I have a question of you, whether you are an occasional or the rare regular reader. It is a rather simple question but one which, after much thought and contemplation, I feel it is time to ask again: Is it time to start (or restart) the organization of a new political party? Have not both the Democrats, long ago, and the Republicans, in their post-9/11 metamorphosis, abandoned truly conservative principles? I do not see any true conservative political leaders - much less conservative philosophers - anywhere on my horizon. We have lost Russell Kirk, Milton Friedman and Robert Nisbet all within the past decade or so. These giants of socioeconomic philosophy will not soon be replaced. With their passing, conservatives have seemingly lost sight of their guiding stars. Compromise and the lethal malignancy of "political correctness" (how I do loath that phrase!) has trampled the once-formidable rock of conservatism underfoot and left it to but a fine sand, soon to be dispersed to the winds of time.

I survey the field of Republican candidates and I do not see a truly "conservative" (in the classic sense evoked with "Edmund Burke through Russell Kirk") thinker among them. They appear to me to be "conservative-light" men. They only briefly don their attire for the purpose of appealing, in a passing superficial way, to the hearts and minds of conservative voters. They give lip service to a smattering of familiar ideals (family, church, security) but not a full-throated, unmistakable endorsement of American traditionalism. When pressed, they gently but uniformly lean perceptively toward the media-friendly ground of "liberal creativity" - namely, the great "leveling" of American society. By "liberal creativity" I mean the undying belief in "social engineering" which, vampire-like, cannot be killed by time or wounds. The immortality of government’s quest to divine a "new society," continues in full view of the interventions that have consistently been implemented since the administration of the greatest "leveler" of all - Franklin Roosevelt - and have uniformly proved to be monumental (and, often, tragic) failures. To parody Samuel Johnson: "Liberal creativity is the triumph of hope over experience."

Even more worrisome, those who most jealously hold to the principles of a man-made Utopia – the Democratic Party - grow stronger. It appears (to all who would not avert their gaze in horror) that the next decade will be dominated by the Democratic Party. With the growing disenchantment with the current administration (which, in truth, is more likely due to the historical second-term failure rate of all presidencies than any actual policy failures that have been put forth), the election of a Democratic president is, in my mind, virtually assured in 2008. And, sensing this stark reality, their candidates have grown even more strident in their rhetoric for social intervention. "$100 million for this program, $1 billion for that program," etc., all the time never mentioning where these monies will, in fact, come from.

All their grandiose plans are, ultimately, directed at the leveling of America so that they will no longer be any "extraordinary" men. It appears that the overriding goal of the liberal social agenda is to gently but progressively place an ever-constricting net over all of the American society so that we all start and remain at the same socioeconomic stage throughout our lives. We are indoctrinated with the same propaganda at the same schools and think the same things. We aspire to the same mediocrity and sameness. We are content because we are distracted by the superficial and are conditioned not to contemplate the extraordinary. One dare not be permitted to rise above the crowd lest someone sense inequality and, thus, unequal opportunity. For, to exert individuality and exceptionalism is, in the eyes of the levelers, a blatant social injustice and must be hammered out with due diligence.

As Thomas Sowell and others have repeatedly said, equality of opportunity does not (nor should not) translate into equality of results. Are we not now chasing after the illusionary equality of results? Further, is there any society that has ever contrived this horrific apparition? Even the penultimate implementation of socioeconomic leveling in the history of man - the Soviet Union - came crashing down under the weight of the false promises of Marx and Stalin. Sociology has shown that the happiest and most tranquil of cultures are those that have a multitude of stations in life. By assuring that each station is achievable for all through hard work, personal sacrifice and self-denial, this arrangement has lead to flourishing cultures throughout the world for centuries.

In truth, discontent occurs when either of two alternative conditions exists:

1. Certain desirable social classes are exclusionary and unobtainable to all members of the culture. Or,

2. All social classes are abolished and there is equality of existence.

In the first instance, discrimination is the irritant and will lead to eventual revolution. In the second, members of society become hypersensitized to their status and, expecting exactly matching possessions in return for equivalent labor, any small deviation in another member’s situation can cause bitter resentment. This, too, can be the spark of revolution.

We know these things from historical examples littering the unread history of civilizations, ancient and modern. Yet, despite the knowledge, we ignore the wisdom. In America, we have all but defeated the first ill of exclusionary privilege. As we extinguish the dying embers of discrimination with one hand, we begin to use the other to plan for giving root and soil to the second evil, i.e. the lethal allure of absolute leveling.

The attraction that can be used to entice a people to accept social leveling is simple enough:

"Candidate X believes that all workers who want a job should not only be able to gain meaningful employment, but also be able to move up the career ladder to further support their families and serve as role models for their children. Candidate X has introduced legislation to help strengthen career ladders by first identifying regions and industries where career pathways are not fully developed and then establish public-private partnerships to lift up low-wage workers."

"Candidate Z has outlined a Working Society initiative to lift 12 million Americans out of poverty in a decade and beat poverty over the next 30 years. In the Working Society, everyone who is able to work hard will be expected to work and, in turn, be rewarded for it.""

"Candidate Z suggested creating one million new housing vouchers over five years to let low-income families choose to live in better neighborhoods. He believes that we should also expand the supply of affordable housing that is economically integrated with other communities. He also proposed coordinating housing policies across metropolitan areas, cutting HUD bureaucracy, and requiring recipients of new housing vouchers to work if they can."

"As a senator, Candidate Y introduced a plan that ties increases in the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises, so that if Congress votes a raise for itself, the minimum wage goes up as well. Candidate Y has consistently supported tax relief for middle-class families. Candidate Y has supported permanently ending the marriage penalty, extending the lower-income tax rates, providing a deduction for college tuition, and providing a refundable child tax credit and adoption tax credit."

[If you are interested, Candidates X, Z and Y are Senator Obama, ex-Senator John Edwards and Senator Clinton, respectively. Excerpts are from their campaign web sites.]

When viewed from the lofty heights of the liberal lodge atop Big Rock Candy Mountain, all these wonderful ideas seem to have a sort of warm and fuzzy attractiveness to them. They make the average voter who hears the words - uttered by a candidate with sufficient emotion and conviction - feel a satisfying sense of extending a helping hand to the less fortunate. The shiny pyrite of this grandiloquence, thus presented, can give those convinced of its value a sense of personal benevolence and generosity. Those who accept this deceptive rhetoric can also develop, with continued nurturing, a belief that all mankind can be neatly and efficiently lifted from whatever dire circumstances that they presently suffer if only the government will assist them.

This, gentle reader, is the road to socialism. We have been treading on this gradually downward-sloping path for the past 50 years and, like a Weeble-Wooble, are gradually picking up speed. While we have yet to fall down, we are increasingly tottering in our gait. But, when we perceive our steps to be unsure, we should seek the "lamp of experience." Orestes Brownson, writing in the "dark ages" of the mid-19^th century, wrote of the truth about mankind that can light a rightful path:

"But humanitarian democracy [which, I assert, one could easily use as interchangeable with the liberal democrats in our time], which scorns all geographic lines, effaces all individualities, and professes to plant itself on humanity alone, has acquired…new strength, and is not without menace to your future…The humanitarian presently will attack distinctions between the sexes, he will assail private property, as unequally distributed. Nor can our humanitarian stop there. Individuals are, and as long as there are individuals will be, unequal: some are handsomer and some uglier, some are wiser or sillier, more or less gifted, stronger or weaker, taller or shorter, stouter or thinner than others, and therefore have natural advantages which others have not. There is inequality, therefore injustice, which can be remedied only by the abolition of individualities, and the reduction of all individuals to the race, or humanity, man in general. He can find no limit to his agitation this side of vague generality, which is no reality, but a pure nullity, for he respects no territorial or individual circumscriptions, and must regard himself as a blunder."

If the liberals achieve their desired endpoints, there will not be societal tranquility as they foresee but, in point of fact, there will be an even greater sense of emptiness and want and, with it, a keener and more bitter feelings of entitlement. And, with their imposed cultural equality, will come the inevitable murmurs of discontent.

Alexis de Tocqueville, that great French observer of American democracy, observed much the same thing happening:

"Whenever social conditions are equal, public opinion presses with enormous weight upon the minds of each individual; it surrounds, directs, and oppresses him; and this arises from the very constitution of society much more than from its political laws. As men grow more alike, each man feels himself weaker in regard to all the rest; as he discerns nothing by which he is considerably raised above them or distinguished from them, he mistrusts himself as soon as they assail him. Not only does he mistrust his strength, but he even doubts of his right; and he is very near acknowledging that he is in the wrong, when the greater number of his countrymen assert that he is so. The majority do not need to force him; they convince him. In whatever way the powers of a democratic community may be organized and balanced, then, it will always be extremely difficult to believe what the bulk of the people reject or to profess what they condemn."

If men are so leveled, as it appears to this observer to be the liberals plan, where will the funds come for their grand schemes of social engineering? It will be from a "redistribution of wealth" – a classical Marxian tenet – through taxation. Ludwig Von Mises in Human Action: An Economic Treatise describes the process also as one of leveling. He wrote:

"Confiscatory taxation results in checking economic progress and improvement not only by its effect on capital accumulation. It brings about a general trend toward stagnation and the preservation of business practices which could not last under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy...Every ingenious man is free to start new business projects. He may be poor, his funds may be modest and most of them may be borrowed. But if he fills the wants of consumers in the best and cheapest way, he will succeed by way of "excessive" profits. He ploughs back the greater part of his profits into business, thus making it grow rapidly. It is the activity of such enterprising parvenus that provides the market economy with its "dynamism." These nouveaux riches are the harbingers of economic improvement. Their threatening competition forces the old firms and big corporations either to adjust their conduct to the best possible service of the public or to go out of business. But today taxes often absorb the greater part of the newcomer's "excessive" profits. He cannot accumulate capital; he cannot expand his own business; he will never become big business and a match for the vested interests. The old firms do not need to fear his competition; they are sheltered by the tax collector. It is true; the income tax prevents them, too, from accumulating any capital. But what is more important for them is that it prevents the dangerous newcomer from accumulating any capital. They are virtually privileged by the tax system…" [Emphasis mine]

For those remaining few of us who view the American society through ancient lenses, the unceasing clamor of governmental tinkering with the "machinery" of our society brings a keen sense of foreboding. We feel the need to cry out: "Enough!" There has been enough experimentation with our lives and our venerable institutions to last us for generations. Is it not time for the people to stop the insanity? Government is helping us to death.

Where are the orators for exceptionalism and personal greatness?