Mr. Shapiro,

Until you can explain the same level of vitriol and contempt held by the current crop of leftists toward America and the majority of its citizens irrespective of the color of their skin or the country of their birth, your thesis is utter rubbish. The first clue should have been that you are arguing from the point of view of identity politics.

When are people going to stop rationalizing the reason for the behaviors of tyrants and statists? It is irrelevant because ultimately it is their actions that are consequential.

Part 3:

It's not as cut and dry as you cavalierly stated, and this is not a forum for treatises in rebuttals. So, if being a little more introspective than what you have been makes me a "leftist", then all I can say is good luck in Nirvana because that's where you're going to have to go to find someone whom you can unreservedly support. Better yet, run yourself. If you have all of the answers to all of the problems in a country of over 300 million citizens, then your fellow countrymen could use you. The problem, I guess, will be in convincing enough of them to support you. Just be sure to check your own closet first.

Part 2:

when you are either unwilling or incapable of making compelling arguments yourself? You presumed that making a statement is identical to making an argument. Your statements about the War on Drugs, bigger government or “New World Order” were hardly incontrovertible fact; they were assertions that you assumed everyone would accept at face value. You didn’t bother to articulate why these were good or bad, let alone consider the premise that they might not be universally accepted. You needed to logically justify what YOU stated, not the other way around. After all, you made the claims in the first place. For example, you appear to state that the ENTIRE war on drugs is wrong without conceding that any aspect of regulating controlled substances and narcotics is both proper and necessary in civil society. Most Americans still strongly disagree that people should be entitled to consume any drug without consequences (and they should be able to do so in our Federalist system), and even in the event that drug laws are liberalized the evidence is inconclusive that any of the claimed benefits would materialize (for example, see the recent RAND study regarding marijuana legalization and the Mexican drug trade).

Part 1:

Are people here starting to devolve into the Daily Kos? First, your comment about Perry and RHINOs above were unambiguous to me, and I see those comments as defining a standard that every conservative candidate would fail, including Reagan. He meant enough to me to wait in line to see him in state after his passing at his Presidential Library in Simi Valley. So, it’s reassuring to know that you must have seen something remarkable in his character too! But he was not a superman or a demigod. Rather, he was a man who was confident enough to trust the American people, and he worked tirelessly to persuade people that his conception of a constitutional republic was best for the individual citizen and the country. Perhaps what you are really complaining about is that such confidence may no longer be warranted? But then again, why should you expect to have ordinary people come to your views

Nonsense! If the likes of someone as historically unique and as principled of a conservative as Ronald Reagan can't appeal to you, then absolutely no one can or will, save a truly fringe candidate without much appeal to the broader electorate.

Incidentally, if you are going to make assertions about how all conservatives have failed and that they all supported the "lefty ideas" whether they knew it or not, it would be a little more convincing if you had more than your opinions - which you are entitled to have - as the basis for your argument. Your statements are an admission that even Ronald Reagan wouldn't pass muster in your eyes today.

Sort of like Ronald Reagan, Jean Kirkpatrick, Bill Bennet and a host of other leaders with unassailable conservative credentials who became Republicans because the Democratic Party left them.

Be careful about whom you are castigating. The true distinction is between statists and those who believe in individual liberty. Party labels have all but lost their meaning today, and Presidents like Ronald Reagan were made because they had to honestly reassess their loyalty to a political philosophy that fundamentally contradicted their world view.

Don't you remember that liberal students don't like to "collectivise" their grades: http://www.breitbart.tv/liberal-students-wont-app...

Touche'!