Skip navigation


The editorials are already rolling in. The conservative press is hand-wringing and cautioning the new administration to ignore the mandate, and proceed with caution. Some in the liberal press are ecstatically interpreting this victory as a mandate for all things liberal: gay marriage, Kevorkian cocktails, euro-socialism and determent camps for the religiously obnoxious. Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation writes:

Indeed, future historians may well view Barack Obama’s victory as the end of the age of Reagan and the beginning of something substantially new. And progressives can justifiably claim that the election outcome was a clear repudiation of conservative economic ideas and absurd claims that a more egalitarian approach to growth constitutes “socialism.”

However, what I think happened last night is actually an affirmation of Reagan, not a rejection. America rallied around the candidate who appealed to our better angels, who conducted his campaign with steadiness and integrity, who, most importantly, pointed to a new day in America. And you don’t get more Reagan than that. We shall see.



  1. I thought that I would give you a full day to bask in the glory. Besides, who wants to poo-poh the second coming (guess there weren’t enough clouds in Chicago to acsend from the heavens).

    It was great to see the historic moment to see a black man elcected to be President of the United States. The only better moment for me would have being able to have a black candidate for whom I could vote. Regardless of the racial and political philosophy aspects of the election, I do believe that Christians who voted for Obama had to wear judical blinders to cast their votes. In effect, missing the E on the eye chart while creating a nuanced approach to what it means to be “Pro-life”. Christians should read the whole eye chart, but to miss the E because you like Obama’s social policies is a travisty.

    Regarding the affirmation of Reagan, it just goes back to the same arguments of personality and policy. I would, for now, agree with you that Obama and Reagan share a larger than life personality. Thats where it ends though. It is not the steadiness and intergrity of the person only, but also the steadiness and integrity of the ideas. Obamas ideas have more in common with, at least, the last year of Bush than ever with Reagan. The electorate voted for change and got four more years of Bush. I will be shocked if in four years we have more than a minimal amount of troops home (I mean home not just rearranged). I will be shocked if we have any improvement to our economy. To be fair to Obama, I would be shocked if it didn’t happen regardless of who is President.

    Reagans famous “Government is not the solution, government is the problem” qoute would seem appropriate here, but I have always found that qoute to be lacking. I would rather qoute G.K. Chestertons newspaper essay on “Whats wrong with the world?”. Chestertons simple response “Dear Sirs,I am. Sincerely yours, G. K. Chesterton”.

  2. If government is the problem, why should the government be in charge of a woman’s reproductive choice? Pick a lane and stay in it.

  3. I don’t buy your particular analogy, but I will rephrase in your terms. My lane has two aspects and one result:

    The first aspect is the foundational layer which is LIFE. I am more than willing to look at what I called “the whole eye chart” of your nuanced approach to “pro-life”, but why would there not be agreement to start with the “E”. Innocent life of both the young and old have to be protected. The protection of life is not a “single issue voter” it is a “foundational issue voter”.

    The second aspect is the asphalt layer of LIBERTY. The trouble with the question posed is that liberty (the liberty of the women to chose death or life for her child) is not the foundational layer. You can not have true liberty in a free society without the foundation of life. Liberty pre-supposes life.

    The result is the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

    My argument is for a one lane road called the RULE OF LAW. It has to have LIFE and LIBERTY in the correct foundational order but beyond that it doesn’t matter if there is a democrat or a republican driving. What we now have is a multilane super-highway called the RULE OF MAN with only a few remnants of a foundation left. The only thing that matters, to both sides, is whos driving. You have made correct observations concerning the past driver (Bush) but your agent of “change” (Obama) is nothing but a new driver on the same road. You are turning a blind eye to the foundation of life in the same way the republicans turn a blind eye to liberty.

  4. It’s not an analogy. It’s an observation that your Libertarianism seems to long for more governmental oversight of certain liberties. It just seems inconsistent.

  5. Yes, I would like to have a system of government, particulary thru the legal system with due process, that provide just punishment over the right of any one person or group of people to kill, steal or lie. Libertarianism doesn’t mean do as you damn well please. It means outside of the rule of law do as YOU damn well please.

    This is quite the opposite from your system of government that provides oversight and just reason for the right or certain liberties of any one person or group of people to kill (abortion), steal (taxation) and covet (redistribution).
    Or to put it another way, inside the rule of law do as WE damn well please.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: