Along comes the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition. Men like Viguerie, Weyrich, and Phillips manage to promote their way into the spotlight long enough to assume THEY were instrumental in the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. When Reagan failed to bow to their demands, and did not govern as conservatively as they demanded, the three men immediately betrayed him.
By January 25, 1981 their attacks began. First they claimed that Reagan had already betrayed conservatives and was too moderate. They continued their attacks throughout his first term, going so far as to gather the most influential conservative leaders to demand that Reagan not run for a second term.
In 1985 Ed Feulner, Jr., President of the Heritage Foundation, was so disgusted with Reagan that he wrote, “'It is unlikely that the Reagan era will prove to be the historic change in the direction of America that we have sought.''
Howard Phillips, on December 15, 1987 called Reagan a “useful idiot” and said Reagan was pandering to the Soviets so badly that he would destroy the country and allow Gorbachev to win the Cold War. They then attacked Nancy Reagan. White House Chief of Staff Howard Baker, Secretary of State George Shultz and Frank Carlucci, the Secretary of Defense — none were conservative enough for Phillips.
Both Weyrich and Phillips accused Reagan of appeasement of the Soviets. They felt nothing good could come of it, and begged conservatives to turn on Reagan.
Strange how the far right and conservatives suffer from amnesia when it comes to their shoddy treatment of Reagan.
Article comments
1 - Diana Hsieh
I'm sorry to report that you don't understand Ayn Rand's philosophy well enough to comment on it. Nothing about your summary was accurate.
(1) Ayn Rand wasn't a hedonist. She was a rational egoist. She held that life -- not pleasure -- is the ultimate good.
(2) She didn't think that "the ends justify the means," but rather regarded certain virtues -- like rationality, productiveness, honesty, and integrity -- as essential to the life proper to man.
(3) She didn't advocate that "you step over people to get your way." She advocated individual rights as the basic principle of her political philosophy -- and held that, in ethics, a person should not sacrifice himself to others or others to himself.
(4) She despised libertarians like Ron Paul and Bob Barr.
Perhaps you need to re-read Atlas Shrugged?
2 - Starchild
I have to wonder whether the author of this piece ever actually read Ayn Rand. Whether through ignorance or otherwise, SJ Reidhead badly mischaracterizes Rand's philosophy. Rand would never say that "the ends justify the means."
As a champion of non-aggression and not taking anything that you have not earned or paid for, Rand would also strongly opposed trying to prosper "by any means necessary" or "stepping over people to get your way." (I'm assuming here that Reidhead means "stepping on" people -- it's not quite clear what "stepping over" people is supposed to mean.) Although Rand believed in ethical egoism, I don't believe she ever said "greed is good." That slogan came from the 1980s Hollywood movie "Wall Street." Certainly Rand would have defended the right of people to acquire lots of material possessions, but "greed" is not merely the desire for plenty, it's the desire for what is unearned, and Rand would have wanted no part of that.
Also rather sloppy is terming Bob Barr and Ron Paul as "followers" of Ayn Rand. Once upon a time that label could have been justifiably applied to Alan Greenspan, but to my knowledge Barr and Paul were never "followers" of the author of Atlas Shrugged, merely admirers of her writing and philosophy. Both are Christian, so obviously they would not agree 100% with the atheistic Rand any more than Paterson would. Both Ron Paul and Bob Barr have been leaders in speaking out against big government greed and policies that hurt the poor, especially Paul's call to end the "war on drugs" and rein in out-of-control government that is destroying the earning power of their wages via inflation, etc., so the not very subtle attempt to brand them as defenders of "might makes right" falls flat.
Quoting Noam Chomsky as calling Rand evil, and implying that M. Scott Peck would have done the same, without bothering to say what is evil about a philosophy based on ethical self-interest and non-aggression, is intellectually lazy.
3 - Jeannie Danna
SJ, (It is quite rare to find the Far Left crunching and munching on Democrats. It happens, but not often.)
I love this sentence and I can almost "hear the bones" Now I myself am not a Democrat(I don't really belong to any party, at least I have never received talking points from one) But you have left out one political party in this paragraph, the "Conservadems"
I hope you jump in your comment thread this time SJ or I am sorry to say "I will have to stop giving you any of my energy." :)