her famous affair with a younger follower involved excessive rationalization and has served as proof in the eyes of many conservatives of the limits of her philosophy and the immutable and not entirely controllable aspects of human nature. It’s a valid criticism, but it does not invalidate much of what else she said, to which conservatives ought to pay more attention.
            This is, admittedly, a pretty thin sketch; you’d have to look at her writings for a clearer understanding.

          • wildjew

            Which of her books or books written about her do you consider or recommend as the best resource in terms of defining her philosophy? Did she actually write that the conservative brand of ethics is fundamentally “based on Judeo-Christian principles that she saw as emphasizing selfless sacrifice and charity as the principle virtues.” Selfless sacrifice or selflessness, was that the actual term she used? Selfless sacrifice is more consistent with Christianity than Judaism. Where Christianity’s Golden rule is “Do unto others as you would have others do to You,” the commandment Moses laid down was, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” taking for granted that we are self-interested or that we love ourselves and that we should and do look out for our self-interest. I do not see self-interest in conflict with my faith.

            I share Rand’s distrust on justifications based solely on tradition (or simple faith) without reason or apart from reason. I have been critical of some tradition in my own religion accepted by devout Jews as fact. There are some things I accept by faith. For example I accept by faith that the land of Israel was given to the sons of Israel by God. I accept the moral basis for the Ten Commandments. I think it is reasonable that we not bear false witness; that we should not murder or steal or commit adultery, even when we fall short because this is an ideal. If I read something in the law of Moses that I do not understand or that does not seem reasonable, I set it aside.

            The problem I have with atheism is the same problem I have with dogmatism of any kind. How can a person be certain there is no God? Doesn’t atheism lead a woman like Rand to justify things she knows are problematic?

          • ADM64

            Her magnum opus is “Atlas Shrugged” but as it is a novel interspersed with her philosophy (delivered as character speeches), it might be a bit of a slog (it is a long book). “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “Capitalism the Unknown Ideal” are two much shorter, non-fiction collections of her essays that present her overall views on ethics and politics. “Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by her “heir” Leonard Peikoff is the most comprehensive summary of her entire philosophy. It is medium length but covers all the topics.

            Rand did explicitlly condemn the notion of selfless sacrifice. She did not condemn charity but saw it as a minor or secondary virtue rather than a primary one (in Christian thought, charity is one of the cardinal virtues). Selfless sacrifice and selflessness were the terms she explicitly used. It should be noted, though, that she specifically defined sacrifice as “the surrender of a greater value for a lesser one.” Many common examples of sacrifice (e.g. a parent doing without something to provide for a child) would not fall into this category. Rand believed that altruism (and indeed Christianity) specifically required a sacrifice to mean giving up something one valued more in favor of something one valued less, and thus that the ethics of altruism had also corrupted language. Similarly, self-interest and selfish to her meant “actually in one’s interest without contradiction” thus self-indulgent behavior like using drugs or behavior intended to benefit oneself but that didn’t (like crime) didn’t count, although in the ordinary usage of the language both would be seen as selfish.

            I would agree with you that Christianity is more in line with selfless sacrifice than Judaism, and that the Mosaic principle of loving one’s neighbor as oneself allows for self-interest. I would say that the Golden Rule (do unto others) is a principle of justice and not incompatible. Christians generally hold that the Old Testament applies as well as the New, so there is not much of a conflict. I would agree with you that neither faith necessarily need be interpreted as to forbid self-interest properly understood. Rand – and to a greater extent some of her followers – tended to see what they wanted when assessing religion. With respect to Judaism, the issue would probably have been the notion of God commanding sacrifices in certain instances, as the story of Abraham and his son illustrate (ignored is the mercy that was part of the story).

            Regarding the commandments, one can generally justify most of them in terms of reason; even the ones specifically about God could be justified rationally if one sees God as meaning nature/existence independent of man’s will. Rand would have argued that truth and reason not revelation had to be the basis for any moral laws, not that everything in the Bible was automatically wrong. Regarding faith more generally, the issue is that it is different from reason and should be regarded as such. The natural law tradition in the Catholicism does make that distinction.

            Rand’s atheism sprung from what she saw as the central contradiction in a First Cause/Prime Mover argument namely that there was no logical reason for the First Cause not to have a cause, and so forth. She said that “existence exists” and therefore is independent of anyone’s will or consciousness, secular or divine. Even if one were to admit of a God as First Cause, he would still have existed and thus there was always something rather than nothing. In terms of logic, her argument is fine. She would have addressed your comment in terms of, “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, and in considering the contradictions, I conclude there is no God.”

          • wildjew

            I have “Capitalism the Unknown Ideal” in my “Cart” at Audible.com. I listen to books on audio. I see in the forward the author recommends reading “The Virtue of Selfishness” before reading “Capitalism.” I’m not sure I want to waste my time reading “The Virtue of Selfishness” since it is probably a self-justification for Rand’s own selfish and destructive behavior.

            I must say something also about her theory of Christian “selfless charity.” I don’t know how many devout Christians you speak to. I have discussed Christian doctrine and the Christian worldview with many believers. I do not see this selflessness in Christianity. When I discuss the degenerating situation we find ourselves currently here in the United States, more often than not what I get are the following:

            1) a determinist point of view. Namely, “all events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen by the deity.” It is God’s will; implying there really isn’t anything we can do about it.

            2) the all-important doctrine that believers are saved by grace (non-believers are destined to eternal torment), so what happens in this world is not all that important by comparison.

            Where is the selflessness?

          • ADM64

            Don’t let the title of “The Virtue of Selfishness” stop you from considering it. Although meant to be provocative, it does state Rand’s theory of ethics (including her view of why man needs ethics) along with her politics in a clear way. She provides her reasons; you can evaluate them.
            Are there areas of her writings that were intended as self-justification or that appear such now that we know about some of her behavior? Yes, in my opinion. However, to adequately distinguish between those things and the areas of her philosophy that deserve an objective consideration, you have to read them.
            Regarding Christian charity, Rand was talking about the theory not necessarily the practice. That said, Christians (and for that matter Jews) do actually contribute more to charity than most secularists and atheists.
            Your point about many Christians taking a deterministic stand and that the afterlife matters more is I think both true and perceptive. One criticism of Christianity that Rand made was precisely this: if God controls all, human action is not critical and if the afterlife is to be better and belief is enough for salvation, justice and life in the here and now can be ignored. Thus, the believer excuses him/herself from taking action and responsibility now while congratulating him/herself on his/her virtue. However, not all Christian teaching holds that only believing Christians will be saved and in Catholicism anyway, one is not supposed to waste this life.

          • wildjew

            Yes, it has been my personal experience that Catholics believe they have moral obligations on this earth. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice on abortion, at our local abortion mill (“clinic”) you will see Catholics doing the sidewalk counseling. But for my Catholic neighbors, abortion is the dominant issue, not national security or foreign policy; not the global jihad against the West.

            If Rand wrote, “justice and life in the here and now is ignored” by many Christians, that has been my experience. Everything that is happening to this nation presently “is God’s will; there isn’t anything much a Christian believer can do about it.” This is antithetical to what was taught by Moses and other ancient prophets. It is a bankrupt doctrine. I don’t see how Christians can reconcile the writer of the most of the epistles (Paul?) with the writings of Moses.

            A Christian whose only source of morality and ethics is rooted in the Christian bible isn’t much help to me or those like me. I don’t love my enemies. I am NOT praying for Barack Obama.

        • kikorikid

          A. Rands personal story certainly gave her insights
          into “Collectivism”. Mention A. Rand to a Social-Justice
          Progressive they will react like water on the Wicked
          Witch of the West. Her philosophy has been labeled
          as “Objectivism”. If that means she gave her objective
          opinion then I accept that label. She never lost the
          “Individual” in her writings. Our current administration
          thrives on nothing but collective/group identity and
          stomps on individual Rights and Liberties, the entire
          motivation of the Founding Fathers.


        Rand’s personal life really isn’t relevant, except perhaps to understanding her ideas on sex and abortion. I think she was wrong about Conservatism, but she was dead-on when it came to understanding our common enemy – Collectivism. Atlas Shrugged isn’t an easy read – Rand is no great stylist, at least in English, and the book is too long – but passages of it seem more prescient than ever now. Look up her description of the city – I forget its name – that used to be home to 20th-Century Motors, the automobile industrial giant, before government controls destroyed the company. It sounds eerily like modern-day Detroit.

      • teq

        I recommend “We, the Living” Rand’s semi-autobiographical novel about life in post-Leninist Soviet Russia. I found this work very different from anything else she produced, and it helped me understand her other works, as well as glimpsing who she was as a person. The book was made into a movie by the Italians sometime in the ’50’s and it was excellent, and won critical acclaim.

        But there’s been a problem translating Fountainhead and Atlas into film. It’s been done but the results haven’t wowed anyone, not even fans who would like to be wowed. I think she used two-dimensional characters in these books; They were good guys or bad guys and they knew it. In “We the Living” the characters are much more complex and far less unpredictable. This is probably what made them more interesting as movie characters.


      Republicans are not united because they are split into at least three factions: Conservatives, Establishment-types, and RINO’s. These factions do not share the same goals. The Establishment loves holding office and would rather fight Conservatives – the party’s base! – than the Democratic Left. The RINO’s are part of the Democratic Left, and simply put “R” after their names to confuse people.

      I think that Rand believed Conservative ethics and politics were inconsistent, but I disagree – Conservatives are trying to conserve the ideas of the American Revolution, and the Founders’ ethics were not in conflict with their politics. Rand, remember, was anti-religious, but a thorough analysis would be too long to get into here.

    • Sheik Yerbouti

      For decades democrats were easy to predict. They readily unified behind a candidate when they were running against a republican. But once the election was over they immediately retreated into their own sub-kingdoms and had little to do with each other. Several things changed this. But the majority of reasons I can see are the result of republican capitulation to the clear leftist agenda of the democrats. Why else would we have the degree of social engineering we now take for granted?

      Until republicans grow a sack and show Americans they mean business, it will only get worse for them. People won’t get off the sofa to vote for a republican who backs open borders in any way. That’s not a “compromise”, it’s bending over. Republicans have made the choice nearly logical, vote for the party of gimme programs or risk being left behind.

      Back off the wedge issues and strike at the heart of the democrat’s “progressive”, leftist agenda. Quite taking it on the chin or there will be no chin left.

      Oh, and white democrats are also an endangered species as their pet causes vote them out of existence in favor of non-white candidates. They’ll get theirs to be sure. But what will be left for Americans?

    • kikorikid

      Hey, According to you all we have to do
      is become “True Believers”,right?

  • objectivefactsmatter

    This is because we lost the battles over schools. We’ve got to roll back their march through institutions.

    • Drakken

      The only way we are going to get our schools back, is that we are going to need a massive purge to do it, and start at the top universities and work our way down.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        Actually the unions must go all at once and then purge according to performance standards. The colleges seem the most offensive to us but the damage starts much earlier. And it’s getting worse each year.

        But the unions must go. Union for teachers is totally un-American. It’s deranged but we accept it because it’s been a part of modern life; dealing with communist ideology for generations.

        • mrpoohead

          Hysterical. Why are you so scared of anyone who is slightly left. Pathetic! Reasonable states have parties from both sides and produce governments that fluctuate between the two. There isn’t another Western country that has such an appalling society as the US. We have six times the number (per capita) of prison inmates compared to most- dreadful! They don’t have the grime, they don’t have the social disparity- they have far better social mobility. The US is a dump!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Reasonable states have parties from both sides and produce governments that fluctuate between the two.”

            The problem is not “any left” it’s the Marxist Utopian left. I guess the whole discussion is over your head.

            “There isn’t another Western country that has such an appalling society as the US.”

            I really? I guess we need Marx after all. OK Mr. Psycho. How about you design the perfect society and then rank performance as your programs kick in?

            “We have six times the number (per capita) of prison inmates compared to most- dreadful! They don’t have the grime, they don’t have the social disparity- they have far better social mobility. The US is a dump!”

            If you paid attention you would understand why the left is to blame for some of those soaring statistics. The USA has been a target of leeches and aggressive enemies for many decades. That’s what happens when you’re number 1 in so many realms.

            It’s ironic how much of the modern world is dependent on “a dump.” As the idiot types his screed on the Internet…

  • Seek

    “Falling into line” is as bad an idea for the Right as it is for the Left. It discourages and punishes internal dissent, a sure sign of tyranny to come if and when the power seekers actually take power. We need a variety of opinions on the Right. We already have too much homogeneity of belief.

    • truebearing

      The Republican Party is punishing dissent right now, and has been from the inception of the Tea Party. Does that mean you think the GOP is tyrannical? They’ve certainly hurt our election results, but tyrannical may be a bit too much.

      I agree that a variety of opinions is healthy, but I don’t believe there is too much homogeneity of belief on the Right. We range from Anarcho-capitalist Libertarians to Liberals who can’t spell “D.” What we need is to distill the conservative views to the point we are in agreement on the most important things and not let the divisive media, or power mongers within the Right, destroy our momentum. It’s not like we have to all stare stupidly at our dear leader, with drool running down our chins, chanting: “Yes We Can!”

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    “… the creation of this constitutional arrangement was a revolutionary act. It provided a political framework to maximize individual freedom and allow citizens to exercise their talents and enjoy the best possible lives. What conservatism is about is freedom, and this is its natural unifying idea. …

    Bravo! The core belief of the right is essentially libertarian. If conservatives stick to the core and let go of peripheral issues (especially social issues and nations-building abroad) we could convey a clear message.

    • wildjew

      Where do libertarians stand on national security / foreign policy issues? Americans tried isolationism in the nineteen thirties. It did not work. It cost many millions of lives. Who speaks for the libertarian movement today? Aren’t there differences between conservatism and libertarianism?

      • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

        Nations-building will only deplete our wealth and sacrifice the good men and women in our arms forces. Europe can defend itself. Muslims … let ‘em rot. Latin America can’t be helped. Asides from Israel and Japan, we can diminish our presence abroad immediately. Let’s agree on that and turn to individual liberty at home. Let’s focus.

        • wildjew

          Bush himself campaigned in 2000 against nation-building. I guess he changed his mind. I don’t know any genuine conservative who supports nation-building in the Middle East, Cental Asia. That, among other fundamental reasons, is why I maintain, George W. Bush is not a conservative. Republicans and conservatives allowed themselves to be duped by Bush. Rush Limbaugh carried Bush’s water for eight years; still does.

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I agree with you here.

          • wildjew

            What have I written that you disagree with?

          • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

            I’m not sure we disagree. As a life-long New Yorker I’m often in the habit of arguing while agreeing.

  • Texas Patriot


    As I have alluded to previously, the political right is not united because no one has articulated a *unifying vision* of who we are, what we believe in, and where we want to lead the country. Without that we will always be a cacophony of dissonant voices pulling multiple contradictory directions.

    If we want a unifying vision that works, i.e. that brings us together in a way that all pragmatic, hard-working and optimistic Americans can gather around, all we have to do is return to the foundational principles of America, i.e. (1) human rights, individual freedom and constitutional democracy as articulated in Thomas Jefferson’s incomparable “Declaration of Independence” and (2) free market economics as articulated in Adam Smith’s classic “The Wealth of Nations”, both of which were published in 1776. The reason most conservatives *don’t get it* is that they think that free market economics is a ruthless game of survival of the fittest and winner take all. That was never the intent, at least with respect to countrymen vis-a-vis each other.

    Nations compete to win agains other nations in the international marketplace, and in that arena it is, indeed, a game of survival of the fittest and winner take all. But within nations, we do not compete with each other so much as regard each other as teammates. And that means encouraging each other and building each other up to help the team as a whole. The failure of American conservatives to grasp and assimilate both of these concepts simultaneously is the reason we find ourselves in such a state of disarray today, and it’s also the reason the United States has fallen so far behind in the race for competitive advantage in the world marketplace. Watch this video and tell me what you think:


    And also re-read Barry Goldwater’s classic “The Conscience of a Conservative” which lays out a clear framework for assimilating both the human rights imperative of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and the competition imperative of Adam Smith’s the Wealth of Nations.


    Within these two items there is more than enough material to create a unifying vision for America’s future where we can truly become FIRST IN THE 21ST and fulfill John Winthrop’s vision of a “shining city on a hill” and Abraham Lincoln’s vision of the “last best hope of earth”.

    • wildjew

      Frankly, I see a nation that is no longer a God-fearing one. I see a party, my party, that is no longer (if it ever was) God-fearing. George W. Bush claimed to be a born-again Christian. Romney, a devout Mormon. When it came to critical moral issues, both men were / are immoral. Both men betrayed the God I believe in. Where is a God-fearing leader in the Republican party? Where is a man in the GOP who honors God and His word to His prophets?

      • Texas Patriot

        The idea of human rights is probably as far as we can go with that one. As Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were CREATED equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.” Different people may have different ideas of what the Creator expects from us, but at least in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, most of us would probably agree with the the idea behind the Golden Rule, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

        And that is particularly important in the idea of thinking of our nation as a “ team” which is engaged in a worldwide economic competition with other highly industrialized nations around the world. Yes, we should always treat other nations with the kind of honesty and integrity that we ourselves would want from them. But in the international world of cutthroat economic competition, we’re not always going to get that in return. What we can do, is always make sure that we take care of our fellow citizens, who are in fact our teammates, and make sure that we always do whatever we can to put them in a position to make a maximum contribution to TEAM AMERICA. This would include, for example, excellence in educational opportunities, excellence in health and physical fitness opportunities, and excellence in economic opportunities, not only in terms of high paying jobs, but in the opportunity to create high value-added industries and companies within those industries.

        One thing you may find interesting about all this is that Adam Smith was not only known as the greatest economist of his age, but he was also known as one of the greatest moralists, and his book “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1759) is also regarded as a classic in its field.


        • wildjew

          According to the book of Genesis (do you believe the prophets in the Bible?), God made an everlasting covenant to give Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants all of the land of Canaan; today what we call Israel.

          Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, etc., are all part of Biblical Israel. God truly blessed white Europeans (and their descendants) who settled and conquered this magnificent land. Now then, America is on the front lines trying to take land that God gave to the sons of Israel and give it to God’s enemies; to these Islamic savages who decapitate children; who blow themselves up along with Jewish women and children on buses; who fly airplanes into the World Trade Center towers. What kind of evil has the Republican party degenerated into?

          George W. Bush codified this abomination (of a Muslim enemy state in Israel) in our national party platform for the first time in the history of the GOP, Aug. 2004. Mitt Romney fought for Bush’s vision establishing a Muslim terror state at Israel’s throat. Why would any believer expect God to bless this party I’ve been registered with for forty two years? Why should God give Republicans victory over this Muslim-born president in the White House? Isn’t today’s Republican party a party of flaming hypocrites at the leadership level? What Christian or Jewish leader active in the Republican party condemned Bush and Romney for this evil they both pursued in behalf of my party?

          • Texas Patriot

            I’m not sure this thread is the place to discuss our foreign policy towards Israel. But if you must know, I favor a policy of defensive conquest so that if and when Israel is attacked by her neighbors, she should counterattack and seize the lands of her attackers and expel them, so that either (a) the attacks stop altogether, or (b) Israel eventually reconquers the entirety of the original Promised Land and can, thereafter, form a buffer between the perpetually warring Shia to the north and the perpetually warring Sunni to the south. In that way, the descendants of Israel can keep the descendants of Ishmael from killing each other. How’s that for a plan?

          • wildjew

            Yours is a good plan but is goes against decades of U.S. policy, both Republican and Democratic administrations. I can understand why many conservatives find it uncomfortable discussing this sensitive topic especially since Republican party policy is solidly against Israel’s seizure of lands her enemies use as a base of attack. Bush administration policy was dedicated to pressuring Israel to cede lands captured in wars of self-defense to her inveterate enemies; I would argue to God’s enemies and to America’s enemies. Horowitz’s piece is entitled, “United the Right.” He wrote near the end of the piece that national security (foreign policy) is off limits to the left. They don’t want to discuss it unless of course they have an unprincipled chameleon in the form of Mitt Romney who agreed with virtually all of Obama’s insidious foreign policy.

            I will suggest there will be NO unity on the right until we resolve this moral issue in God’s favor. I do not believe God will bless the Republican party with either victory or unity so long as we are dead set to engage in controversy with the Almighty. (I am not a religious man by the way. I believe in God.) As goes the Republican party, so goes the nation.

            Is that you want? (I mean no offense.) Because if that is what you want – a once great nation that no longer has God’s blessing – then simply maintain that this or that thread is not the proper place to discuss the most important issue of our time.

          • Texas Patriot

            The truth of the matter is that it’s none of our business what Israel does if and when she is attacked. The law of defensive conquest is as old as any law on earth. Whoever engages in offensive conquest should be prepared to lose everything, including their lives and their property. If Israel chooses to exercise her right of defensive conquest and expel the attackers from the forfeited lands, that is Israel’s choice. If she chooses not to, that is Israel’s choice as well. What good does it do to discuss it? Did Moshe Dyan want to discuss his plans for counterattack in 1967? Of course not. He just did it.

          • wildjew

            The United States exerts immoral pressure on Israel. It is US policy. Both Republican and Democratic parties dictate that policy. Israel does not live in a vacuum as you seem to suggest. Since the George W. Bush administration, the Republican party is no longer Israel’s side against the Palestinian Muslim and Muslim world jihad nor is it even neutral. Republican party “envisions” a Muslim-enemy state in Israel’s heartland. The Republicans have formulated a pre-determined outcome of “negotiations” between Israel and her enemies. Bush fought for that change in policy. Romney (in 2012) fought to preserve it.

            Today’s news:

            “First details emerge after three months of negotiations;

            Kerry threatens to allow Palestinians to join ICC (International Criminal Court)

            Elior Levy
            Published: 11.05.13, 10:02 / Israel News

          • Texas Patriot

            The United States is bankrupt, and the Republican Party is dead in the water. Israel needs to chart her own course and let come what may.

            Fortunately, Israel has massive undeveloped resources in natural gas that can be converted to diesel fuel and jet fuel using existing technology. On top of that, Israel is one of the most highly educated and highly intelligent societies on earth, and a global center of high technology innovation.

            With all of these assets, it is absurd that Israel would take the advice of anyone in the United States regarding matters vital to her national security.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Conservatives are generally very sympathetic to Israel; Establishment-types less so. The Democratic Left, of course, is beyond the pale on this issue.

          • kikorikid

            “white Europeans who settled and conquered this
            magnificent land”.

            You are race baiting here. As Islam is not a race,
            so it is that “JEWS” are not a race. They settled
            what is now Isreal not your multiculturally ,PC correct
            definitions of “White Europeans”.

          • wildjew

            You are no historian. Otherwise explain how I am “race baiting here.” Jews are said to be a nation or family “in the ancient sense of a group of people with a common history, a common destiny, and a sense that we are all connected to each other.” Islam is not a race. Neither is Judaism a race.

            If it was not Europeans or white Europeans who conquered and settled the north American continent largely in the 18th and 19th centuries, how do you characterize these settlers in non-racialist terms?

      • cynthia curran

        I don’t care if people are God fearing, Heather McDonald an atheists and conservative has more common sens than a lot of evangelical Republicans on immigration and even on crime. I will take McDonald on some of the issues than Tony Perkins. The Republican Party has play too much with Religion for example is Mark Levin a Christian, no he is Jewish. Is Heather McDonald a christian no she is a non-believer. We need to get rid of Republicans all have to be Christians here. Christianity is different than politics.

    • cynthia curran

      Barry Goldwater is one reason why the GOP is bad on illegal immigration. Goldwater thought that business people could hire illegal immigrants, so business people were punished for hiring than the past 30 years, then they would have been a lot less. The limited government without Milton Friedman’s warning on immigration is what has been wrong with the GOP from Reagan to the present.

      • Texas Patriot

        CC: “Barry Goldwater is one reason why the GOP is bad on illegal immigration. Goldwater thought that business people could hire illegal immigrants, so business people were punished for hiring than the past 30 years, then they would have been a lot less. The limited government without Milton Friedman’s warning on immigration is what has been wrong with the GOP from Reagan to the present.”

        I’m really not sure I understand your points, and frankly, I’ve never heard that Barry Goldwater was anti-immigration. In the first place, illegal immigration was a lot smaller problem when Barry Goldwater was running for president fifty years ago than it is today. I don’t know what the numbers were back then, but today supposedly we have over twelve million illegal immigrants from Mexico and other South American countries.

        Above all things, Barry Goldwater was a pragmatist and a patriot and he was a man of fairness and human decency. My take is that he would be highly in favor of granting a limited amnesty to immigrants who wanted to work hard and make a great contribution to the American Dream, and I think that probably includes most Hispanics in America today.

        Could you possibly elaborate on your ideas a bit, especially the ones about business people being punished and Milton Friedman thought about it all.

  • Spencer Warren

    Conservatives and certainly Republicans don’t respond in kind to the demonization hate attacks of the left. We need a ritual response, a tag line to pin on the Left: far left Neo-Marxist hate America radicals who employ in-American communistic tactics to destroy all opposition. They admitted detesting America by embracing Obama’s line about transforming America. In two elections this could have been shoved down the Left’s throat. But as always Republicans are the Stupid Party.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    http://clarespark.com/2012/11/07/capitalism-is-on-the-line/. “Capitalism is on the line.” I suggest that women’s issues are the drag on GOP victories, and that young women are unlikely to go along with religious conservatives.

    • shmo123

      Based on the way women vote, you’re probably right. But women want all the issues that effect them to be dressed up in pretty packages by a leftist media and sold to a gullible public, no matter how morally reprehensible or ill-conceived those ideas may be. Get over your idea that all conservatives are against you–we’re not– and throw out the shrieking, hysterical so-called “feminists” who see every issue through a prism of gender, and you’ll find we’re not the ogres your proponents say we are.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Nothing would unite the Right today like a grassroots spontaneous protests of millions of Americans around the country aimed at ousting the radical Marxists that have hijacked and co-opted our federal government with the aid of the so-called MSM and the Republican leadership before it’s too late. It’s time for a 10-million man march on Washington DC! If the Egyptians can do it, then why can’t we? Indeed, we invented social media. Let’s show the world how to organize street protests here before it’s too late and before we lose our freedom and liberty. Where is the Tea Party?

  • Steven Chavez

    DOESN’T THE LEFT LEGISLATE, use as a badge of honor, and demand training sessions for DIVERSITY? Universities are even considering Diversity Classes and yet, as David Horowitz points out, the Left needs to take a dose of their own medicine. They are the most un-diverse people on Earth. The Republicans are divided in opinions but is that a bad thing or a good thing? Shouldn’t the Left be proud?

    The Republican Party has diverse opinions and political positions. There is the Far-Right to the Liberals, the RINOs, and everything in between. Presidential candidates were the same. Some were for ______, others were not.

    WHO DID THE DEMOCRATS put up in 2008? They started on the Fart-Left and went further to the Left and into the TWILIGHT ZONE. This strategy insured that a Far-Left Radical CLOSET COMMUNIST would win since their message was about “they are just like Bush” who they demonized more than any of the world’s terrorists and totalitarian dictators. ALSO, I’VE NEVER HEARD A REPUBLICAN CALL FOR THE “OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES!” OR MORE ELOQUENTLY, “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA!”

    Let’s ask Joe Lieberman how diverse the Democrat Party is. He was kicked out for JUST ONE opposing opinion. He was their own VP pick and they kicked him out? The Dems didn’t support his run for Senator so he put an (I) next to his name and he still voted with the Leftists that kicked him out. It’s very difficult to get a person out of a JIM JONES CULT!

    STOP BEING P.C.! THE DEMOCRATS ARE A CULT with a flock of brainwashed zombies who repeat their slogans, talking points, and jokes but if you challenge them, they just repeat another CULT PHRASE and not surprising, they are still BLAMING BUSH because they fall back on their brainwashing! Look at their eyes. They are in a trance. They look off to the side or down.

    THE PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED is that the Communist Party USA operatives, their fronts, their members, their closet members, ARE MAKING UP THE DEM TALKING POINTS and most importantly, their FANCY ONE-LINERS AND SLOGANS. They also search websites like Huffpo for that comment, that one-liner, slogan that they will then use within 24 hours, the media and Obama Zombies are repeating it. They also bombard the websites to defend EVERYTHING OBAMA with those same talking points. Where did “phony scandals” come from? Obama? Michelle? Valerie? I wouldn’t doubt that they have a SLOGAN DEPARTMENT that works 24-7 to come up with that next successful brainwashing trick.

    WHAT IS THE DEMOCRAT STRATEGY FOR 2014? “DEMONIZE THE TEA PARTY!” They’ll continue what the Obama and the IRS were caught doing and get away with. “THE SHUTDOWN!” “The Middle Class.” “The Tea Party.”

    THEY’RE ULTIMATE STRATEGY: PRETEND TO BE REPUBLICANS!!! “Rubio doesn’t speak for me!” “McCain and McConnell!” “Cruz ruined the Conservative cause!” They are all over the net saying, “WE NEED TO VOTE THEM ALL OUT!” THEY ARE GOING TO PRETEND they also mean Democrats and they’ll have nationwide missions to “VOTE THEM ALL OUT” BUT THEY’LL ONLY FOCUS ON REPUBLICANS and many will fall for it. THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTIES WILL ALSO AID THEM by putting up candidates that no one knows and haven’t been vetted completely.

    How many DEMOCRATS are running the State Republican Parties? They have SIX YEARS to groom a few candidates to take on a long-time Democrat and yet one or two surface only months before the primaries and then half the time, they are unprepared when the State Party could have had monthly PAID TRAINING SESSIONS for a group of ten minimum, to get them over the LEFTIST MEDIA GOTCHA QUESTIONS. How many have been lost a few weeks before the election by a GOTCHA QUESTION? (HERE IN NM, HEATHER WILSON was put up against a COMMUNIST, MARTIN HEINRICH, and about a month before the election, THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PARTY LEFT NEW MEXICO AND WILSON. She lost. But other reasons are not enough ballots are voting stations and especially in Rio Rancho where lines were hours long due to the DEMOCRAT in charge who was caught lying and still nothing happened to her. WILSON HAD A CHANCE even without the National support. The Democrats purposely made it slow to vote and many people just left. By publicly leaving, the National Republican Party ensured victory. They didn’t want to “waste” their money on Wilson who in debates taught the Communist a few lessons and Heinrich resorted to the CULT TALKING POINTS and Wilson was frustrated and couldn’t go the low road to call out THE BULLY TACTICS. She stayed civil with a BULLY! THE REPUBLICANS need to take off the PC Gloves and put on BRASS KNUCKLES to fight the sleaziest campaigners in history.)

    “VOTE THEM ALL OUT!” Beware of the Republicans, actually Democrats, who will push this NATIONAL MOVEMENT!

    IN CONCLUSION, when the U.S. supports a dictator we say, “AT LEAST HE’S OUR DICTATOR!” The Republicans are diverse, and some we don’t agree with on several issues, BUT “AT LEAST THEY’RE OURS!” Don’t vote any of them out. FOCUS ON THE DEMOCRATS ONLY AND DON’T EAT OUR OWN! Use the Leftist “DIVERSITY” against them! These RINOS ARE OUR RINOS and they have the funds and savvy to win again. IN THE END, EVERY REPUBLICAN NEEDS TO SUPPORT ALL FELLOW REPUBLICANS RUNNING. When a country wants to oust a dictator, many people run and many different platforms but their division is a recipe for defeat, and they know it, SO THEY FORM A COALITION. The Republicans need to form a coalition too TO OUST THE CLOSET COMMUNISTS! Question: Why is the Tea Party more feared and scrutinized than Communists and the Communist Party? BRAINWASHING!


    David’s prescription – that Republicans rally around the ideal of freedom – is a good one, but it presupposes a united Party that does not as yet exist. The Establishment is motivated by the perks of office, not advancing the cause of freedom, and if it cares about anything it’s big business interests. Thus David is mistaken about all Republicans favoring secure borders (which is not in any case the entirety of the issue, since continued high levels of third-world immigration will destroy us with or without “secure borders”). Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Reince Preibus all want amnesty; John McCain wants no-fly zones everywhere, and none of these characters really cares about free-market economics.

    I think we should adopt David’s prescription as Step 2 – Conservatives will all agree, and maybe even some Libertarians will grow up enough to join us. But first we need Step 1 – take control of the GOP away from the Establishment.

  • WillyWallace

    I have a few liberal friends who are openly criticizing Obama and the Democrat leadership. That’s huge since they used to be foaming-at-the-mouth liberals. It is this type of liberal that are the only ones that can convince other liberals just like a Conservative Black is the only one who can convince other Blacks. Focus on them.

  • Dennis X

    The GOP god ronnie raygun would be deemed to far to the left and eaten alive by the teabaggers!

    • JoJoJams

      You again? Hasn’t your momma kicked you out of her basement yet, and forcibly institutionalized you for your obvious extremist racism, paranoia and schizophrenia?

      • dennis x

        Jolo, please explain how you got racism out of my comment. Please don’t act like you know anything about me, because when you assume you know what happens. My mom passed in 1979 and which of my properties do you think I live in the basement, as-hole!

        • iluvisrael

          Once you refer to a group of people who united against raising taxes as ‘teabaggers’ you’ve lost the argument.

          • dennis x

            When that group of so called people first crawled out from under that rock where dragoon still resides they called themselves ” tea baggers” and to this day they still were hats with tea bags hanging from them .

          • iluvisrael

            Then by your ghetto logic, any group of blacks is a gangbangin, bunch of welfare n!&$ers and you must have become a muzball in prison – like so many black losers.

          • DENNIS X

            So much anger and so little gray matter. Congrads I hear you and your cousin are expecting AGAIN!!!!!!!!

          • iluvisrael

            Any dimwit with ‘x’ as a last name is a low IQ islamobum who follows a pedophile.

          • dennis x

            Being a jew I know you have problems with Islam but the X is just a handle. But thank you for proving my point ie teabaggers are low IQ, racist, meth cooking ,trailer park living, inbred low life scum like yourself.

    • Drakken

      Shhhh boy, the adults are talking.

      • DENNIS X

        Talk is like your mother , CHEAP!!!!!!

  • Mr. Rachford’s ire

    As always sir you have said it all Thank you.

  • Omar

    One of the key rules for conservatives to win the political war is to stop referring tothe left as “liberals”. Our political opponents are not liberals, they are leftists. There is nothing liberal about them. Conservatives are the true liberals, classical liberals. That is undeniable.

  • kikorikid

    We will see won’t we. Obamacare is the biggest slippery slope
    in history-for Democrats to abandon ship.

  • Philip LaFrance

    This is my first time posting on this site, I have read Mr. Horowitz’s book on leaving the Left. I am not anti-Israel, did not vote for Obama nor do I support the ACA and am very suspicious of his use of EO. So please keep the name calling to a minimum. The Republicans claim to have a diversity of opinions on a far ranging number of policies yet, cannot come together when an election rolls around. Why is this? I have not voted for a Republican since the first election of GW Bush. Your readers may scoff but Bush lied, plain and simple regarding Iraq. The removal of Hussein has done nothing to stabilize the region. Next, 9/11 was used by Republicans to write the Patriot Act, a blatant violation of the Constitution. They use the old adage of safety and security over freedom. I choose freedom. In addition they agreed with the Democrats in adding more illegal rules to the NDAA using the same old nonsense about safety over freedom, again I choose Freedom. When it comes to immigration there is nothing but cacophony, Why would we grant amnesty to millions of illegals when our economy is in such disarray. Sen. McCain is the loudest mouth on this subject. He must go, NOW! If amnesty for illegals is being done for the corporate elite then the Republicans will continue to lose support from Libertarians and people like me. I am for immigration but, in an orderly legal manner. Another matter that disturbs many Americans is the militarization of our local police departments. Stop this NOW! We as Americans are not the enemy. Trade agreements like NAFTA, GATT and the TPP are bad for America and good for the developing and third world. Cheap labor means higher profits for the large corporations and service jobs for Americans. Stop this NOW!. Many Americans do not support these treaties. The incessant meddling around the world in the name of fighting terrorism is a sham. The toppling of Libya has created more chaos In central Africa. The Dems may have started this in Libya but the Republicans went along with it. The use of NGO’s in Ukraine is another ignorant attempt to get closer and surround Russia so the US can control natural resources and force a McDonald’s brand of Democracy on them. Banging the drums of War against Iran is foolishness and only ignites or will reignite the hatred that the Iranians have for the US and it’s support of the Shah’s brutal rule. It seems the Republicans want another tyrant in Iran but one that polishes the American shoes. Israel is not the 51st state. It is a modern nation capable of defending itself. If the American citizen wishes to send money to Israel, fine. The 4 billion sent to Israel by the US is acceptable but black budgets are unacceptable. Working with Israel and terrorists to overthrow Assad is filthy. Assad has not threatened Israel or the region since 1967. Didn’t Assad help in the invasion of Iraq. All the US and Israel is doing is creating more terrorists. Americans are not for this(except the extreme fundies). Domestically: Stop calling the unemployed, those on SSDI, those who don’t own homes, the lower classes, blacks, Hispanics and homosexuals names. Stop trying to create a theocracy. Stop telling us how to live and what morals your party will accept. Gather together a Constitutional convention and abolish the 13th, 16th and 17rh amendments. Abolish the fed, audit the fed, stop printing money, stop with the Keynesian economic bull shit. Cease and desist the worship of money, materialism, power and war. Respect Natural Law. Return power back to the states. Abolish the Department of Education. Become a party of all Americans mot just those you deem worthy. When you accomplish this maybe you’ll get my vote and millions of others. Thank You

  • Philip LaFrance

    It appears this site doesn’t believe in freedom unless they define it. I posted an intelligent comment here a hour ago and it is gone. The Republicans will never receive my vote. I will vote Constitutionalist from now on.