tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post5318736989789336352..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: The Left-Wing “Conspiracy” of the RightUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-89103598904766511502008-02-01T01:06:00.000-05:002008-02-01T01:06:00.000-05:00Oh, and another thing that could happen in the nex...Oh, and another thing that could happen in the next couple decades is that Jesus could go back to the Democrats. If the Jesus vote were to be split evenly between partys and thus become irrelevant, or if it were to go entirely to the Dems, William Jennings Bryan was, after all, the original prosecutor of the Scopes Monkey Trial. Then we might have a Republican party possibly capable of redemption. I don't think the Democratic party is ever going to be anything but statist. The very name of the party is anti-freedom and its entire history is consistent with that. But the Republican party could conceivably change back into something less destructive. That change will never happen if they keep winning and thanking Jesus for it. <BR/><BR/>"Jesus is the reason" It has such a nice ring to it and wouldn't it be great if we could say it in answer to "why did the Republicans lose?"Cedar Bristolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16265238073694388741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-36784822314563780462008-02-01T00:43:00.000-05:002008-02-01T00:43:00.000-05:00I would say the first thing a voter should conside...I would say the first thing a voter should consider is what kind of results are possible. That limits his considerations to a very small and manageable number of things. If between the possibilities there's a significant difference, (if it's 1860), then you vote that way, for Lincoln. <BR/><BR/>In 2008, I don't believe the results of the next election will directly do anything to advance statism or slow that advance. But it's very likely that one party will lose some amount of power and the other will gain some. It's certain that the Republicans will either lose the White House or keep it while the Dems either gain it or remain outside of it. <BR/><BR/>If the republicans lose the White House, they will have to explain why. They can't denounce W for being a communist welfare queen while they're hoping to hold on to the executive branch, but they can if they're out of power trying to explain how they got there. This doesn't mean that they will, but the possibility of it is enough to make me look forward to voting against whatever empty suit they nominate. They might not openly question their relationship with the drinkers of their savior's blood, but then again they might. They'll have to explain the loss somehow. This possibility is worth voting for in my view. <BR/><BR/>So I guess the more succinct answer to Burgess's question is take the possible outcomes and the likely interpretations of those outcomes and look for a combination that's worth voting for or against.Cedar Bristolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16265238073694388741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-45726786014225068262008-01-24T08:44:00.000-05:002008-01-24T08:44:00.000-05:00If Americans see any “change” come November of thi...<I>If Americans see any “change” come November of this year, it will be a promise of the worst kind of change: a few steps closer to totalitarianism.</I><BR/><BR/>So far as I can tell from news reports, most candidates from both parties are urging change in one form or another. None are saying the Bushite movement's policies are exactly on target, so let's continue politics as usual.<BR/><BR/>If that is true, there will be "change" regardless of who wins the presidency and Congress. The change will either be toward a more theocratic statism or toward a more secular statism, with statism gaining either way. <I>Nothing</I> in the present political scene suggests an imminent move away from statism overall.<BR/><BR/><I>Will Americans fall for the “anti-big-government” line of the advocates of bigger government? The November election will tell. The best justice Americans can give the party that wins is to not give it a sizable mandate to further destroy the country.</I><BR/><BR/>An individual voter cannot know ahead of time whether there will be a "sizable mandate" or not. The electoral results depend on too many factors. So, a voter can't intelligently vote to counteract a mandate.<BR/><BR/>That leaves open the question: What <I>principle</I> should the voter follow in voting for a party (if he is voting wholesale) or for particular individuals (if he is voting retail) from either side of the partisan menu?<BR/><BR/>Identifying--and succinctly stating--the principle a voter should use as a guide is the problem, at least for me.Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-90937932998666552902008-01-23T04:55:00.000-05:002008-01-23T04:55:00.000-05:00What a testament to the power of ideas.The corolla...What a testament to the power of ideas.<BR/><BR/>The corollary being that the RIGHT ideas, once unleashed (as Ayn Rand did unleash them) can also have an unexpected power.<BR/><BR/>All the work being done by the Ayn Rand Institute and others in increasing readership of her books is going to pay off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com