I don't have a lot of sympathy for the targets you mention (with the exception of Ron Paul). All during the Bush II administration none of these conservative, Republican, TV or radio personalities objected to the expansion of government power taking place. Some of them still defend the Bush Torture Regime. Republicans have never, not ever, been for limited government. They love big government, as long as they are the ones in charge. I don't think any Republican administration at any level, Federal, State, or local has ever taken even the tiniest step towards limited government. They are good at the rhetoric of limited government, but they never, not ever, put such a view into practice. So, again, I just see this as very predictable blowback from the policies they have pushed for many years.

Great essay. This is the perennial problem that a consistent anti-war position has to overcome; the inability of people to see that the ethical basis for an anti-war position is universal, that it applies to all people, not just our own people or the people we like. It is helpful, I think, to observe groups that have held to a consistent anti-war position. By and large these are religious groups.

What these groups have in common is a universalist perspective; that the ethical teachings that they follow apply universally, to all people; that "not to murder" really means not to murder. A secular version of this universalism, the idea of natural rights, is, in my opinion, not as successful in the sense that it has not inspired a group committed to such a universalist ethical perspective over a long period of time.

In any case, I'm hoping that anti-war.com might explore this kind of universal ethical foundation. There are so many talented people here that this, perhaps, might prove a productive line of inquiry.

Again, thanks for the fantastic essay.

Jim