Here’s an excellent piece by Stephen Bourque.

When Republicans pursue the policies of a bloated, paternalistic state, as they have for decades, their failures are blamed on freedom. When Republicans expand the federal regulatory grip with ever-increasing rules and restrictions, the inevitable failures are blamed absurdly on “deregulation” and the “free” market. Republicans have outspent Democrats for almost half a century; they dealt the killing blow to the gold standard, imposed price controls, meddled ceaselessly with the monetary system, and expanded the welfare state. It is primarily Republicans who have ushered religion into government affairs and legislation. Republicans are behind compulsory health insurance, corporate bailouts, TARP, funding of religious groups, and the prescription drug bill. Republicans have prosecuted a weak and sacrificial war, putting our fathers and sons in harm’s way not to crush an enemy but to hand out food. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?

His sentiments express precisely why the Republican party is no more an ally of freedom and individualism than the Democrats. In fact, they are in many ways more threatening because they operate under a facade of “freedom” and portray themselves as proponents of Capitalism. When their statist policies fail, the ideals they profess to champion are then held accountable by the left.

For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike have been the active enemies of freedom. Thanks to the Republicans alone, freedom has taken the blame.

Until a political movement based on the fundamentals of Capitalism emerges, America can only deviate amongst varying degrees of economic destruction on a path bound for dictatorship.

There was a point in my life where her writing was almost therapeutic, but disgusted sympathy is the only response I can muster to this luke-warm call to arms by Peggy Noonan.

Like a basketball team which never identifies which goal to shoot for, or a football team who narrows it down to a only a few plays in the huddle, conservatives have no unified goals or principles. Philosophy drives ideas and any group based on an alleged ideology void of explicit principles will be ineffective. Noonan understands that unity within her party is non-existent and makes an attempt to define some basic tenets. Just like other pragmatists, the prescription is a call to abandon principles.

The poles that keep up the tent are the party’s essential beliefs. Republicans over the next few years should define what each of their tent poles stands for—a strong defense being an obvious pole, a less demanding and intrusive government being another, a natural affection and respect for tradition and for life being a third—and how many poles there are.

I can’t argue with the first, which is about the only position of the right that stands to reason. After the first, however, we get the same vague, implicit notions that the republicans have coasted on for decades.

Less demanding and intrusive? In what manner should we seek less demands and fewer intrusions? Should a proper government in a free society be demanding at all? Less intrusive? Should it be intrusive at all? In what way might it rightfully intrude?

Affection for tradition? To what aspects and to what extent? The American tradition imparts a shift to statism, should that pattern be upheld?

Respect for life? Absolutely, but in what sense? I can only guess this means violating the rights of women to their own lives by banning abortion.

In summary, here we see the same worn-out bromides that have defined the right for the last 50 years:

• The mixed economy is proper, so long as men can still produce.
• Uphold the status quo, whatever that might be.
• Tie it all up with theocratic underpinnings.

Noonan, like the troops she’s trying to rouse, shares the same moral base as the left - altruism. Hers is only decorated by trivial subtleties, tinted by religion, and hued by an implicit “common sense” provided by a foggy understanding of how freedom equals prosperity.

The ground is shifting. It’s hard to get your footing in an earthquake. As Republicans on the Hill try, they must also try to steady their party. It needs a greater sense of realism about its predicament. It needs less enforcement and more encouragement. It needs to inspire the young and the politically unformed not with bloodlust but with ideas.

Right, but which ideas? There’s not a single mention of the proper role of Government, individual rights, or any supposed alliance with the founding principles of this nation.

A great party allows everyone in, and allows prospective members to self-define. If they say they’re Republicans, they should be welcomed and helped to find a place where they fit. A great party has a lot of such places. A great party is expansive. A great party has [to] give. [emphasis and edits mine]

Abandon principles (which have yet to be defined), be flexible, give in, cooperate, compromise - the only thing that matters is what group one professes to belong to. So long as the jersey has an ‘R’ on it, they’re on the team!

By her prescription, not only will the conservatives remain pathetic in the defense of rights, freedom and Capitalism, they’ll continue to shift further towards the statism of the left - leaving America to choose only between two variants of the same collectivist nightmare.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a more eloquent tribute to the superficial nature and impotence of the republican party.

This recent Laura Ingraham interview with Nicholas Provenzo exemplifies the epitome of evasive and concrete-bound thought. The discussion revolves around Provenzo’s impressively controversial thoughts on abortion and Down Syndrome. Take a listen….

Notice how she staggers from one angle to another, never fully allowing any thread of the conversation to reach its logical conclusion.

Not surprising, Provenzo’s point has been taken completely out of context throughout both this particular discussion as well as the overall debate. His case contends there is a rationally moral case for choosing to abort a mentally or physically handicapped fetus - that there are instances where such action is morally viable. He absolutely does not prescribe or even suggest abortion as a blanket prescription for any child with disabilities. Ingraham knows he’s not the monster she depicts him as, but as one who fails to properly regard reason, her thoughts are susceptible to being, and apparently are, emotion-driven. She knows if she follows Nick’s logic attentively she’ll very quickly have no tangible premise to hide under. She’s leveraging the very tactics of those she despises on the left. In terms of objective principles they’re cut from the same evasive mold.

It seems uncomfortable for her to discuss the value of human life in objective terms.

This manner of discourse is typical of Conservatives, namely because their principles are vague and not fully supported by reason. Commanding the tempo of the discussion is essential to her survival. When her points seemed to fizzle as Provenzo calmly and articulately wades through the emotional muck underlying each, she’d diffuse the engagement by rudely interrupting, insulting or moving on to her next flimsy argument.

As someone with a somewhat conservative-minded background (read: vague, implicit tendencies for freedom and rights) I can typically find at least a small area of common ground with those on the right. Being only slightly familiar with Ingraham, I never formed strong opinions of her either way, but this interview reveals her essence and proves she’s not worthy of any further consideration.

She’s another fine example of the mystical pragmatism that occupies the Conservative mindset. Even despite her technical advantage in this engagement, Provenzo still clowned her. In a neutral forum without the luxuries of raising her voice and controlling the call button, her hollow rhetoric wouldn’t stand a chance.

And another thing… who is Ann Rined?

From Myrhaf:

Tonight we watched the beginning of the end of freedom in America, brought to us by well-meaning Republicans who have not the slightest idea that their perverted hierarchy of values will lead to destruction of individual rights. They were all good people we saw on TV tonight. Good, solid Americans. Their ignorance of economics and philosophy will be the end of the country they love.

I have many friends and family who correctly detect and loath the destructively nihilist essence of the left. What they fail to see are the thorns in their own bed of roses - which are just as deadly and cloaked in a much more palatable guise. The truth is they are still cheering for a losing team, and for exactly as Rand wrote in “Conservatism: An Obituary”:

Yet capitalism is what the “conservatives” dare not advocate or defend. They are paralyzed by the profound conflict between capitalism and the moral code which dominates our culture: the morality of altruism . . . Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same society. [emphasis added]

As long as sacrifice, in any sense of the word, is part of a political platform the result will be destruction of wealth, freedom and life.