Penny-pinching pitches out penny

By Jeff Trull

The United States one cent coin, commonly known as the penny, is under attack! A recent “60 Minutes” special revealed a troubling situation for pennies. With both the low value of the coin and the increasing cost to produce them, there’s a lot working against the penny. While this coin has been a part of U.S. history since 1793 and the Lincoln penny since 1909, there have been calls to get rid of this outdated piece of currency.

A startling fact is that pennies cost more money to produce than they are actually worth. Pennies, which are composed of 97.5% zinc and only 2.5% copper, actually cost about 1.7 cents to produce. According to “60 Mintues,” the United States produces about eight billion pennies each year, costing about $134 million to produce only $80 million in pennies. This rise in cost can be attributed mostly to the rising cost of copper and zinc. Thus the materials composing the penny are worth more than the penny itself. This is in stark contrast to paper bills, which cost only six cents to make. Because of this fact, a U.S. Treasury regulation went into effect last year that outlaws melting down pennies. While the high cost of pennies is comical, it makes no economical sense. Taxpayers are footing a $50 million bill each year just to keep the production of pennies going.

Others have argued that pennies are costing America money in productivity. Studies that base their results on an additional two seconds per transaction because of pennies estimate that pennies cost us between $300 million and $1 billion annually. This is attributed to a loss of productivity, with American earning an average of $17 per hour. Personally, the two second estimate seems low. I have been stuck for minutes behind customers who are digging pennies out of their wallet, purse or jeans. Either way, this argument seems a little silly to me considering how many other activities ruin our productivity. I doubt many Americans get a whole lot done during their average four plus hours of television viewing each day.

Another major problem for the penny is that it can’t buy anything these days, at least not by itself. In the past, a penny or two may have fetched candy, a newspaper or a soda. Not so today. Now one must gather up 99 of those little suckers before a Snickers bar may be had. Inflation has sure had its way with pennies, rendering them basically worthless.

There are some arguments against getting rid of pennies. Americans for Common Cents, a group that opposes the penny production stoppage, claims that prices will go up for Americans if pennies are gone. Prices will need to be rounded to the nearest five cents, and most stores are likely to raise prices, the group says. This could cost Americans $600 million a year, or about two dollars a person. If these figures are fairly accurrate, would anyone really notice losing two dollars in change every year? Given how much change is lost in couches, this amount is insignificant.

Other than that, sentimentality keeps many in support of saving the penny. Pennies have been a part of our country for ages. Just think of all the phrases Americans have invented about the one-cent piece. “A penny saved is a penny earned,” comes from no other than the great Benjamin Franklin. Or “A penny for your thoughts,” which is probably never used anymore.

When it comes down to it, pennies are eating away at America’s wallet. The simple cost liability of producing pennies alone makes a strong case against keeping them. Perhaps if pennies were made of less expensive metals, such as steel, we could at least break even on producing them. But we need to ask ourselves: what is the point? The penny carries so little value, and that value is only going to decrease in coming years. It is time to say “goodbye” to our beloved penny. After all, if you see a penny and pick it up, it may bring you luck, but it won’t bring much else.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Criticism based on unfounded arguments

To Gregory Gravelle,

I am highly offended and horrified by your review of Eve Ensler’s “The Vagina Monologues.” Your argument was poorly stated, at best, your arguments unfounded, and your insults undeserved. It makes me question whether or not you actually watched the show before writing it off. You may call my opinions biased, as they are based on my experiences as a cast member, which have been nothing short of life-altering. However, they are also based on my experiences as a woman, which has a more powerful influence on my opinions than anything else ever could. You cannot claim to have been either a cast member or a woman. Perhaps that is exactly your problem.

“The Vagina Monologues” are part of V-Day, a global movement that raises awareness in an attempt to end violence against women and girls. You clearly missed that notice; otherwise it would be painfully obvious why you might have gotten the impression that the show has “a trend of portraying male-female relationships as vehicles for abuse.” I will point out, however, that of the sixteen monologues, not including Eve’s letter and the introduction, only three (My Vagina Was My Village, The Little Coochi Snorcher That Could, and The Memory of Her Face) portrayed a male or males in a negative fashion. That isn’t anywhere near the ratio essential to deem something a trend. Although the males in those monologues are portrayed negatively, it was because they abused those women – those real, live, breathing women. There was not one instance where you could claim males, as an entire gender, were attacked. Please do not confuse “pro-female” with “anti-male.” They do not mean the same thing.

You clearly disagree with the fact that the UMass Dartmouth administration would even allow such a play to be performed at our school. I severely hope you are just unaware that ‘The Vagina Monologues’ is an award-winning play that has raised over $45 million dollars to aid the end of violence against women. Otherwise you just might look dumb by saying that this play “has failed in finding [a channel] that has any realistic impact on society.” It is a noble and praiseworthy show, despite whatever language or obscenities it uses that may get your panties in a wad. A note on your obvious disgust at Reclaiming the “C-word”: the concept of that monologue has bested you, apparently. Read the inside, back flap of the program. If you don’t have one, contact me – I will find one for you or give you mine.

You claimed that it “damages UMD’s reputation” as well as “misrepresents the overwhelming majority of moderately moral students”. I’m going to make an educated guess that you do not personally know the “overwhelming majority” of students on campus, or even all of the students “who have some level of school pride.” Do not speak for them – you do them a severe injustice by doing so. If you are not brave enough to speak for yourself and yourself alone, then do not speak at all.

What upsets and enrages me the most is your particular phrase: “we are misrepresented as tasteless and morally devoid by the small group that performs the show.” I am utterly appalled at the ignorance of that comment. How many of the cast members do you actually know? How can you judge a person, much less a group of people, without even knowing them? You certainly do not know me, and while I won’t claim to be saintly, I am certainly not morally devoid either. The same can be said about every one of my fellow cast members, all of whom I know intimately.

I’ll sign off with some simple advice for you: know what and whom you’re talking about before you make judgments about them – the only thing that ‘assuming’ will achieve is making yourself look like a complete ass.

Sincerely,
Caitlin Barnett
Class of 2010

Feeling uncomfortable is a good thing

On the Thursday after the Women’s Resource Center’s run of this year’s “Vagina Monologues” show, I began to hear some rumblings of discontent with an editorial run in the Op/Ed section of The Torch’s February 28 issue. Several friends of mine took part in this year’s “Vagina Monologues” performance and many had issues with UMD student Gregory Gravelle’s claim that the performance damaged our school’s reputation.

That evening, I headed down to my building lobby to grab a copy of The Torch and see what the fuss was about, and I found several of my friends, including a cast member, reading the article and expressing distastes not unlike the ones I had heard all day. I read about halfway through the article, simply passing it off as a small-minded, quasi-misogynistic opinion coming from a man that likely did not understand the performance or the context it is placed in today’s society. However, when I reached the statement “[the university has shown] a severe lack of good judgment by providing what appeared to be no level of censorship,” it was as though I had found an Uzi sitting next to a barrel full of guppies.

Allow me to preface my “live and let live” soapbox speech by saying I was not present at any of this year’s performances; however, I did attend two years ago and feel that by witnessing that, as well as knowing at least five of cast as well as the director, I have an understanding of what “The Vagina Monologues” are all about. I’ve seen a show that is rooted in the promotion of feminine expression and deals with often socially-taboo topics in a way written to offer the audience a perspective different than the one that social norms often prohibit. This included watching a future co-worker of mine have sloppy multiple orgasms in front of about 200 people, and I’m OK with that.

The truth is, there is sexism and racism in our society, and I find that the people who most often deny these facts are either male, white, or both. Take, for instance, two expressions - “kick to the balls” or “kick to the snatch.” Which one of these is more likely to offend a college audience? They both involve hurling a boot into a sensitive section of the human reproductive system, but I guarantee that saying the latter will get you a largely different reaction from most audiences.

This is one of the concepts that the monologue you found worthy of censorship is trying to make clear. Much of “The Vagina Monologues’” power is in their taking of socially difficult topics and tossing them out in the open, forcing you to think them through. How often do we have casual discussions about rape? I remember one monologue from the show I attended being particularly uncomfortable, as the actress on stage performed (very convincingly) as a rape survivor that was deeply changed by the experience. Rather than cast off the performance as anti-male propaganda, I thought of the rape survivors I know personally and resolved to be more aware of the situation women are placed in, as well as the changes such an experience can bring about and how I can be part of the solution.

Performance art is just that - art. Art is meant to evoke some sort of emotion, or response, or feeling in the viewer. If you felt uncomfortable, attacked, or offended by the performance, did you ever stop to ask yourself why those feelings came about? A rational audience member might conclude that these were simply uncomfortable issues, which begs another question - why are the issues themselves difficult to talk about? An intelligent, level-headed, constructive conversation or analysis can come from this starting point. This is called being open-minded. For an example of this, I suggest you read Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” and figure out what his actual intentions are with the piece.

I feel much of this is valid, yet parts are only tangentially relevant to the point I am trying to make. I understand that we all have our own opinions, and I respect that you are entitled to yours. However, Mr. Gravelle, I have nothing but contempt with your assertion that a performance put on by adults, designed for an adult audience and attended solely by adults should be censored, as well as your dismissal of “The Vagina Monologues” as vulgar trash based on what appears to be a knee-jerk, shallow analysis. Nobody put a gun to your head and told you to attend “The Vagina Monologues.” You made the choice to view the performance and you had the choice to leave. If this is not being force-fed down your throat, why should the freedom of expression by and to people who voluntarily make themselves part of it be censored? In a society that values free speech, we don’t have to like everything. A burning U.S. flag is just as much a symbol of free speech as the flag itself; I really don’t like it, but that’s the duplicitous nature of freedom.

However, I do understand that censorship (in the context of the media) is somewhat important with children; minds that are not yet developed enough to grasp the gravity or context in which some subject matter is placed can allow said minds to get the wrong idea. I think that for once I’m going to opt out on the side of subtlety and let the readers figure out what point I’m trying to make with that.

I’ve decided to hopefully avert receiving three columns of poorly-written editorial refuse directed at me by voluntarily censoring my closing remarks. I know for a fact that Jeff, the editor, wouldn’t let much of the following paragraph into the paper, so I’ve chosen to write it such that it won’t offend the virgin ears of the UMass Dartmouth Campus, and replaced every instance of vulgarity with the word “woopnacker.” Enjoy!

I feel that censoring content that is intended solely for adults is a WOOPNACKERing WOOPNACKERy idea. If the only way to experience the WOOPNACKERing content or performance is by voluntarily acting to do so, why the WOOPNACKER should we dilute its WOOPNACKERing message? Would Schindler’s List have been worth watching if it were hacked to pieces by censorship? Recommending censorship of private displays not only WOOPNACKERs on the freedoms of speech and assembly, it drops a big, steamy WOOPNACKER on our collective intellect. Every person has the right to swing his fist, until it hits another person’s nose. If someone’s doing something that doesn’t affect you, why the WOOPNACKER should you care?

I need a WOOPNACKERing beer.

Bob Sparhawk
Class of 2008

Keep whining; I’ll still vote for Nader

By Lance Gagnon

Now that the presidential primaries are coming towards a close, we’re starting to see what we were sure we’d see: the Democratic candidate is going to be either Clinton or Obama and the Republicans chose someone who can’t take either of them. It’d even be safe to just say that this race is likely to end with Obama as our new president. But to be honest with you, the likely winner doesn’t matter to me; I’m still voting for Ralph Nader anyways.

If you’re a Democrat, you’re probably reacting right now with a sense of disgust; if the comments I’ve heard about Nader voters over the past eight years are any indication, you might even think I’m out to destroy the country. But you might want to ask yourself one question: is Nader at fault for the mess our country is in, or is it the weak opposition that the Democrats constantly run against the Republicans?

If you are amongst the anti-Nader Democrats, you’ve probably bought into the revisionist history that says that Nader put Bush in power. In reality, Al Gore’s unwillingness to demand a full recount of all votes in Florida was the main factor that kept Gore from the presidency. The responsibility for such a decision rests entirely on Gore, who knew that he could have done otherwise. Nader’s votes were not even the second biggest problem for Gore. That honor would better serve Bush supporter and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s purge of 50,000 voters (mostly black voters who were likely to vote for Gore).

And the list of problems in that election — from poorly designed ballots that tricked people into voting for Pat Buchanan to Gore’s own inability to make himself look better than Bush — goes on long enough to show that the blame for Bush can’t be put on one person. It’s worse still that the blame is given to someone who did nothing but run for office. But if anyone who ran during that election has to be blamed (other than Bush himself, of course), it should be Gore, not Nader.

And the same is true for the 2004 election. Nader dropped from winning 2.7% of the vote in 2000 to a mere 0.4% in 2004. Democrats feared Nader so much that Bill Maher and Michael Moore literally got on their knees and begged the candidate they supported in 2000 to not run again. They might have done better to beg the Democrats, as their weak candidate once again handed over the presidency to Bush.

But things are a bit different now: unlike the last two failures, Democrats now have two candidates that give voters hope. The Republicans, on the other hand, are going to run a guy who promises 100 years of war. It should be obvious that if neither Democrat can win against John McCain, they have much bigger problems than Ralph Nader. Yet, rather than take an additional minor challenge in stride, Democratic voters are reacting angrily to Nader’s entry into the 2008 election.

But the thing that they miss is that candidates like Nader are necessary to improve the Democratic Party. The Democratic candidates have a bad habit of trying to be like the Republican candidates on the assumption that this will earn them more votes. But in reality, by leaning to the right they reduce themselves to mere clones of their competition, making voters apathetic and reducing the amount of people who believe in the electoral system enough to participate.

Nader, on the other hand, brought hope to the disenfranchised in 2000. By running a campaign on the values that Gore could only offer the illusion of believing in, he managed to get Gore to truly support those views once Nader’s campaign seemed like a threat to his own. And though he gained far less votes in 2004, he still managed to have a considerable following because Kerry offered nothing significant but the fact that he wasn’t Bush. If Kerry had paid attention, he’d notice that Nader voters were showing him what kind of platform he could have won them over with.

Now, in 2008, we see a similar situation. Yes, Obama and Clinton are both better than McCain and far better than the rest of the Republican Party’s offerings. But neither one has been completely honest with the public. For instance, their health care plans merely mimic the worthless “Romney Care” that we have in our state instead of offering true universal health care. Both claim to support withdrawal from Iraq, but neither calls for a full withdrawal. Though they claim they’ll “change” Bush’s affronts to our liberties, they have both voted in favor of reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act, one of the most damaging changes of the current administration.

Nader, on the other hand, has been honest with voters in every election so far. He has offered the kind of changes the left wants without phony rhetoric or concessions to corporate donors (which, unlike Obama and Clinton, Nader does not take money from). And while he isn’t likely to win, votes for Nader will send a message to whoever does: we want real change, not just empty promises.

So as long as the Democrats are playing the role of the lesser of two evils, I’m voting for someone who isn’t evil. Go ahead and say I’m throwing away my vote; if you don’t actually like your lying, backstabbing, Republicratic candidate, you’re throwing your vote away on them as well. With popular Democrats running against a weak Republican opponent, what matters now isn’t so much who wins but if they’ll do the right thing afterwards. For us Nader voters, our vote will be the first push for them in the right direction.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

‘Leave no traces’ on UMD campus

Ten years ago while I was on sabbatical I spent some time in a monastery. The monastery had many visitors, especially on the weekends. Many visitors meant a good deal of cleaning needs to be done when they left. Those of us who were staying at the monastery for an extended period of time but were not permanent residents were assigned, for the most part, the many menial tasks that make up the smooth running of a large institution i.e. dishes, peeling the vegetables and cleaning the bathrooms. I remember well that there were eight bathrooms that took whoever was cleaning them all morning and part of the afternoon to clean. While this may seem somewhat median there was an interesting experience connected with cleaning the bathroom, for each one had a small neatly typed reminder encouraging the user to “Leave No Traces” instead of the usual “Employees must wash their hands.”

At first the meaning seemed to be obvious, don’t leave a mess behind, clean the sink, tub, shower and take your wet towel with you. However, as I thought about “Leave No Traces” I realized the ramifications of the simple little sign went far beyond the immediacy of the bathroom and was a reflection on how I, and all of us by extension, approach life. Take for example life here at UMD. There are traces all over campus of our passing by, of our presence. To mention a few of the more obvious ones we need only to look at the parking lots with all of the trash, broken bottles, empty beer cases and any other unwanted items. If you this list you could add your own list of “traces.”

But, as unnecessary as these “traces” are I would suggest there are even more harmful ones that each of us engage in each day. As an example there are the “traces of the tongue” we leave when we spread gossip, abuse others verbally, make fun of others because they are “not like us” or give another the cold shoulder. Unlike the trash in the parking lots and else where “traces of the tongue” are impossible to clean up. A short story illustrates this:

Once upon a time a notorious gossip lived in a small village. Feeling some remorse for her speech she went to confession to repent of her misdeeds. As a penance the priest told her to take a feather pillow, go to the top a wind hill and let all the feathers out of the pillow and come back. The woman did as she was told and when she went back to the priest he said, “Now go and pick up all the feathers.” The woman exclaimed, “But that is impossible.” “So, too, is the gossip you spread,” replied the priest.

Peoples’ lives and reputations are destroyed by words. False words are spun in such a way as to make them appear to be true and the traces they leave behind, like the feathers, are impossible to take back. As we prepare for spring and especially for those who are Christian perhaps we can all spend a few moments looking at the traces we leave behind whether physical, like some kind of trash or verbal like gossip and use the invitation to new birth offer by the advent of spring as an opportunity to change.

Sr. Madeleine Tacy, OP
Catholic Campus Ministry

Ben Comeau’s Political Blarb

Ralph Nader: Please stop

By Ben Comeau

Ralph Nader just stop. Just...stop. I don’t want to hear it, I just want you to stop running for President. This is Ralph Nader’s fifth attempt to win the White House and each has failed spectacularly. Although, in his defense, it’s not like it’s entirely his own fault– America has a two-party system and a scrawny consumer-advocate in a necktie is not likely to garner much attention. But dammit, man, stop wasting your money and my time

Yes, the cards are stacked against the independent but I feel like the odds of him getting many votes are even slimmer then any other campaign. I mean honestly, when was the last time you heard Ralph Nader’s name? Name something he’s done recently or a victory he has logged? I know, I can’t think of anything either. This is where my beef with Ralph Nader lies– the man’s made a career of fighting for the consumer but not lately. His voice has attributed to the Freedom of Information Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the creation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)  and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but those were established years ago. I haven’t heard or seen any legislation being pushed by Ralph Nader or even citizen movements sponsored by Nader to spurn action by Congress. Why is he wasting his time?

Often third parties in America are single-issue parties; the Green Party, for example, is the party of the environment. The reason being, since third parties have such a slim chance in American politics, their goal isn’t so much to win but to inject the public debate with their cause, forcing one of the two parties to pick it up. It is because of Ralph Nader, in part, that each candidate has green proposals. You could argue that this has more to do with Al Gore but Nader was talking about it years before him and was a candidate of the Green Party. By making a big enough fuss about it during an election, Nader caused other candidates, more realistic candidates, to start making promises about the environment. He could be doing that now but it seems pointless — this election already has a lot of talk about the average consumer and the environment is too big to ignore now.

The reason I’m being so tough on Nader is because I feel like this is Nader’s prime time. He is an aged lion that has fought the good fight all through the 70’s. He has experience and a powerful rhetoric; his name is well known and his enthusiasm for the public is well rooted. Ralph Nader is the man America needs to promote a new age of consumer awareness and public defense, but he’s never going to do that from the Oval Office.

America right now is seeing the worst corporate greed and corruption ever in its history. Companies are getting richer (specifically at the top), the average worker is poorer, and products are becoming more expensive and of worse quality. Advertising has reached a new high, invading all realms of public and private space. With this backdrop, where is Ralph Nader? Why isn’t he supporting action against global monopolies or bringing legal action against lying cheating corporations? Why isn’t he fighting for change at the EPA, an agency he helped create, which has now become a puppet and bureaucratic nightmare?

Ralph Nader needs to bow out of the rat race that is 2008 Presidential Election and get back to what he does best — defend people who can’t defend themselves. Only his wisdom and vision can organize citizens well enough so they can defend themselves against an oppressive corporate system. Ralph Nader, please stop... help us at the bottom.

Congress like drunk sailors on ‘pork barrel’ spending

By Lee Lukoff

Congress is known for spending America’s tax dollars for useless spending proposals which critics have dubbed “pork barrel projects.” Perhaps the most famous pork barrel project in history was the “Bridge to Nowhere.” This bridge in Alaska would have connected the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with an airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50). This project was to cost $320 million dollars, but the idea eventually died to strong opposition. The proliferation of pork barrel projects under a Republican led congress were the primary reason why Democrats took over Congress in 2006. Senator John McCain said it best when describing the spending habits of his Congressional colleagues. He said, “Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I’ve never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has.” I decided to do some research to find exactly how your tax dollars are being spent, and what I will now tell will certainly shock you.

It would make sense if the states that pay the majority of taxes would get back there fair share of federal dollars. However, in reality, this doesn’t happen. The states of Alaska and Hawaii have been the top two states receiving federal dollars per capita every year but one since 2000. Alaska received $209.9 million dollars for military spending, a 127% increase from 2006. You’d think that states that actually had a decent sized population would become the beneficiaries of federal defense spending projects, but they’re not. Most of the money spent in these two states was sent to worthless projects. For example, Hawaii received $4.5 million for the Chitosan Bandage project which utilizes natural compounds found in shrimp heads to make high quality band-aids.

Military pork barrel projects are not unique to Alaska and Hawaii alone. In fact, most of the money in defense appropriations doesn’t even go towards projects that are of any real use for our military. For example, $1.35 million dollars of your money was spent on the “Obesity in the Military Research Program.” I never knew that it took a team of research specialists to understand why people are fat. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand why people are fat and it certainly shouldn’t take any of our tax dollars either.

Perhaps the most unnecessary pork project in the military appropriations bill came from Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). She earmarked $1.65 million for research to be done to improve the shelf life of vegetables. She said, “This project will help our troops in the field get fresh tomatoes and it will help establish and evaluate variant populations of bell pepper, cantaloupe and strawberries.” You’d think that maybe the Dept. of Agriculture would be responsible for such projects, but when you’re in the business of politics, any opportunity to bring home more pork can’t be missed.

So far this year pork barrel spending has been kept in check compared to years past. The threat of President Bush’s veto and a temporary earmark moratorium has kept pork barrel spending to a minimum. Only two appropriations bills have been passed with a total of 2,658 projects according to the watch dog group Citizens against Government Waste. Still, the numbers of unnecessary projects in the Defense and Homeland Security Appropriations Acts have cost taxpayers $13.2 billion dollars for the 2007 fiscal year. While the recent changes in Washington may be a step in the right direction, you never knew when Congress will go back to its old habits of spending money on indoor rainforests, National Peanut Festivals, bridges to nowhere, and teapot museums.

Buckley’s passing marks death of ‘Fusionism’

By Ben Tansey

Conservative intellectual William F. Buckley, Jr died recently at the age of 82. He leaves behind a mixed legacy, dominated by early success with his book God and Man at Yale, his quixotic campaign for the mayoralty of New York City, his television program Firing Line and, of course, his magazine, National Review. The last was the most important, becoming the flagship for a conservative movement that Buckley, more than any other American intellectual, created. He did so by embracing a theory, originally propagated by Frank S. Meyer, known as fusionism. One that believed that a new and sustainable political movement could be created by forging a confederation between traditionalist, Burkean conservatives in the vein of Russell Kirk, hard line anti-communist cold warriors, and free-market minded libertarians. And, it should be noted, by ruthlessly excommunicating from American conservatism thinkers that he deemed unfit for building his edifice.

For a time, he was successful. His movement and his National Review dominated American politics on the right for half a century. And at first it looked like they would be gloriously successful in their objectives. The Soviet Union collapsed, the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America rolled back the size of the federal government in a big way, conservatives were appointed to the supreme court and some measure of sanity was returned to American society after the drug addled bacchanal of the ‘60s and ‘70s.

But as Buckley moved through the twilight of his life, the conservative movement of which he was the architect was also moving through the twilight of its own. He is now dead, and in the 2008 Republican Party Primaries, fusionism is experiencing its own violent death throes.

The communists defeated, the free market libertarians want a return to peace and they want conservatism to focus on dismantling not only the welfare state, but the warfare one as well. They rose up angrily in the form of the Ron Paul campaign, and though he found little real success, one can’t help but feel that this is not the last the Republican Party will hear from its libertarian discontents. And when they find, as I believe that they will, that they are unable to wrest control of the conservative movement from the tide of big government “compassionate conservatism” that has been cooked up by the Bible thumpers, they will surely leave Buckley’s big tent behind in search of greener pastures from which to extol the virtues of peace and private property.

No longer having the communist dragon to slay, the cold warriors have moved on to the phantom threat of Islam. John McCain’s campaign, which they have latched on to, has little concern at all for domestic affairs, so long as it can keep dropping bombs on innocent people in the third world to combat the threat of “terrorism”. A liberal on domestic affairs (he has complained that Bernanke’s federal reserve is not inflating enough, and received an F- from Gun Owners of America) McCain has based his campaign off of promises to stay in Iraq “for a hundred years” and threats of war with the Iranians. Cold warriors swoon, libertarians and evangelicals threaten to faint.

As for the evangelicals, they have become this movement’s Benedict Arnold. They are forging a separate peace with the religious left, and this became more clear than ever in the presidential campaign of Mike Huckabee. They lack any moral devotion to capitalism and indeed many of them take a semi-socialist view of the message of charity that is found in the Gospels. It is no coincidence that the administration of George W. Bush, evangelical to the core, expanded the size of the federal government more than any other since Lyndon “Great Society” Johnson.

This cannot continue. The libertarians will not tolerate the evangelical’s fondness for the welfare state. The evangelicals cannot abide by the libertarians opposition to laws governing personal moral conduct. And neither of them will stand for the endless warmongering of the hawks. One of these three groups will gain control of the conservative movement (the nomination of John McCain in 2008 represents at least a temporary victory for the ex-cold warriors) at the expense of the other two. The fusionist confederation cannot survive, and that means that Buckley’s goal has ultimately failed. The monument he attempted to construct is already crumbling, and, absent one of their greatest leaders, America’s political right wing is about to enter another long, dark, night.