Reader’s Comments
Issue 206 – June 20, 2012
Editor: I want to reread your “Defending Social Conservatism” but my first reaction is that you have uncovered serious flaws in Jeffrey Bell’s theory. I had focused on the social conservative message not the deeper meaning of his book. Of course you are right and Mr. Bell (and Professor Charles Kessler) is wrong – liberty is the core conservative principle, not equality. EL
Editor: From reading your editorial “Defending Social Conservatism,” Jeffrey Bell seems to share my view about elites. The GOP needs an entirely different structure to cut back the influence of the elites. The party’s current structure makes no sense whatever in these times and that structure will make it difficult, if not impossible, to craft an effective counter-force to what the Democrats have done to the United States. Ironically, most people understand the basics of what needs to be done. However, I believe that the very structure of the party itself will prevent it from happening and GOP congressional office holders will continue to serve those they’ve served all along, those powerful few who are happy with the status quo and want no significant changes. Of course, the great problem at this juncture is that the Left keeps building on their relentless march to authoritarian socialism. Republicans win, we keep the status quo. Then Democrats win and we lurch left. Republicans win again and we keep the status quo. The Democrats win and we lurch further left. That’s how it has played out. It has to be changed. Jeff Dover
Editor: I just read “Defending Social Conservatism.” “Equality” is a French term, and this term does not even exist in our Founding documents.” All men are created equal”, means that the Creator made them equal in value as a human being. But He said nothing about making them equal in the sight of some man-made construct like ‘government’. No sir, the central theme of our Documents is Unity – E Pluribus Unum – out of many, One. Out of many ethnicities comes one culture, the American Culture. Unity is something the people do together, with no mandate from the government, and in fact, government involvement in people’s unity is a violation of our right to peaceably assemble, without government interference. American Conservatives want limited government involvement in our lives. We do not want our morals politicized, nor do we want the government to determine who is equal and who is not, something the government is prone to do, and always wrong. We all have the same opportunities, that is, what is equal opportunities to people, based on qualifications such as merit, ability, etc. Equality is a construct of the Left. That hardly describes American Conservatism. And while I’m on the subject – how dare you divide Conservatism into groups, like Social Conservatives. You probably also have a category called Fiscal Conservatives. Sir, Conservatives are not divided in their conservative beliefs in ALL areas of our culture. No, we want to conserve the original principles of our Founders and Founding Documents, and we do not want our principles to be sub-divided into smaller groups. Unity, sir. Unity in principles – that’s American Conservatism. Donna Woodrum
Editor: Valuable information and excellent design are presented in Alex Castellanos’ “Obama Hits Reality.” I appreciate you sharing. Thumbs up, Will
Editor: Regarding Scott Whitlock’s “Booker ‘Betrayed’ Obama?” one hates to stoop to the level of that cretin Chris Matthews, but does the word “jerk” come to mind. Dr. Pete Kleff
Editor: As far as Scott Whitlock’s “Booker ‘Betrayed’ Obama,” no one cares what Chris Matthews thinks or does. We all know he is a blithering idiot. Nancy Cooper
Editor: Wow, Kyle Latham’s “No British Austerity” is a time saver! This particular article really inspired me. Thanks. RJ
Editor: Much ado was made over the billboard Dennis Avery referred to in his article “Greens Oppose Billboard,” with the alarmists gleefully pointing to it as proof of the Heartland Institute being non-credible. Problem is, this accusation only works so long as nobody examines it under hard scrutiny, because if anyone does, the alarmists end up being the group that doesn’t look so good. Russell C
Editor: Paul Driessen’s “Hooray For Wal-Mart” really makes it seem so easy with his presentation but I find this matter to be actually something which I think I might by no means understand. It kind of feels too complicated and extremely extensive for me. I am looking ahead for any subsequent post to get a better hold of the matter. BO
Editor: Regarding your “How Did We Survive? by “your parents,” Ah, sweet memories. P
