[Ohioan]

Virtually every issue is both social & economic. It is not necessary--and indeed, in my opinion, is counter-productive--to try to define any serious issue in one or the other category. Put it another way: A healthy, viable society, has values & priorities, hammered out over the centuries, which work for its particular population, and are key to both the social & economic success of its rooted families.

Different individuals will indeed fdocus on those issues, however labelled, which most impact their individual sensibilities. The key to political success is combining a reasonable measure of acceptance of that fact--the fact that we have different priorities--with a sense of common overall purpose--the survival of a way of life, which in the American context once permitted us to out-achieve the rest of the world, in both material & spiritual achievement.

The crisis, today, is that we are running out of time to bring together enough of the rooted population; those who identify with fundamental American concepts & priorities, to head off drowning in an, artificially created, sea of an undifferentiated humanity. Beck is going off on one disruptive tangent to our quest. Rick Santorum is an example of a prominent Republican who went off in another disruptive tangent.

Without trying to actually purge either one of them from Republican ranks, Conservatives need to simply ignore their tangents, and develop spokesmen who understand that internal ideological consistency is essential to being able to convert those who have been confused by the Mass Media & Leftist Academics, into losing sight of America's Multi-Generational Purpose.

William Flax

[C. Edmund Wright]

I agree with you on that. I am certainly what one would call a Reagan - Limbaugh - Levin conservative, in belief and priority and tone. As such, there are times when I am attacked by both the social ONLY crowd, and the libertarian crowd.

Here are my observations, especially with respect to FR. The libertarian crowd will attack on issues of substantive disagreement, normally on issues of foreign policy or social issues. They rarely even bother to debate much on matters of degree, strategy, prorities. It gets nasty sometimes, but not often.

But the social ONLY crowd, repeat, social ONLY crowd, will attack even when the disagreement is on strategy or tactics or matter of degree or priority. And this crowd is almost always nasty, and almost always accuses me (us) of secretly being liberal, RINO, gay, pro abort, etc.

Now keep in mind that philsophicaly, I am more in line with the social ONLY crowd than the libertarian crowd, being a Reagan type conservative. And yet, the nastiest, most petulant, paranoid, infantile and just awful attacks come from this crowd.

Amazing.