[musicman]

Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[x]

* sigh *

I feel like I should like The Claremont Review. They publish articles about a lot of interesting topics. And they generally have the right take on things.

They also have the format and graphic designer of the old American Spectator (back when they were entertaining and you could take them seriously).

But their stuff can be so leaden and hard to get into.

[Billthedrill]

Brilliant stuff, and thanks for posting. This is a self-ping for later, but one initial thought - the battle within academia is not over. Many of the ideas the author groups into the broad category of Liberalism have had a resurgence as the students who internalized them in the heady days of the 60s have come to the end of their Long March Through The Institutions. Keynesian economics, for example. And particularly within the social sciences there is a pendulum of fashion to which the hard sciences are seldom subjected due to the greater dependence of the latter on hard data.

And, too, just because one seldom encounters a Marxist economist in a serious institution of higher learning these days does not mean that a political celebrity who may not even understand it will not try to run a very unfortunate country by Marxian economics. Robert Mugabe comes to mind.

More later - great, if a little tough, read.

[neverdem]

NRA asks to intervene in federal lead-ban lawsuit

All in the (Political) Family - Obama's Marxist Mentor and Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod

Poll: Nine percent of Obama ’08 voters want Romney now

When 1,099 felons vote in race won by 312 ballots

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[x]

Is it just wishful thinking to imagine the end of liberalism? Few things in politics are permanent. Conservatism versus liberalism didn't become the central division in our politics until the middle of the 20th century. Before that American politics revolved around such issues as states' rights, wars, slavery, the tariff, and suffrage. Parties have come and gone in our history. You won't find many Federalists, Whigs, or Populists lining up at the polls these days. Britain's Liberal Party faded from power in the 1920s. The Canadian Liberal Party collapsed in 2011.

Canada's Conservatives collapsed in 1993 by an even greater margin and now the successor party is governing the country.

To get a change like that which swept the Federalists or Whigs away or made slavery or the tariff dead issues you need some big new conflict or decisive issue -- one that takes people's minds completely off the old divisions.

I don't see anything like that on the horizon. A party may be on the losing end of a conflict and go through a dry spell for years, but they usually manage to transform themselves and find a way of getting back into power.

The winning party overreaches or gets lazy or corrupt or people just get tired of them. Sooner or later something is bungled, and, like the proverbial bad penny, yesterday's losers come bouncing back into office -- not exactly the same people, not exactly the same program, but close enough to irritate those who thought they'd won it all forever.

[1010RD]

Outstanding article. The goal of ever FReeper:

That “Obama’s legacy and his claim to leadership will lie in ruins.”

If he wins a second term the Left will be vindicated and America ruined.

[1010RD]

It could use better formatting, but this article is worth the read.