Conservatives Shrugged
By Blue Collar Muse Posted in 2008 — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
2007 marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of one of my favorite novels, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". I first read it over a decade ago. It was then, and remains, one of the most influential pieces of literature in my personal and professional development. It's the story of a small group of men and one woman who become influential members of society owing to their contributions in key areas such as business, finance and the like. Over time, they find they are the most successful and prosperous when they base their success on meeting the needs others have in their area of expertise. This personal value is turned against them when the people abandon their own responsibility for their well being and begin to make demands on this small group, not based on the need for their expertise, but on their personal need for security and success. Initially, the group tries to meet those needs despite the personal cost to them. Ultimately, however, they are convinced by one of their number, John Galt, that such behavior will surely destroy the people and it will destroy the group if they permit it. He argues the best course of action is to withdraw from an ungrateful and selfish society and take their talents elsewhere, leaving society to fend for itself. When they do, society crumbles. Hence the name of the book - "Atlas Shrugged". When the one holding the world on his shoulders shrugs, what happens to the world he holds?
I've come to the conclusion that Conservatives and the Republican Party find themselves at a similar crossroad. For 50 years or more, Conservatives have held down their end of the Party and the bargain. They have voted faithfully for the Republican candidate, regardless of who he was, because they had a philosophy of society and governance that focused on the development of the individual based on creating a framework in which individual effort and responsibility were rewarded despite the risks involved. For years the match was a good one as the Republican Party also worked towards those goals. Liberals and Democrats chose a different path which focused on creating a framework in which individual effort and responsibility were discouraged precisely because of the risks involved. One group appealed to people's dreams, the other to people's fears. Republicans and Conservatives hit their zenith in the 80s and early 90s when their appeals to dreams found good soil in which to root and people found the courage to believe they could actually survive the risk of failure and come out on the other side a success.
Liberals, weary of being in the minority, redoubled their efforts at assuring the populace that risk was dangerous and that their only security lay in the safety of kindly, governmental largesse. Despite being a siren song, the appeal worked. People looked at the choice between the hard work associated with the realization of their wildest dreams and the ease of simply settling for something close to their need's threshold and began to opt for the easy way out. As the numbers of people choosing personal pork grew, some in the Republican Party grew envious and also gave up on the idea of hard work. Weary of pointing to the pot of gold at the end of the Conservative rainbow and encouraging people to stay the course toward a success far superior to the paltry handouts the government provided, some GOP leaders opted to switch instead of fight.
Doing so, they also lacked the integrity to leave the Republican Party when they abandoned the principles and values the Republican Party stood for. There was even a new term coined for these men and women, RINO, Republicans In Name Only. At first there were only a few and they still had the all important "R" after their name so they were tolerated and nothing was done to root out the concept. Emboldened, others followed suit and soon the GOP was pulled farther and farther to the Left as these Republicans drifted from their moorings. Those who remained true to the ideals got a name, too. Conservatives. It was pronounced with a sneer and a barely restrained urge to wash up after speaking it. Conservatives stood, not at the extreme end of the Party, but at the place where the party itself had established its success in the 80s and 90s and called to their GOP brethren to come back. They begged them to return so that what once had been would be again. The GOP was having none of it. The upshot of the GOP efforts was that in 2006, after disowning, shunning and scorning Conservatives and their pleas for years, Republicans found themselves once again in the minority party.
Now it is 2008 and the GOP seems to have learned nothing from their recent beating. We appear to be poised on the brink of nominating John McCain as our Presidential candidate and the head of our Party. Despite very real and legitimate Conservative concerns with McCain on the issues of immigration, campaign finance and judicial nominees, Party power brokers rallied behind him and plucked him out of the bottom of the pack just before Iowa and he is now claiming to have the nomination all but wrapped up. With Super Tuesday and Feb 9th less than a week away and looking at the polls and primaries, McCain may just be right. It is at this point that things get interesting.
Interesting because now the GOP will go to work on Conservatives. The GOP is, for all practical purposes, out of Conservative candidates to run for President. They have not supported or nurtured such men and women for years so it should come as no surprise. The goal is no longer the triumph of principle and substance over smoke and mirrors. It is merely triumph at all costs and then hold on the winner's seat by any means necessary. Electability is the new buzzword and principles be damned! Conservatives rightly find this attitude repulsive. They are distancing themselves from McCain by the thousands with many declaring they cannot and will not vote for him. The GOP's response is fascinating. They argue that Conservatives must vote for McCain or else it is a vote for Mrs. Clinton or Obama. Instead of working hard to give Conservatives someone to vote for, they're relying on the Democrats to give Conservatives someone to vote against. In short, they are appealing to Conservative's fears instead of their dreams. This is precisely the wrong approach.
It may not happen in 2008, but it might. If it doesn't, it's coming, mark my words. If the GOP continues to take Conservatives for granted, there will be a price to pay. At some point, Conservatives will realize that our own values and principles are being used against us and we'll shrug. We'll stay home, we'll join or start a third party, we'll begin to vote for the candidate that best represents us even if it's a Libertarian or a Democrat or any of a number of other options. But it is certain that we will stop being the servile lapdog for the Republican Party. For some of us, that time is this year. For others of us, we'll be swayed by appeals to the specter of a Clinton or Obama Presidency and the importance of Supreme Court nominees or a half dozen other excellent arguments and we'll delay that impetus to shrug. It remains to be seen if the GOP will get the message, however. Many an abusive husband has reassured his battered wife that he was sorry and that things would change and that he's different now. There's no need to call the cops or her dad. We all know how often that turns out to be true.
Still, some Conservatives will hold off, wanting to believe. So it is now up up to the GOP to put up or shut up. They can either demonstrate Conservatives are welcome in the party and will be heard or they can decide the GOP can get along just fine without them. I, for one, look forward to finding out which it will be. Because I'm torn. I'm trying to decide - shrug or don't shrug. Some of my friends have already decided and they're gone! Others are encouraging me to keep the faith because the stakes are high. I haven't decided yet. But the weight on my shoulders is getting uncomfortable and I've developed an itch between my shoulder blades. I can choose to keep at it despite the discomfort. Or I can relieve the pressure and scratch the itch - if I just shrug.
Wondering if it's worth it to re-shoulder a burden once you've set it down ...
that shrugging and sitting on the sidelines is what has generated this predicament in the fisrt place.
"The day you think you know it all is the day your trouble starts."
This sentiment seems to have hit a real sensitive spot for many of us. Repair Man Jack makes some good points. They have to be considered. But the alternative needs to be looked at as well. The Right is fond of asking when black Americans will wake up to the disrespect continually heaped on them by the Left which takes their votes for granted. The same question is asked of Jews, gays and other core Liberal groups. I'm just asking the same question of Conservatives and the GOP. I think it's a legitimate question to pose. And good and thoughtful people are going to come down on both sides of the issue. That process is beneficial, IMO, regardless of which answer one finally comes to.
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
made two tragic errors by intervening in Primaries. They need to stay officially nuetral. If either Specter or Chaffee had been primaried, grass roots conservatives would feel less disenfranchised. Even if the more authentically conservative candidate had gone down like the Andrea Dora in the general election, the party would feel more engaged, and its leaders would feel more inclined to answer to constituents.
That being said, we still have an awful lot to lose. A GOP loss in 2k8 truly would be worse for the conservative movement, and the average American citizen than the GOP loss in 2006. So much more goes on the table this time.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Try telling us how A McCain (or Romney, for that matter) Presidency will be Better than a Hillary or Obama Presidency.
And don't tell us about the differences between the GOP and the DNC and how one is better.
Tell us about the differences of McCain (or Romney) and Clinton (or Obama).
Because, frankly, I'm not convinced that McCain IS any different and I don't even know what Romney's real position is on anything (I'll still take the pig-in-a-poke over the known evils, though).
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
1) John McCain will not accept an unsuccessful and generaly cowardly exit of our forces from the Middle East. Barack and Hillary are open to the first excuse to start the high speed rewind of the entire GWOT. This sort of cowardice will be read for exactly what it is.
Our enemies will smell a wimp from miles away and rape it for what it is worth. A Democratic victory is a recipe for a greatly enhanced war against America by Islamic Fundamentalists. Reagan's doctrine of peace through strength remains the only language that most of the world's leadership really understands.
2) John McCain will make an effort to to fight gratuitous political bribery in the form of pork barrel spending. Hillary and Barack will merely ask "What's in this for me?"
3) John McCain will remain partially beholden to conservatives on issues such as immigration and judicial nominees. You'll hate his policies on these topics less, because he actually would operate in a climate where people like Sam Brownback and Jim DeMint wield some clout. If Hillary or Barack were President, no one would care that 30 or so GOP Senators still bothered showing up to make futile votes against an agenda they were powerless to stop.
4) John McCain will veto tax increases and will generally defend the prinicipals of free trade. Barack and Hillary will "stick it to the rich" and "protect American jobs." That Lou Dobbsian outlook is the road to national marginality. McCain's keeps America modern and relevant, The Democratic zeitgeist is more in tune with the decadent and rotting 18th Century Speanish Empire.
That's at least four I came up with, without much effort.
5) Oh, and I don't know McCain's exact policy on healthcare, but I somehow doubt it's garnish my wages if I don't buy the approved plan.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
He's my Senator, and I wouldn't vote him in for dog catcher now. Read up on him, he's conservative in some ways (more than McCain), but that's not saying much.
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Get rid of every GOP Senator who isn't *perfect*, and we can have 10 GOP Senators who are totally irrelevant while a Democratic administration rams whatever socialist tripe it wants down our throats. But we'll all greatly appreciate the ideological purity of those ten guys.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
Surely you don't mean what you seem to be saying. McVain has so many liberal positions that there will be no STARK differnces with the dems. Go ahead. McVain has 25 years of votes taken. The last 12 have not been to CONSERVATIVES liking AT ALL. Oh and not to libs either.
Did all of you big McVain supporters REALIZE that McVAIN voted against the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Holiday? Do you really think that the Liberal media (or any media for that matter) will NOT POINT THAT OUT during a general election?
All Of you McVain suppoerters have another thing coming. I can't Wait to watch..HE IS GOING TO EXPLODE! and implode.
We had a chance to purge one of the worst RINOs from our ranks and everyone from the President to his fellow PA Senator Santorum came to the rescue (Santorum must have held his nose as he did so), and I saw for the first time that the GOP valued electability and tradition over principle in an election we probably still would have won with Pat Toomey.
I've also read 'Atlas' and found it a fascinating book. Overall I agree with your line of thought but don't see it as serious or as black and white as you make it.
We are not yet at the end of the world and politics is a fluid thing. Both John McCain and Mitt Romney, if they win the nomination and then the general could govern as true conservatives. As much as I dislike McCain, there is something about the office of President that can change the man who occupies it. Not often, I admit, but it can happen.
The greatest single cause of Atheism today is Christians who profess Jesus with their lips & then go and deny him by their lifestyle. That's what an unbelieving world simply finds..unbelievable -Brennan Manning
from Bush or Santorum. He lost because he had a vast lead in advertising money and because the Specter brand sells to the liberal/moderate Republicans who make up the majority of the Commonwealth's GOP.
I'm from what has been called a "conservative" area of the Commonwealth, though that's largely a product of a lot of lip service, so it's easy for me to forget that Pennsylvania is a blue State.
We missed a huge opportunity, though, in not nominating Pat Toomey. He'd probably have beaten Joe Hoefel by a wider margin than did Arlen, and he'd have probably made a good Senator.
Excellently written. As one of those "shrugging" (great book choice, and great parallel, by the way), this expresses my feelings and reasoning nearly to the letter.
Recommended: A must-read for conservatives, and for everyone who has used the "Vote for McCain or else!" routine.
Fred Thompson, 2008
Two simple sentences:
"Electability is the new buzzword and principles be damned! Conservatives rightly find this attitude repulsive."
I keel over whenever I hear some talk about "public-perception is reality". It doesn't make it true.
(Side note: I apologize to everyone here for my blowout this weekend. I'm mostly sorry for being snippy with Lord Vegas whom I admire now.)
That's one of the best expressions of how I feel. Far better than I could have done myself. Bravo
FredHeads for Mitt!
I agree with you've said 100%. But I think the problem is this: You say 'the GOP takes conservatives for granted' but you *are* the party. I am the party.
The party isn't some abstract concept. It's a group of people that you and I are a part of.
I do agree and I'm one of the folks who will mark the ballot for the candidate that best represents my beliefs and I won't engage in strategic voting although I'm probably being irrational.
So my frustration, like yours I think, is how to effect change in a system where the incentives are misaligned? I strongly believe that human nature is greedy and selfish and without the rule of law to constrain human nature, the result will be as you describe.
Excellent post - I'm going to reread Atlas Shrugged.
Thank you for expressing so eloquently my own thoughts. For you it was the Toomey-Specter battle. For me, that travesty was even exceeded by the million plus dollars the RNC spent not just propping up a liberal Republican Senator, they viciously attacked his primary opponent (Whitehead comes to mind but I could be wrong) who was a Reagan Republican.
I am under no illusion that Whitehead would have won a state as deeply blue as RI. And I might have not made the same decision to spend Republican dollars in support of a Republican senator who didn't even vote for Bush is '04 but could have understood the 'strategy' of doing so. But the vicious attack ads 'we' ran against a Reagan Republican was vile.
That moment marked the end of my sending my money to any national Republican apparatus because it was the ultimate 'win at any cost' mentality. My dollars now go to individual conservative candidates.
"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
The current senator is Sheldon Whitehouse. The primary opponent for Chafee was Steve Laffey. (spelling might be incorrect)
Vote for the ulti-Mitt conservative. Romney '08!
DISCLAIMER: I am loosly affiliated as a volunteer for the Mitt Romney campaign. All viewpoints expressed are my own, not the campaign's.
Fred Thompson.
Democrats: Aborting infant democracies since 1961!
Pure capitlistic-libertarianism has never existed on anything like a large scale. As much as I love the master, her work is still a work of art.
At the end of the day is this:
We cannot simply shrug and leave and let the system go boom while maintaining our ideological purity.
The choice is:
McCain and much of what is good, vs. Obama/Clinton and nearly nothing that is good. Do we move the national interest forward as much as we can in *this* election cycle, or do we allow our troops to be betrayed, defeat to be imposed, and overwhelmingly *worse* immigration policy than what McCain was involved with to become policy and law.
And if you do in fact care about abortion and Judges, to shrug is downright irresponsible.
Wake up. This is not a novel.
The point is that the GOP is heading toward the place (and far too many would say has already arrived for it to be just a fad or disgruntled minority) where they are little different from the Democrats.
Immigration is important to me. How is McCain different from the Dem candidates? He worked together with Kennedy to draft his legislation, for heaven's sake.
Judicial nominees are important to me. McCain was a member of the Gang of 14 that threw solid Conservative judges under the bus. While it can be argued that his actions paved the way for Roberts and Alito, at the minimum, he should have waited until Frist clearly decided to go nuclear or not. The way he did it and that he did it at all leaves lots of questions as to how he would be significantly different from the Dems.
Freedom of Speech and real, informative campaigns are important to me. I won't belabor McCain-Feingold. I'm not even mad at McCain for proposing it. He didn't necessarily know how it would be used. But to hang on to it and be proud of the place it now has in the debate makes me wonder about how he is different from the Dems he wrote the bill with.
To simply say that staying home will be worse than electing a Dem ignores the real and serious questions Conservatives have about the candidates the GOP is promoting.
To be aware of those candidate's shortcomings, even to the point of deciding there are no differences of note between the parties, is not being asleep. One cannot be engaged enough to formulate those sorts of questions and be asleep.
The persons doing the shrugging are not traitors or fools. They have simply come to the place where they believe, with good reason, that a vote for the GOP is not different from a vote for the Dems.
You are free to disagree with them and argue your position. You cannot, however, dismiss their concerns as baseless. Of course it is not a novel. But the ideas in that novel are quite real and quite relevant. Hence the application.
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
in the primaries?
Wake up---Super Tuesday hasn't even happened yet. When McCain clinches the nomination, then we can talk about the situation you describe.
However, if you look at the Super Tuesday and Feb 9th states polling, McCain is doing quite well. Enough so that he, himself, claimed this last weekend to have the nomination wrapped up. I said this in the diary.
I am not, however, convinced that he is the guaranteed nominee. As I wrote, "We appear to be poised on the brink of nominating John McCain ...". That's hardly a statement of final determination.
And it will matter not if McCain is not the nominee. The situation I describe will still exist even if Romney wins. It would have existed if Fred had won. There is a real disconnect in the GOP at large with Conservative positions and principles. One need look no further than the GOP candidates this year. After Fred and Duncan Hunter (neither of which were 100% either), which of the remaining candidates has a clean claim to Conservative credentials? Why have Rudy, Mitt, Mike and John all been touting that they are Conservative? Perhaps because there are some questions. I don't recall Fred or Duncan having to make that plea.
Thus, even if McCain is not the nominee, we'll still need to deal with this. Better now than later.
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
Or Romney?
Or Paul?
Huckabee is almost as bad as McCain. His only saving grace is that he Used to be quieter about it (of course, that could just be because he didn't have a National stage).
Romney has changed his positions so many times on so many topics in such fundamental ways with little to no explanation for the changes that we have no idea what we'd get with him (given the alternatives, I will actually vote for the pig-in-a-poke if given the chance).
So who do we all gather behind this year?
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
As a politician, what is there to like about the man? How is he different from Clinton or Obama?
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
Is your question for real?
John McCain will not surrender in Iraq.
John McCain will not lose the war on terror.
John McCain will strengthen our military.
John McCain will appoint conservative judges.
John McCain opposes abortion and infanticide.
John McCain opposes HillaryCare and MittCare.
John McCain will threaten to use taxpayers' money to bail out the automotive industry.
He was not my choice, but if you think he's going to harm the Republic in the ways Hillary or Barry will. you've got to be crazy.
McCain has said that he has to let conservatives know that he is one of us. Okay, whatever. That he would make the effort, when he does, means a lot to me. It means that we are not being kicked to the curb.
He's what we have. We should make him earn our trust, since we are the machinery which wins elections for Republicans. He's not in ideological lockstep with President Reagan, but at least he does not try to pretend to be. And at least he is not Hillary, not Obama: two dedicated statists who would love for us to shrug, as they'll walk on our shoulders to positions of great power from which they'lle excercise great power over our lives.
McCainiacs say we shouldn't discuss this aspect of McCain and that it doesn't conflict with his supposed Pro Life position, but embryonic stem cell research is nothing but an affirmative strawman case FOR the necessity of ABORTION. Don't be smarter by half and deny it. By the way, Mitt will kick butt in the GWOT, because not only is he for kicking butt, he'll make sure the country's economy is strong enough to buy whatever our soldiers need and not add a trillion.2 dollars in absolutely insane CARBON TAXES like McCain will! What has your boy McCain EVER DONE to manage an economy?
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
But there is much different about him from and the other two.
Mcain has an ACU rating trending down from the 90's. Currently he is in the low 70's (year over year not cumulative)
Obama and hillary have flat 0 ratings.
Second he has never equivocated, never back tracked, never flinched on the war. He did go bizarro over torture but given his history that may be understandable.
So yes there is a nice bright line dividing him and the Dems.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Judging from the success of national preference polls, we should have had a President Dukakis, President Gore, and President Kerry. Furthermore, Rudy should have been the uncontested frontrunner in this race. I think a voodoo priest throwing down bones to see the future would have done a better job than these "infallible" polls! I would be embarassed to admit being for McCain because some poll says he's the ONLY one who can beat whichever vacuuous lib they throw at us. Are general election debates figured into these polls? Mitt would rip either one of these paper machie leftists apart in a debate, McCain would agree with them that WE need to be "united". Thanks, but I'd rather not!
America stands for bold colors!
Tim Schieferecke
Romney would dominate in the debates against Hillary or Obama. Polls can change a lot once the democrat's nominees start to get exposed by our candidates. I wish we had a stronger Conservative we could support, but as it is, I think either of our candidates will be strong once we debate the issues with the other side.
The upshot of the GOP efforts was that in 2006, after disowning, shunning and scorning Conservatives and their pleas for years, Republicans found themselves once again in the minority party.
2006 the GOP DID NOT lose because conservatives stayed home. This lie has been repeated over and over and over.
I am a conservative but will never vote for Mitt Romney because he is a fraud. He was always pro choice, pro gay rights and pro gun control until he decided to run for President. He is a liar.
I don't mean this to be a threadjack or to be glib, because I think your diary is excellent -- I'm just wondering if you've ever seen it or played it?
It's a 1st-person 3D RPG/shooter game for the XBox 360 and PC set in an ornate art-deco underwater city founded by a guy named Andrew Ryan, drawing heavily from Atlas Shrugged but recast as a dystopia. Unfortunately in this beautiful undersea world of high-achieving supercapitalists, something has gone terribly, terribly wrong...
I am Andrew Ryan and I am here to ask you a question:
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow?
No, says the man in Washington. It belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow. It belongs to everyone.I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...Rapture.
From the Wikipedia entry...
BioShock is set during 1960, in Rapture, a fictional underwater dystopian city.[26] The history of Rapture is learned by the player through audio recordings as they explore the city. Secretly built in 1946 on the mid-Atlantic seabed, Rapture was entirely self-sufficient and powered by submarine volcanoes. Constructed by business magnate Andrew Ryan (voice by Armin Shimerman), Rapture was envisioned as the solution to what he saw as increasingly oppressive political and religious authority. The city was populated by those whom Ryan believed exemplified the best in humanity. It was revealed in an audio log that Ryan wanted Rapture to become an "Eden," a concept furthered by the resources ADAM and EVE, which are named after the biblical inhabitants of Eden. During the early 1950s, Rapture's population peaked at several thousand, though an elite emerged, discomforting many of the inhabitants.[32]
The development of ADAM—stem cells created from a species of sea slug—by Dr. Bridgette Tennenbaum further upset the social balance. ADAM's prevalence greatly accelerated genetic engineering research, creating a plasmid industry that sold everything from a cure for male pattern baldness to skills like telekinesis, with non-passive types like the latter requiring a serum, EVE. In order to improve ADAM yields, Rapture scientists created the "Little Sisters," young girls, each with a slug embedded in their body. Although initially just ADAM "factories," during the war which later broke out, they were repurposed via mental conditioning to extract ADAM from the dead, and process it within themselves.[33] At the same time, the scientists created "Big Daddies," (voiced by voice actor Stephen Stanton) armed and highly enhanced humans in diving suits—to defend the Little Sisters as they worked.[26]
For several years, Rapture was what Ryan originally intended it to be: a paradise of freedom and wealth. But ultimately, the very reason it was created—Ryan's hatred of authority—caused the city's downfall, and the ideals Ryan had envisaged to be corrupted and lost. To keep his utopia a secret, Ryan passed a single law: contact with the surface was prohibited. This turned out to be one too many. The edict made smuggling profitable, resulting in the formation of a small black market. This market came to be dominated by a man with just as much determination as Ryan: former mobster Frank Fontaine. Unlike Ryan, however, Fontaine wanted control. His wealth, combined with his monopoly on Tennenbaum's research, soon gained Fontaine enough power and followers to challenge Ryan for control of the city.
... liked it, too.
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
The architecture and setting is just glorious. I've always loved Art Deco and it's worth the price (or at least the download time to play the demo) just to walk around inside the city and look at the scenery; their artists did a really beautiful job of rendering the crumbling utopia.
In the larger sense, though I think you're making a very valid point, because what we're witnessing in some ways is a consequence of the fact that many people no longer believe there's an authentic difference between Conservative and Liberal thought, and that both parties are increasingly irrelevant as a result. Arianna Huffington is one of the more popular proponents of this view, although really her purported political agnosticism is a postmodern version of FDR liberalism with a globalist twist, and she expects everyone to get on board.
It's definitely getting harder to find true examples of Conservative Republicans in this country. They're almost extinct in terms of their appearance in the media. That's why I am still learning so much from Paul Cella and I treasure everything he writes here.
I tend to agree with most of the posters here that can see no reason to stop fighting for the conservative political causes. We are mostly political junkies, and it is our nature to continue the fight.
There has been a steady drum beat of animosity and hatred toward wealthy businessmen. Words like "Halliburton" and "Exxon-Mobil" are spoken in a hiss like they are evil incarnate. If this attitude results in attempts to really soak those rich bastids, and really make them pay and pay dearly, then they might shrug. Halliburton has already moved most of their operation to UAE. This is the kind of shrug that concerns me.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
Capital is increasingly mobile. Currently, this helps the U.S. However, given the wrong policies, it could hurt us.
It is easier now than it has ever been for individuals and companies to move. Given how many "growth opportunities" are available in the developing world, we do have a serious risk of capital flight if we pursue a bad path.
People who hate business do tend to chase it away. Corporations don't argue. They just shrug and walk off.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
After a while, you get tired of explaining away stuff like Steel Tariffs.
Stuff like Farm bills.
Stuff like Highway bills.
Stuff like Immigration Reform.
Stuff like signing McCain-Feingold despite saying that it's probably not Constitutional.
It gets downright demoralizing.
The Democrats had it made, in a sense, between 2000-2006.
All they had to do was complain about the stolen election, then complain about the economy, then complain about the war... and, out of everything that Republicans had to defend Bush for (and there was much to defend) there was much that just didn't make sense.
Surely there is a thought that it might be nice to be able to sit on the sidelines again and scream "you're doing it wrong!" rather than having to explain, yes, earmarks are excessive but you have to understand the context in which they are taking place...
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Jag777
With all due respect, yes we Democrats now have it made. You offered up the second most incompetent President in history (the first being Ronald Reagan). Had Bush been a CEO of one of your beloved corporations raping America at the present, his rear and the rear of his incompetent national security adviser Condelezza Rice would have been run out of town on a rail after that little slip up of permitting a bunch of deranged Arabs bombing the capital of capitalism and the capital of the American Imperial army.
Now you are left to eat your own. McCain is the only one among you who has the guts to lead, to compromise in the American spirit of compromise. Bush, Rove, Cheney, and that splendid Secretary of Defense (what is is name) aren't fit to lick McCain's boots. The stand in a long line of jerks (most of whom live in the South and fund places like the Citadel) who love to send young men to their deaths as long as they're not their sons.
Turn off Rush and the rest of hate radio. Read something that doesn't support your narrow view. Read a critique of Ayn Rand's books. Go back to school and study history including American history and then ask yourself what the hell the so-called "conservatives" ever did for this country. If you seek the truth honestly--it takes courage--the answers will astound you.
Jag
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
But I'm not one of the resident "conservatives".
I'm one of the resident nutball libertarians.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If that's how you really feel. There's no place for you in this one.
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
Right now, Americans are crybabies and their government primarily exists to push large sums of money around to the favored connections on both sides of the aisle. They accept risk only in the weakest sense: risk without consequences, risk with an increasingly elaborate and comprehensive collection of government fallbacks.
It's astonishing to me as a fourth-generation immigrant that anyone coming to this country honestly believes that they are entitled to government services, but that's precisely what we're telling the millions of prospective immigrants. What is worse is that we've fostered a culture where people believe that not-for-profits funded with government money and donations and other forms of subsidy are going to help America in the long run.
And the people who aren't running not-for-profits increasingly look to the government for setasides in its contracting. Blackhedd himself said it a few days ago when he told everyone that the growth areas of our economy are now in Government and Health Care, and the big corporations know this: my two Xerox sales reps. with a combined tenure of more than 20 years recently had themselves tranferred to the Government Contracts divison, away from sales to businesses. That's where the money is.
If the world ran according to the principles it should, nobody in the federal government would be rushing to introduce a stimulus package based on *tax rebates* -- they just never would have taken that money in the first place.
And the really weird part about it is that goods and services are still very cheap in America. Gasoline is a little high historically but it's not exorbitant. Cars are cheap. Food is cheap. The problem is that nobody saves a dime any more, they immediately spend it. Even millionaires (on paper) are living one paycheck to another in a lot of cases. Lots of people have forgotten thriftiness, as opposed to stinginess. Thriftiness means stacking one dime on top of another and not living beyond your means. We're a very unthrifty, disposable, throw-away society used to convenience and easy living. Don't have a job? Have a credit rating in the 400s? Want to buy a house or a car anyway? NO PROBLEM, hombre! Then, if you can't pay, wait for the government to come and bail you out.
Part of the problem is that we've forgotten the kind of basic economics that people used to get taught at their mothers' knee. You just spent $200 on text messaging, ringtones and music downloads on your iPhone? THERE GOES YOUR iPHONE, my dear.
I don't pity people at places like Bank of America, who started issuing credit cards to people without Social Security numbers. I was actually in a bank branch in Massachusetts and watched one guy waltz up and get one.
Bankers used to be thrifty people in tight fitting suits with bow ties and wire-rimmed glasses who spoke in clipped, meticulous diction while they told you "NO" when you asked for a loan to buy your girlfriend a vacation to Cancun. Bank of America and a lot of other credit card companies turned themselves into the Salvation Army of Credit.
Because if you were, I might be tempted to incur the wrath of The Much Younger Trophy Wife and blow you a kiss for this one
If the world ran according to the principles it should, nobody in the federal government would be rushing to introduce a stimulus package based on *tax rebates* -- they just never would have taken that money in the first place.
Very nicely said ...
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
I am not a female, although I do like to kiss them. In the meantime you can kiss my alter-ego ikslawoK, who fills in for me here from time to time and is compensated well for the things I ask him to bear on my behalf. ;)
For more from The Muse, please visit Blue Collar Muse; and
The Voice of Liberty Podcast Network
Blue Collar, I'm printing your post out and putting it in my freedom collection. This was so well done I'm sure it will really tick some McCainiacs off but I loved it. Without a return to conservatism, R will soon have as much meaning as the r in ruble, or Russian, or ravaged. I'm with Rush, Sean et. al., I will vote for Romney. If he doesn't win, McCain will have to make some remarkable moves to capture my vote. Hiring on Duncan Hunter for Veep would be a start but not enough. Once McCain is the candidate, I will no longer stand against him in blogging, but I won't support him either. God save this Nation!
Tim Schieferecke
Jag777--well known liberal.
Blue Collar, I know that you have really thought this through. With all due respect, I am wondering if you are an only child. Only children often pick up their jacks and go home if they don't get their way.
For starters and what you ideologues and banner wavers don't get is that democracy, indeed the evolution of our American experience is a process of trial and error continuously pushed by change. Amongst all of the mistakes and successes, we muddle forward. The founding fathers knew this would be the case. They would laugh at some of your attempts to preserve your position at all cost through such arguments as that the Constitution is a static document.
Those of you who call yourselves conservatives--the self proclaimed Ciceros of your day see yourselves as all superior, Rand's Atlases holding up the world for all of he rest of us poor slobs. If you withhold your superior intellect and hard work and moral authority--the rest of us--well we're doomed.
The fact is that the American Revolution--the perpetrators of which were all once perceived as liberal swine as far as the King and mother country were concerned is about to shrug off you people and your reactionary counter revolution once again. You are on your way out this election, many of you will refuse to even play and are coming up with "Dolchstoß" arguments just like the one you are making. The American Revolution will continue back on path in its quest of answering the question of how to balance the rights of the individual against the needs of the majority. Of course you are not vanquished. Any time a human being is faced with the tempting thought (usually in moments where great luck or trust funds intervene) that he or she is vastly superior to other human beings you and your fellow banner wavers will be there to affirm that opinion and you will use fear and hatred and ignorance to do it.
But for the moment, the disciples of Ms. Rand have to step aside for once again that have tried to stop change which of course is not possible. The have tried to be "conservative" by definition.
Respectfully submitted,
See my comment below. But in defense of conservatives, the vast majority of the ones I know do not have the sneering contempt for the people that I am more accustomed to finding among liberal elites.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Your characterization of the American Revolutionarries as "liberals" in the contemporary sense is far off the mark.
They were self-consciously conservative.
They revolted against the monarchy because they believed the monarchy had become a threat to their ancient liberties as Englishmen, which they believed to have some correspondance with their rights as human beings.
They declared their revolt to be a matter of moral necessity, and not a matter of popular and personal choice.
Their appeal to a higher, binding, moral law--coming from God, and their goal of preserving their ancient liberties marked them as conservatives in their own eyes--and in these respects, they were decisively different from (1) French revolutionaries and (2) the modern "liberal," with their embrace of secularism, and their passion for novelty.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Jag777
Texan, we disagree. English Parliament and the House of Hanover were the epitome of conservatism. Franklin and Jefferson--men of questionable religious faith, and Adams a truly religious man, sought sweeping change of the status quo ente. Maybe it is semantics but for me Liberal = change, Conservative = maintain our position of wealth,position and control so that we can feel like Ayn Rand.
American Revolutionaries opposed to Tories.
American Abolishinists opposed to Slave-holding Secessionists.
New Deal regulated capitalism and social security verses hands off capitalism and social Darwinism.
Civil Rights for all verses Segregation.
Liberals and change however painful verses Conservatives and the Status Quo. Change is very scary for humans--it is why Conservatives exist n'est pas?
Respectfully submitted,
In all of those disputes you mentioned (save perhaps one), the opposing sides presented themselves as conservatives--or even more so restorationists.
Of course American Tories thought of themselves as loyal subjects--as conservatives. But the American Whigs (as Jefferson called himself) thought of themselves as preserving ancient liberties, not making up new ones. The whole argument of the Declaration is that the history of the PRESENT King of Great Britain is a history of "abuses and usurpations."
Similarly, the slavery controversy involved radicals on both sides. The secessionists slaveholders repudiated the Founding, especially the Declaration of Independence, and when they formed a new government, made radical changes to their constitution.
Conversely, there were some abolitionists who spoke radically--of destroying the whole Constitution. But they did not form a majority of that coalition that won behind Lincoln in 1860--who was profoundly restorationist in his rhetoric--let's bring slavery BACK to where it was at the Founding--on the road to gradual extermination. They opposed the new laws that, for example, opened up new federal territories to slavery's expansion.
Civil Rights movement--here too, profoundly restorationist, seeking the promise of the Declaration and the enforcement of the existing Constitution. Again there were anti-American radicals here too. In the eyes of the Civil Rights movement, Jim-Crow represented not tradition, but a post-Reconstruction REPEAL of the Constitution.
Now as for the New Deal, the way you phrase it suggests that it was reactionary--reacting against "social Darwinism"--far from a conservative ideal. Still, the lite-socialists that were behind the New Deal were self-consciously innovators--they privately spoke of radically transforming American government and to reject the constitutional order of the Founders. It is in reaction to these innovators--with their indifference, if not hostility to property rights, federalism, and separation of powers--that you have the birth of modern American "conervativism."
And when these liberals then turned to aggressively promote secularism--and to do so through judicial decision, and to promote the whole array of policies to furhter the sexual "revolution,"--then you have another element of modern conservativism. Here to the radicals were open about their radicalism.
And when you have anti-anti-communism morphing into a reflexive anti-Americanism in foreign policy--again something foreign to our political tradition, then you have another element added to modern conservativism.
In all these "movements," the modern liberal cannot find a precedent in the beliefs or the rhetoric of the Founding, the anti-slavery cause, and the Civil Rights movement. They were restorationists, not radicals--and all of them guided by a common religious view that human rights have their ultimate foundation in the will of God.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
I'm sorry in advance for reacting in this way--but I think this diary is one of the most ridiculous displays of self-importance I've ever read on this blog. I am frankly stunned by the enthusiasm with which it's been received.
On the one hand, I do believe that conservative leadership in our country is of great longterm importance. The future of western civilization--its great freedom and prosperity--still depend on America. And the future of America depends on the Republican Party. And the future of the Republican Party depends on the conservative wing of that Party.
Still, this dependence only manifests itself in the very long-term, probably after all of us are dead. And no, the world will not stop simply because we decide it's time to get off the ride.
I have never read the supposedly brilliant Ayn Rand. But if every review I've read is correct, I suspect that its brilliance appears only to those who are flattered by its account of super-men on whom everyone else relies.
If every self-consciously conservative activist, blogger, etc. should drop off the face of the earth, the world would--somehow--go on tolerably well. Business, commerce would continue, etc.
And no, President Obama would not surrender us all to dhimmitude.
And maybe, just maybe, our fellow citizens would still perceive the value of the American experiment, and preserve it, at least in some form.
Honestly, I have much more "faith in the ultimate justice of the people" (as Lincoln said) than is evidenced by this diary.
Indeed, it is not the great masses that this conservative fears. As William F. Buckley once observed, he would rather be governed by the first 100 people whose names appear in the Boston phonebook than the Harvard faculty.
And I for one have much more faith in the average citizen--including the average person who happens to vote for Democrats--than I do any self-appointed elite, whether they be liberal judges, liberal academics, liberal entertainers, or conservative bloggers who fancy themselves Randian uber-men.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
Jag777
Well Texan, your comments do indeed bring me hope. I am on the other side of the political spectrum--maybe left of Lenin God forbid if he exists at all.
I am also a Montanan.
But that I can hear rhetoric from my philosophical adversary that makes such sense leaves me hope that America can find the kind of political respect and rhetoric that will forge the correct course for the nation. We always need to find some common ground and to those who say we cannot--well they are indeed the true enemies of the democratic republic.
I grew up a few blocks from Karl Rove--he attended the Mormon "public high school". I took the bus and attended the boys "Catholic School" across town. If you would have known him then he would have scared you to death and to know that he was to become the President's chief political adviser without ever being institutionalized is very frightening indeed. He and his group were the architects of government without respect or compromise. He and his allies may have set the Republican Party back a generation but then again I said that about Nixon and was wrong.
Please, please tell me you weren't the President of the Young Republicans at A & M!
All the best,
Jag
The space/time continuum could be bent to meet the moment when a super group of conservatives made the choice to bind together in freedom and life and reject the status quo, to convince the people now is the time to rise up against tyranny and oppression...and have these very incredible rebel rousers...freedom fighters...revolutionists...take action and set everything right again through sacrifice and strength of character...by leading the ignorant and willing to fight for individual rights...
yet for some reason people don't believe revolutions can happen any longer...when did we forget to dream, forget to fight, forget to live by the principles we talk about?
I know I sound like a Ron Paul...but I'm not...
...although it wasn't like Washington had google and the main stream media pulling out all of his skeletons before he became general...
let's face it...perfection isn't within the reach of any conservative...but we sure could do a better job at messaging the cause of liberty through individual responsibility, national security, and protection of life and the pursuit of happiness...
You talk about shrugging...I say that Goldwater Republicans, Reagan Republicans, and the generations that carried conservative principles wasted their golden opportunities...conservatism was already wounded long before the greatest generation got the free rides on the city buses...
There's no point to shrugging...its already been done...what you're talking about is finding a base that can lift it back up...
and frankly that base isn't found anymore with the exception of bloggers that talk a lot and do even less within their own communities...
You're an armchair quaterback calling the game...
You may shrug...but I'm gonna spend the rest of my life trying to lift that big damn globe out there...and that starts when the people are ready to revolt...
I don't want to be a Reaganite... I'm no Goldwater wing...I want to be a revolutionist!
I want to convince a super majority of this nation that the Federal Reserve is destroying our property rights...
I want to convince a super majority of this nation that sovereignty is the only way to preserve our individual rights in the "global economy".
I want to convince a super majority of this nation that our government needs to stop the excessive spending, and that taxation works only when governments look for ways decrease their roles...
I want to convince a super majority of this nation that bill of rights has more to do with protecting the sovereignty of their individual rights without enumeration.
I want to convince a super majority of this nation that the PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN TOO MUCH POWER TO ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION through the Sixteenth and Seventeenth amendments...
Conservatives shrugged a long time ago...Let's find the base to fix it..
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. "-James Madison
maybe this will fix it
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
on this thread. I believe we need to concentrate on grassroots buildup. Elect conservatives locally, to your state legislature, & to the congress. Be able & willing to explain what conservatism means to you, personally. Get involved & stay informed.
Too many conservatives are whining, not shrugging.
As far as celebrating Ms. Rand's atheistic books, well, I won't tell the theocons if you won't.
Love Atlas Shrugged. Not too fond of the underlying, subtle flavor of objectivism but I love reading the surface struggle of capitalism vs. socialism.
As Jag777 will shrug or shudder, you have to believe in god (which Ayne did not)to become a conservative. His arguments keep avoiding that little problem that conservatives always hold - that there is a higher power or authority than man. Our founding fathers saw the crown as liberal because the crown started to believe the hype that the King was the head of the Church of England. England became self-aware of their power and deemed themselves to be the givers and takers of life and liberty.
Socialism is a disease much like cancer. While Jag777 will praise Social Security, I abhore it. It was the little melanoma that made its appearance on the skin and has started grinding it's way into the understructure of our body and country.
This is where Rand's point becomes evident. We WERE (past tense) a very rich country. Money seemed to flow like rivers in this country. Our great capitalistic machine made tons and tons of money. Social reformers said "oh the little man is being left behind, crushed under the wheels of capitalism". And we in our generosity started granting gifts and hand outs. We are rich beyond our wildest imaginations. So we will "help" people when they are old and sick. Then we "help" them when they lose their jobs (Unemployment) and then we "help" them when they lose their homes (HUD. We "help" them when they get to sick (Medicare) and we help them when they get old and sick (Medicade) - I might have those backwards - I don't use social help programs - I just pay for them. Suddenly, we are not so wealthy anymore.
But that didn't stop the cancer. It wants more. We want clean air regardless of what that does to industry. We want uninterupted vistas of beauty without ugly man-made structures regardless of what that does to industry. We want to be protected from our own stupidity when buying home mortgages. We want economic stimulus packages because we don't want to feel the pain of a minor recession. We want prescription drugs paid for, we want, we want, we want.
But who pays for all of these wants and needs? Well, it is the captains of industry - capitalism. Because if we don't have capitalism we have socialism - just like the USSR. My what a fantastic experiment that turned out to be.....I know the world was rushing to buy USSR cars, USSR washing machines, USSR steel, USSR oil, USSR food products - oh no, wait that was USA materials they all wanted. That is Ayne Rand's great warning to us. The golden goose can not keep producing more and more as people keep stealing the eggs. Like a giant ship,as more and more barnacles attach themselves, the ship slows and finally becomes useless until we send divers down to scape the barnacles off.
As to shrugging, I have done my part - I quit my money making job over 7 years ago and now make 1/10th of what my annual income used to be. Why would I give up all that money? Because I have always been careful with my money and watched the dollars and cents. My boss turned to me, desperate not to lose me - he offered me a 50,000 dollar increase in my salary. I live in Maryland. After taxes, that $50,000 pay raise was going to reult in $10,000 in my pocket - $40,000 was going to government agencies - 80% of my pay raise evaporated. So I sat there and thought - all my hard work, all my efforts and I do not get to enjoy the fruits of my labor - I should have been keeping MORE of my money not less. This was MY hard work and MY success. Yet the majority of my funds would be going to barnacles - dragging me down with every step I took.
So I shrugged - my boss got just the opposite of what he wanted. The computer system I was building didn't get built in a year, it took 4 years and many more wasted dollars to replace me. But I had zero incentive to move on - so instead of doing that which gave me great wealth and comfort I opted out. I am doing something fun and when it makes too much money, I stop and go lay on the beach for a while. I get to share the beach with a bunch of folks on Social Security, Welfare, Unemployment, Disability, Medicare, Prescription Drug plans, etc.
I try to vote conservative and stop this madness but everyone is hooked on this drug called socialism. When you get to socialized medicine or universal health care, the goose will finally be cooked. The folks paying the bills will one-by-one give up and move on. You will achieve a great equality of the masses and the USA will end up as drab and lifeless as the old Soviet Union. Enjoy standing in line - I should be dead just about the time this becomes a stark reality - no kids, no worries - unless the government finds my little stash of non-taxed dollars.
So go ahead - take the Republican Party to the left - expand socialism as far as you can. But the conservatives do have it right and they do share the vision of the founding fathers of this nation - one nation under god; for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, a union of states (not a single large government) that join together for mutual protection; a representative Republic (because Democracies make stupid decisions by popular emotion). Wake up folks! The ship is sinking and the barnacles that you could have scaped off years ago are bringing you down.
I read Atlas Shrugged several years ago and it confirmed many of the views I already held. I am definately an Ayn Rand Republican/Libertarian.
I won't vote for McCain.
I have conservative principles by which I live my life and McCain does not reflect those principles. As a self-identified conservative I insist that my represenatives earn my support. If you vote for candidates with whom you strongly disagree on major issues then which one of us is shrugging?
to the secret hideaway valley real soon.
Atlas Shrugged was a wonderful, very long, piece of fictional art.
To confuse that with the obligation we ahve to the running of this Republic is naive.
Jag777
Archer;
You seem like an intelligent sort. No socialism per se is not the answer, nor is unfettered capitalism. The ravages of both are on full view if you choose to get your passport stamped (I am surprised how many conservatives haven't left their State, let alone the country).
Well I am the benefactor of the socialist state you envision. It helped me get an advanced degree, become a CEO, and put four children through college (again with the government's help). I think your outlook is shared by many conservatives--even armed with your Gods (conservative Muslims have Allah, etc.) hope seems to be elusive right now. You pray to a King on high and are just passing through this imperfect world on your way to a perfect heaven.
Democracy is always undermined by Theocracy. You either follow a King or "higher being" who has all of the power or you don't. As for me and my imperfect democrat comrades, many of us would just as soon strike the word "worship" from the dictionary but of course we believe in free speech.
Godspeed to you. Take your little stash of cash you are hiding from the government and leave this imperfect world to those of us who really care about one another and in all of our imperfection continue to push for change in the human condition which here in the U.S. could be described as heaven as opposed to what you will find in many places across the oceans.
Because however, I am a humanist and also have more than a fair understanding of the message of the new testament, I hope something changes in what seems to be a very lonely existence.
Archer, some anthropologists think at one time we were down to 4,000 or fewer of us, and then probably against the advice of some medicine man and godly prohibitions some of us decided to live and move on. Damned Humanists--always believing in humanity.
The funny thing is you could have received your degree, become a CEO, and put four kids through college without the government's help...but now you have to live with your own shame....
nobody condemned you, but you can repent of your sinful reliance upon government...trust me you'll feel better knowing you've made a change that doesn't ensnare your children and grandchildren with debts that can't be paid back...
you're such a humanist...well where's the humanity is stealing from your progenitors?
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. " -James Madison
is an overweening sense of self importance and a superiority complex. That goes along with a very one sided view of history and human nature.
Funny how since the French Philosophes in the late eighteenth century we have had millions of "humanists" and enlightened thinkers writing about the end of religion. And yet, it seems that the world is as religious as it has ever been.
Of course, maybe that is because your understanding of history and human nature is not really adequate. I never met a self professed humanist who wasn't a preachy stuffed shirt.
Meanwhile Christians and Observant Jews go about funding hospitals, orphanages, hospice, homeless shelters, and try to provide people with love, hope, and fulfill a spiritual need
while humanists like you slander them by comparing them to the Taliban.
I suppose it is easy not to see the little people perched in your high tower right? Hard to even notice the sad adherents to a dying religion, or as your fellow humanist Stalin once said "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
interesting...you prayed and took money from other's you find to have a lonely existance....you are hardly a humanist...you are merely a soulless blood (money) sucking human.
I do hope that your CEO salary is taken to provide college for someone else's 4 or more children.....pathetic little liberal ideas.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Probably not. It will a snap once I've invented John Galt's perpetual motion generator and his Romulan Cloaking Device.
Until then, shrugging has its price. I assure you Midas Mulligan will not be piling up gold in your name, while Barack, Hillary or for that matter, Senator Arlen Specter is ruining our country. With 6 SCOTUS justices at age 70+ and a war on, shrugging and sitting on the sidelines will get us a boatload of well deserved unpleasantness.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.