It is probably more interesting to first argue if our whole political and social apparatus IS leading us the direction headed or if it is a more general trend. Then the issues as to actions are worthy of debate and equally the history of the causes and refound path become more of an issue.
Remember, if we can't find the common ground with all aspects of our side of the political landscape, the general citizenry is even broader and less subject to our call.
Is the whole political and social apparatus leading us in the direction headed is a question that can only be answered after we define where the direction is headed. Once that is done, then it probably is a good idea to decide if where it is headed is a good or bad thing. Then it would be interesting to decide if the political and social apparatus is leading us there, a decision that if affirmative and the direction is bad would indicate a need for change.
One thing that strikes me is that when I see an argument framed in false readings of history, as the original piece by Peikoff is regarding the general political atmosphere in Germany and the first reply is on the role religion played in the early days of our nation, that it either indicates a lack of knowledge by the presenters, or more perniciously a rewriting of history to advance an agenda. I do not believe that to be the case for the poster; I don't have the same confidence for Peikoff.
The crux of the original piece is that the United States is on the same path as Germany of the Weinmar Republic. The author starts making the case, strangely, by pointing out a difference (which brings to mind someone saying "our differences are so significant as to make the distance between us insignificant; we are therefore close neighbors")
The Germans, following their intellectuals, were disgusted with what they regarded as reason and freedom, and they were ready for Hitler. The Americans are disgusted with unreason and statism; but they are directionless.I don't agree with the idea that a difference makes us more alike. Further, I think Peikoff got both of these wrong. The Germans were desirous of reason uber alles, to where they were willing to accept the most sinister of mechanations eventually for the utility they would accomplish; a cold, calculating reason that leads to horror as leftism invariably does. And if Americans are disgusted with unreason and statism, they show it in the damnedest ways, as the bizarre campaign of Al Gore (complete with his popular vote victory) speaks. Americans are not yet to the point where they are disgusted with statism. That day will come; it hasn't yet.
So the cornerstone of the argument crumbles; it is followed with a support pillar that religion represents a false choice. While I agree with you that common ground needs to be found among those who share our political landscape; this is not an area where common ground can be found unless one side abandons their closest held beliefs. For the people of a mindset such as Peikoff and people of a mindset such as myself to be political allies, it has to involve them deciding to drop the weapons they weild against those who believe in religion and refuse to stand by, idle, as all vestiges of it are stricken from public life; it must also involve people who hold similar views of religion as me to never attempt to force our religion on them. Find common ground where it is common, and don't try to force unanimity where only emnity can grow.
And since I don't agree with the original analogy of the US to the Weimar Republic, and don't agree with the premise that religion is a threat we have to fear, I don't find much in the proposed remedy worthy of discussion, any more than I would find discussing an antibiotic as a cure for an infection, after we have ruled out all bacteria as a cause since we are dealing with a virus.
Are we on the right or wrong path? A worthy discussion. But the article asserts we are on the same path as Nazi Germany. We aren't.