Reader Comments

Editor: I assume that the "progressives" you are referring to in “Progressives Helping Limited Government?” are the same people that most of us have always called Left Wing liberals? Why are we adopting their label now after all these years when they have not been consistent in labeling themselves and we for the most part have been? Yes, lots of us prefer "classical liberal" to "conservative" as Barry Goldwater did. But it is the conservative label we adopt in normal debate for the sake of clarity and historical continuity over the last sixty years. In a Google search for the phrase “right wing,” there were 3,890,000 matches. When I entered the search term “left wing,” there were only 2,450,000 matches. On Jan. 2, Google found 615,000 matches in English to the term “ultra conservative.” The search for the phrase “ultra liberal” brought back fewer than half as many matches, only 294,000. Most dramatic of all, a search for references to the term “right winger” in quotation marks which yields 1,140,000 results (71 percent) whereas there are only 463,000 matches (29 percent) for the term “left winger.” Were it not for overwhelming left-wing domination of media, would we expect to find far more than twice as many references to “right wingers” than “left wingers?”

In France, progressive simply means Left Wing and everyone knows it. British and Italian leftists are not bashful about describing themselves as left wing. American left wingers were not bashful about using the word "liberal" until the quotas and social currents of the 1960s and 1970s made the liberal connotation a negative one. To use the definitions of the left for the word "progressive" is to imply that conservatives are not for progress when in truth conservatives are champions of the liberty that enables all true progress toward the goal of economic freedom and the rule of law. Conservative writers have no reason to buy into left wing fantasies in describing themselves as "progressives." Surely more objective words and phrases can at least be allowed in conservative publications. Mark Q. Rhoads is a former Illinois state senator and a former editorial writer for The Chicago Sun-Times. [Editor replies: Maybe Americans need to know what the British and Italians already know?]

Editor: I must state that I don't agree with the article “Progressives Helping Limited Government?” about trying to go back to the "old conservative" thinking. I think that political conservatism stems from the Commandments of God. Unless people are established in His Word, there is no foundation to build upon with any success. This nation was originally founded on the Commandments of God which brought freedom and liberty. Throwing this away, we're throwing away our liberty and freedom. Sincerely, Sarah Setchfield

Editor: Regarding your “New Year Victory Plan” four years of Hillary will take 16 years to undo all the damage she will bring upon us. There must be someone else out there we can turn to. Is George Allen still possible? G. Trip

Editor: In regard to your “New Year Victory Plan” and Paul Weyrich’s “New Republican Party” I find it unfathomable that the "so-called" conservative leadership, almost without exception, continue to promote working through the Republican Party. It started out under Pres. Lincoln as a Neo-Con party (big government, big taxes, anti-Constitution, etc., etc.) and still is. Why, oh why waste the resources and time again and again. There is the Constitution Party and the America First Party with most of the basics in place. They could be merged into one party. Then those resources should be used to inform the "values" voters that the Constitution Party "IS" the party of those values. Most people are "FED-UP" with both of the major parties and politicians in general and at all levels. They want something genuinely new. Neither major party can be so cleansed to be a positive rather then a "lesser-of-two-evils" choice to the "values" voters or to the "no reason to vote" citizens. Have the courage of The Founding Fathers and break new ground. Frank Russell, Nalcrest, Fl.

Editor: I certainly appreciate Paul Weyrich’s “Talk Radio Fairness” and what you are doing. I have no doubt the liberals will do all they can to shut down freedom of speech and particularly on talk radio. Keep up the fight. Gerald Fielder

Editor: I appreciate Paul Weyrich going after the Fairness Doctrine in “Talk Radio Fairness.” I see that doctrine as squashing freedom of speech. The first article of the Constitution states that we have Freedom of Speech so I hope that you are successful in squashing the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Norma Kenfield

Editor: Paul Driessen’s “Climate McCarthyism” says it very convincingly--the trouble is not enough people are paying attention. It seems as though no story in the media can start without a reference to global warming, even though the story may be about another matter entirely. No one (in the media or politics) has yet discovered that the many climate variations of the past, including both warming and cooling, may be the result of changes in the sun's output. Heavens forbid that there can be no committees or programs that can control the sun. But there are many governments that can waste much of our money that could otherwise devoted to making life livable for much of the world's population. Kurt Brenner

Editor: I agree with Paul Driessen’s “Climate McCarthyism” in its condemnation of the Politically-Correct crowd, who seek to make free speech and the First Amendment of the Constitution irrelevant. "Hate speech" is probably the most thinly disguised effort at public speech-control by government! Any criminalization of speech is at once unconstitutional. Is it so obvious, it goes un-noticed by the Marxist American media? But your misuse of the term: McCarthyism, is upsetting to me. You have mistakenly climbed on the Communist band-wagon with this characterization. Senator McCarthy was embarked on the commendable job of rooting out Communists and fellow-travelers from government and the premiere media source, the American movie industry. What you are really dealing with, and talking about is: Fascism. It's that ideology that drives the P.C. Crowd, who seek to use government to stifle free speech and attach government-ordained penalties for un-approved spoken words. Even criminal ones! Whether it's the "global-warming" myth Al Gore is highlighting with his book, or the racists defending skin-color preferences in jobs, and college entrance tests [while whining and mewling about "profiling" potential terrorists?], rational thinking is prohibited! In the future, please get your use of terms straight. Communism is a murderous ideology, not to be associated with free speech issues. Sincerely, Mr. Samuel A. Hill

Editor” Paul Driessen’s “Climate McCarthyism” should alert us to the fact Teddy Kennedy's federal hate crimes/speech bill is once again up for a vote under the guise of preventing violent hate crimes. It's a sham. In my opinion, it is one of the most dangerous anti-Christian liberty pieces of legislation to ever be introduced. It'll be up for a vote in very early January. See Ted Pike's useful yet brief enough analysis of it at here and here. Guy

Editor: Contrary to Sam Ryan’s “Europe Beat US Postal Reform?” Europeans haven't had a good idea since the Magna Charta. A real conservative would look to Europe for, say wine, cheese and beer. But postal reform, Please!!! Remember 40% of Letter Carriers are Good Hard Working Regan Republicans. Come spend a day with me delivering mail or a night at a processing center and I'm sure you will have a better under standing of this subject. Semper Fidelis, Michael Demers

Editor: At the end of his article, Carey Roberts claims: "And now that electoral block, disillusioned by years of fruitless happy-talk, has decided to take its business and go elsewhere.” But where? Where is this "elsewhere" to which we pro family people can go? I, for one, would like to know where I can go to get the support of healthy families that this country so desperately needs. There seems to be no movement to create a new party that has the family at its core. Where is the Traditional Family Party headquartered? Chris Nichols, mother of six, wife of one

Editor: I am amazed that no one complains about Studio 60. I find it the most offensive show I have ever seen on TV. Mel Gibson was dragged through the mud for one uncharacteristically derogatory Jewish comment while drunk. Aaron Sorkin on the other hand, the writer of Studio 60, weekly makes derogatory comments about Christians, spending one whole show mocking the name of Jesus Christ and another show, the Christmas Show, trying to prove that Jesus did not exist. How is it that we are not asking Mr. Sorkin and NBC to apologize to Christians? Why aren't Christians outraged at this show which seems to have the Christian people as their main target? Tim Keane