Rusty, I don't know about you but I'm willing to give my life for this country; so long as it's structured around the Constitution, Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence.

Several years ago I took an oath to defend these great documents and ideals and believe that that oath was taken for life.

If it means we have to do it by force then so be it. Violence is always a means to an end but should never be the first choice in action unless taken against you first.

Where was the tea party in this election? We lost seats in both chambers not to mention the Presidency. This election was handed to us on a platter and we blew it We threw our own people under the buss because of a slip of the tongue We elected McCaskill. And who did we run for president, flip flop Romney. This happened all over the country. I look for more loses in 2014. maybe even the house.
Boehner and McConnell are in the middle of negotiations Nothing has been carved in stone yet. Give them a chance to do their jobs the best they can and if it doesn't meet with the approval of the majority tell them about it. There is completely to much hate and discontent around here. We have no one to blame but ourselves for the way things are.

Scott, I don't know about MO but here in MA we were fighting hard! The press got the best of us. Plus the "comment" you mentioned was all that the LibDem's needed to hang their hat on.

My wife and I were out talking to anyone we could to push the conservative/libertarian views from an Anti-Obama stance. Look, we don't live here in MA under virtual attack (and sometimes not so virtual) because we love it here. Both of our families are rooted here so we decided to stay and try to change the state...The Kennedy Machine is HUGE and the entitlement mentality is twice that if not more!

Long story short, roll up your sleeves, quit bitchin' and get to work with like minded people! If anyone has a right to be depressed or disgruntled it's my wife and me! Be part of the solution sir!

Mr. Costello,
I agree with you 100%! WE the TEA PARTY need to stick together and inform others and win them over to our vision of America. We can not just stay on this website or within our comfort of friends and preach to the choir. This website is a tool for us to learn more about ideas to bring others to the light of conservitive values and we should take those ideas like yours Mr. Costello and reach out to others in our community and help teach them that conserviti-ism is not a "bad" word. Its one of the fundamental principles of the founding of this country. We need to become like a disciple of Christ and bring the word to others outside of our circle of friends and teach them...don't beat them over the head with the constition if they don't believe or refuse to listen. Pray for them and continue on to the next person.
Because of people being angry at our elected officals and the repub party power grab many of us stayed home on election day and did not vote to teach the Repub party a lesson. Ha! jokes on you, they won! Government will now have even more control bc of those of us not voting.
We need to win back our Party the Republican Party is ours and it needs to be purged or cleaned up! Vote like minded conservitives into office and we will regain control of our party AND with each conservitive we vote in we win our country as well.

I had to post this. I'm not a Romney fan but I don't hate the man either. This is from another tea party member:

You may have seen this before, but its worth reading, & passing around to help others perhaps “think” before they vote next Tue. Hopefully………….

Mitt Romney Personal Information:

His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney

He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.

His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State ofMichigan

He was raised inBloomfield Hills,Michigan

He is Married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children.

Education:

B.A. fromBrighamYoungUniversity,

J.D. and M.B.A. fromHarvardUniversity

Religion:

Mormon – TheChurchofJesus Christof the Latter-Day Saints

Working Background:

After high school, he spent 30 months inFranceas a Mormon missionary. After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam, but never worked as an attorney.

In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity investment firm, one of the largest such firms in theUnited States.

In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.

He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.

In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney:

Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store inMassachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people. Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.

He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s gubernatorial campaign 1 year. He was an unpaid intern in his dad’s governor’s office for eight years. He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years. He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three years. He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four years. He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.

Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and time than most men.

In 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his income….. Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.

Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:

He will show us his birth certificate.

He will show us his high school and college transcripts.

He will show us his social security card.

He will show us his law degree.

He will show us his draft notice.

He will show us his medical records.

He will show us his income tax records.

He will show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney’s background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be a great leader and an excellent citizen for President of the United States. You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is, and that he won’t desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or practice fiscal irresponsibility.

I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the current regime has gotten us into. We won’t like all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with Romney’s background can do it.

Then, on the minus side, he never was a “Community Organizer”, never took drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God to… damn the US!

Romney’s character is true!

FYI… And I double checked this on http://www.truthorfiction.com/ – and they verified it is TRUE!

of course it is doubtful of any mention in the media . . . .

According to http://www.politicalfact.com/ , (and www.Snopes.com ) this is a true story.

Yep! character does matter, and what we have been hearing in the media recently has been quite shocking. I thought you might like to see another side of one of the candidates. It appears there is more to the Bain Capital story than is being told, so I hope this story below is informative.

Romney’s character… This facet of Romney’s personality isn’t so subtle!

In July 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of Robert Gay, a partner at Bain Capital, had disappeared. She had attended a rave party inNew York Cityand gotten high on ecstasy. Three days later, her distraught father had no idea where she was.

Romney took immediate action. He closed down the entire firm and asked all 30 partners and employees to fly toNew Yorkto help find Gay’s daughter. Romney set up a command center at the LaGuardia Marriott and hired a private detective firm to assist with the search.

He established a toll-free number for tips, coordinating the effort with the NYPD, and went through his Rolodex and called everyone Bain did business with inNew York, and asked them to help find his friend’s missing daughter.

Romney’s accountants at Price Waterhouse Cooper put up posters on street poles, while cashiers at a pharmacy owned by Bain put fliers in the bag of every shopper. Romney and the other Bain employees scoured every part ofNew Yorkand talked with everyone they could – prostitutes, drug addicts – anyone.

That day, their hunt made the evening news, which featured photos of the girl and the Bain employees searching for her. As a result, a teenage boy phoned in, asked if there was a reward, and then hung up abruptly. The NYPD traced the call to a house inNew Jersey, where they found the girl in the basement, shivering and experiencing withdrawal symptoms from a massive ecstasy dose.

Doctors later said the girl might not have survived another day.

Romney’s former partner credits Mitt Romney with saving his daughter’s life, saying, “It was the most amazing thing, and I’ll never forget this to the day I die.”

So, here’s my epiphany: Mitt Romney simply can’t help himself. He sees a problem, and his mind immediately sets to work solving it, sometimes consciously, and sometimes not-so-consciously. He doesn’t do it for self-aggrandizement, or for personal gain. He does it because that’s just how he’s wired.

Many people are unaware of the fact that when Romney was asked by his old employer, Bill Bain, to come back to Bain & Company as CEO to rescue the firm from bankruptcy, Romney left Bain Capital to work at Bain & Company for an annual salary of one dollar.

When Romney went to the rescue of the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, he accepted no salary for three years, and would not use an expense account. He also accepted no salary as Governor of Massachusetts.

Character counts!! (and yes…that’s worth reading again!)

It’s nice to hear something positive about one of the candidates for a change!

Mr. Costello,
Like you I also took that oath, it meant a lot to me then and it still does. I'm no longer in the U.S. Air Force Reserves; however, I love this country and proud to be an American even today bc of the greatness this county can accomplish and will overcome obstacles everyday. Taking arms against our own countrymen is last resort. We have the means to take control of our country given to us by our fore fathers. The Constitution will be our weapon!

Least I remind you we are a TEA PARTY! we must take control of our party and our country. The Republican party will be ours again!
Now...UNTIL we form a solid third party or better yet REFORM the Reublican party back to a conservitive base. We should NOT shut down and not vote again! This is what the Liberals/Progressives want us to do, so that they will gain control over the government and then have control over everything we do and say! We (Conservitives) need to continue to vote and vote for other like minded Conservitives until we flush out/purge the Republican party of the Liberal/Progressives that are infecting out party!
This belief of staying home and sitting on our hands during an election is the very reason why we have obama for another 4 yrs. 3 Million of the Republican voters stayed home this last election and we lost (barely)! If they would have shown up to vote Romney/Ryan would be our new President/VP. I say that with confidence bc obama had a very low voter turn out; unfortunately, the Repub. voter turn out was even lower. We let ourselves down this election yr. and let the liberals win.
Again, vote Conservitive so that we can regain control of our party!

THE Ayn Rand LETTER
Vol. 1, No. 1 October 11, 1971

CREDIBILITY AND POLARIZATION

Intellectual confusion is the hallmark of the twentieth century, induced by those whose task is to provide enlightment: by modern intellectuals.
One of their methods is the destruction of language - and, therefore, of thought and, therefore, of communication - by means of anti-concepts. An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate. If, loaded with too many approximations, you find yourself giving up the attempt to understand today's world, check your premises and the words you are hearing. To understand what one hears and reads today requires a special translation.
Now to introduce myself, in this context. Philosophically, I am an advocate of reason. Practically, my task is to demonstrate that man needs philosophy in order to discover the proper way to live on earth. Journalistically, part of my task is to serve as a translator by identifying, whenever necessary, the meaning of the worst anti-concepts in our cultural smog. Colloquially, in this respect, call me a bromide-buster.
One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad - undesirable, socially destructive, evil - something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country - which is supposed to make one's opponents retreat, protesting that they didn't mean it. Mean - what?
“Polarization” is a term borrowed from physics; a dictionary defines “polarity” as: “the presence or manifestation of two opposite or contrasting principles or tendencies.” (Random House Dictionary, 1966.)
Transplanted from the realm of physics to the realm of social issues, this term means a situation in which men hold “opposite or contrasting” views or ideas (principles), and goals or values (tendencies). When used as a pejorative term, this means that men should not differ in their views, ideas, goals and values that such differences are evil, that men must not disagree.
This notion is propagated by the same intellectuals who denounce conformity, decry the status quo, clamor for change, and proclaim that the right to dissent includes the right to implement it by physical force.
But - the anti-polarizers might protest - they do not object to all disagreements: the key term in the above definition is “principles”: which is true. It is principles - fundamental principles - that they are struggling to eliminate from public discussion. It is a clash of fundamental principles that the term “polarization” is intended to hide and to avert. Fundamental principles they feel, must be accepted uncritically - on faith, by “instinct,” by implication, by emotional commitment - and must never be named or questioned. No, they do not mind dissent and differences - such differences as between St. Peter and St. Paul, or Auguste Comte and Karl Marx, or Senator Muskie and Senator Kennedy. But do not dare bring up the differences between Aristotle and Marcuse, or Adam Smith and J. M. Keynes, or George Washington and Richard M. Nixon. This would polarize the country, they cry. And it sure would.
The most timid, frightened, conservative defenders of the status quo - of the intellectual status quo - are today’s liberals (the leaders of the conservatives never ventured into the realm of the intellect). What they dread to discover is the fact that the intellectual status quo they inherited is bankrupt, that they have no ideological base to stand on and no capacity to construct one. Brought up on the philosophy of Pragmatism, they have been taught that principles are unprovable, impractical or non-existent - which has destroyed their ability to integrate ideas, to deal with abstractions, and to see beyond the range of the immediate moment. Abstractions, they claim, are “simplistic” (another anti-concept); myopia is sophisticated. “Don't polarize!” and “Don’t rock the boat” are expressions of the same kind of panic.
It is doubtful - even in the mist of today’s intellectual decadence - which one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however one declares: “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.
The leaders of today’s intellectuals are probably aware of the fact that the injunction to avoid polarization means that unity – a nation’s unity – must be given priority over reason, logic and truth, which is a fundamental principle of collectivism. But the rank-and-file intellectuals are not aware of it: it is too abstract a conclusion. Like children and savages, they believe that human wishes are omnipotent, that everything would be all right if only we’d all agree on it, and that anything can be solved by cooperation, negotiation and compromise.
This has been the ruling doctrine in our political, academic and intellectual life for the last for the last fifty years or longer, with no noteworthy dissenters but one: reality.
The ideal of “consensus” did not work. It did not lead to social harmony among men, or security or confidence or unity or mutual understanding and good will. It has led us to a general sense of hostility, of fear, uncertainty, lethargy, bitterness, cynicism, and a growing mistrust of everyone by everyone.
The same intellectuals, who advocate non-polarization, are now deploring the “credibility gap.” They do not realize that the latter is the unavoidable consequence of the former.
If clear-cut principles, unequivocal definitions and inflexible goals are barred from public discussion, then a speaker or writer has to struggle to hide his meaning (if any) under coils of meaningless generalities and safely popular bromides, regardless of whether his message is good or bad, true or false, he cannot state it openly, but must smuggle it into his audience’s subconscious by means of the same unfocused, deceptive, evasive verbiage. He must strive to be misunderstood in the greatest number of ways by the greatest number of people: this is the only way to keep up the pretense of unity.
If, in such conditions, people are urged to cooperate, negotiate or compromise, how are they to do it? How can they cooperate, if their common goal is not named explicitly? How can they negotiate, if the intentions of the carious men or groups involved are not revealed? How can they know, when they compromise, whether they have made a reasonable deal or sold out their future? Since there is no way to do it – since concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles – men begin to regard social relationships not as a matter of dealing with one another, but of putting something over on one another. And the worst of it is not that this policy turns the men who act in good faith into easy prey for the frauds and the manipulators. The worst of it is the genuine misunderstandings between honest men who take the loose verbiage to mean two opposite things. If there is a surer way to breed mistrust and bitterness, I do not know of it.
In politics, the intellectuals profess their desire “to make democracy work” and their devotion to the will of the people as expressed by vote. How are people to choose or trust their representatives in an age of non-polarizing language? A parliamentary system stands of falls on the quality –the precision – of public communication (and its precondition: the freedom of public information). A program, platform, promise, or forecast of the future cannot be offered except in terms of explicitly defined principles – and such principles are the people’s only means of ascertaining whether a candidate has kept his word or not. In the last decades, people have become cynically accustomed to ignoring the empty catch phrases of campaign oratory and to voting on the basis of implications. But this does not work –as has been demonstrated definitively by Mr. Nixon, who made a U-turn on a dime (or on a paper dollar), discarding overnight every approximate principle he was approximately believed to stand for. (I shall discuss Mr. Nixon’s performance is a subsequent Letter). Whatever our politicians now talk about, they had better not talk about reviving anyone’s “faith in the democratic process” or about credibility.
In the absence of intellectual polarization, we are witnessing the growth of the ugliest kind of divisiveness or existential polarization, if you will: pressure-group warfare. The country is splitting into dozens of blind, deaf, but screaming camps, each drawn together not by loyalty to an idea, but by the accident of race, age, sex, religious creed, or the frantic whim of a given moment – not by values held in common, but by a common hatred of some other group – not by choice, but by terror.
When men abandon principles (i.e., their conceptual faculty), two of the major results are: individually, the inability to project the future; socially, the impossibility of communication. Trapped in a maze of immediate problems, with no means of grasping the context, causes, consequences or solutions, men seek a way out by ganging up on one another, which means: by accepting brute physical force as the ultimate arbiter of disputes. A shrunken, range-of-the-moment mentality sees other men as the immediate cause of its troubles; it can see no further; forcing its demands on others in the only answer it can grasp. But these others, acting on the same non-principle, gang up to retaliate and to force their demands, which lead their intended victims to gang up, and so on. Who is the ultimate victim? The smallest minority on earth: the individual – which means: every man qua man.
Is there a solution? Yes. In its present state, what this country needs above all is the clarifying, reassuring, confidence-and-credibility-inspiring guidance of fundamental principles – i.e., in modern parlance, intellectual polarization.
This would bring to our cultural atmosphere an all-but-forgotten quality: honesty, with its corollary, clarity. It would establish the minimum requirement of civilized discourse: that the proponents of ideas strive to make themselves understood and lay all their cards on the table (including their axioms). It would leave no significant audience or influence to those who specialize in the unintelligible, or preach blatant contradictions, or proclaim ends with total unconcern for means, or hold fundamental principles they would not dare name openly, or disseminate anti-concepts. It would enable men to know their own stand and that of their adversaries. It would enable them to make conscious choices and to take the consequences – or to change their course, when proved wrong. What they would regain is the power to understand, to consider, to judge – and to communicate with one another. What they would lose is the sense of suffocating in a smog of impotent bewilderment.
What if men disagree, you ask? No open disagreement can be as destructive as the secret, nameless, virulent hostility now splintering this country.
But isn’t unity desirable you ask? Unity is a consequence, not a primary. The unity of a lynch mob, of Nazi storm troopers or of the Soviet press is not desirable. Only fundamental principles, rationally validated, clearly understood and voluntarily accepted, can create a desirable kind of unity among men.
But such principles cannot be defined, you say? Check your premises and those of the speakers who told you so. There is a science whose task is to discover and define fundamental principles. It is the forgotten, neglected, subverted and currently disgraced base of all the other sciences: philosophy.

Ayn Rand

Eric,
I have worked hard from 2007-2012...I am not going to stop now. I am a Patriot but the Republicans don't get a free pass from me no longer. There are a lot of votes on the Tea Party Bus and we are not sheep. I am a Conservative Libertarian from this point on. The R's will have to work hard and prove themselves to me before I join the R party again. Today we can see why George Washington was against a two party system. I am not a R, I am for sure not a D and I will never stand down

My venue is Capitalist Libertarian. It's ok to make profit and it's essential to have a selfish bone in your body so you can be rewarded for extra effort! We are taught that selfishness is a bad thing. It isn't. It is perfectly fine to receive the fruits of your labor. It's not ok to be selfish with others money.

I agree that the politician of our time since Regan do not speak the truth more so in axiams and we (our media, or our people) have not pushed back and cried "BULL CRAP" on the tounge and check preachy talking points that we have heard time and time again, especially from the left! When ever a canidate does speak forth right, shoots from the hip, or in plain english for all to understand they ARE called simpletians and are shut down by our intellectials on our side (Progressives) as well as the left and the leftist media. However, this does not mean that we as party can't unite and elect a canidate based on principles and when he/she speaks that person speaks to the average American; which many can not get through the lenghty segment you sent me without getting lost or losing intrest all together. I credit this to the age of information and texting. Everything is now and short format. Even when you tell a story to someone they want the short version, just bc they don't have the will to sit and listen to the whole story anymore...not without visual effects and such added to make it more exciting.
I stick by my previous statment of we need to elect people that are conservitive in principle and we will take over the Repub Party and our country. It can be done and history has shown us this, if we care to look and read a real history book. Wait Maybe that's why we can't win an election because everyone wants the short version. LOL!

I think Rubio is inspiring! I caution the use of hyphenated American tags though. We need to loose the thought that race needs to be injected into elections. I'm Anglo and many of of my heroes are non Anglos, I don't like even using the term ANGLO. Check the "OTHER" box on all forms. We are AMERICANS. STOP THE RACE BAITING NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Dik- I agree absolutely, but that's not how an increasing number of Americans think anymore; it's all about what group you belong to and who you identify with. That kind of thinking goes against what we believe as conservatives, so we shouldn't be surprised when we lose elections. Another thing to consider is that Mexicans aren't necessarily impressed by Rubio, who is Cuban. Hispanics resent being lumped together as if they're a monolithic voting bloc; Cubans are generally more conservative and Mexicans more big-government oriented. So now, do we have to find and promote conservatives of Mexican heritage only? We may very well have to, if demographics continue on their current path, or face becoming irrelevant.

Thanks James . . . look at this!>>>

THE Ayn Rand LETTER
Vol. 1, No. 1 October 11, 1971

CREDIBILITY AND POLARIZATION

Intellectual confusion is the hallmark of the twentieth century, induced by those whose task is to provide enlightment: by modern intellectuals.
One of their methods is the destruction of language - and, therefore, of thought and, therefore, of communication - by means of anti-concepts. An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate. If, loaded with too many approximations, you find yourself giving up the attempt to understand today's world, check your premises and the words you are hearing. To understand what one hears and reads today requires a special translation.
Now to introduce myself, in this context. Philosophically, I am an advocate of reason. Practically, my task is to demonstrate that man needs philosophy in order to discover the proper way to live on earth. Journalistically, part of my task is to serve as a translator by identifying, whenever necessary, the meaning of the worst anti-concepts in our cultural smog. Colloquially, in this respect, call me a bromide-buster.
One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad - undesirable, socially destructive, evil - something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country - which is supposed to make one's opponents retreat, protesting that they didn't mean it. Mean - what?
“Polarization” is a term borrowed from physics; a dictionary defines “polarity” as: “the presence or manifestation of two opposite or contrasting principles or tendencies.” (Random House Dictionary, 1966.)
Transplanted from the realm of physics to the realm of social issues, this term means a situation in which men hold “opposite or contrasting” views or ideas (principles), and goals or values (tendencies). When used as a pejorative term, this means that men should not differ in their views, ideas, goals and values that such differences are evil, that men must not disagree.
This notion is propagated by the same intellectuals who denounce conformity, decry the status quo, clamor for change, and proclaim that the right to dissent includes the right to implement it by physical force.
But - the anti-polarizers might protest - they do not object to all disagreements: the key term in the above definition is “principles”: which is true. It is principles - fundamental principles - that they are struggling to eliminate from public discussion. It is a clash of fundamental principles that the term “polarization” is intended to hide and to avert. Fundamental principles they feel, must be accepted uncritically - on faith, by “instinct,” by implication, by emotional commitment - and must never be named or questioned. No, they do not mind dissent and differences - such differences as between St. Peter and St. Paul, or Auguste Comte and Karl Marx, or Senator Muskie and Senator Kennedy. But do not dare bring up the differences between Aristotle and Marcuse, or Adam Smith and J. M. Keynes, or George Washington and Richard M. Nixon. This would polarize the country, they cry. And it sure would.
The most timid, frightened, conservative defenders of the status quo - of the intellectual status quo - are today’s liberals (the leaders of the conservatives never ventured into the realm of the intellect). What they dread to discover is the fact that the intellectual status quo they inherited is bankrupt, that they have no ideological base to stand on and no capacity to construct one. Brought up on the philosophy of Pragmatism, they have been taught that principles are unprovable, impractical or non-existent - which has destroyed their ability to integrate ideas, to deal with abstractions, and to see beyond the range of the immediate moment. Abstractions, they claim, are “simplistic” (another anti-concept); myopia is sophisticated. “Don't polarize!” and “Don’t rock the boat” are expressions of the same kind of panic.
It is doubtful - even in the mist of today’s intellectual decadence - which one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however one declares: “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.
The leaders of today’s intellectuals are probably aware of the fact that the injunction to avoid polarization means that unity – a nation’s unity – must be given priority over reason, logic and truth, which is a fundamental principle of collectivism. But the rank-and-file intellectuals are not aware of it: it is too abstract a conclusion. Like children and savages, they believe that human wishes are omnipotent, that everything would be all right if only we’d all agree on it, and that anything can be solved by cooperation, negotiation and compromise.
This has been the ruling doctrine in our political, academic and intellectual life for the last for the last fifty years or longer, with no noteworthy dissenters but one: reality.
The ideal of “consensus” did not work. It did not lead to social harmony among men, or security or confidence or unity or mutual understanding and good will. It has led us to a general sense of hostility, of fear, uncertainty, lethargy, bitterness, cynicism, and a growing mistrust of everyone by everyone.
The same intellectuals, who advocate non-polarization, are now deploring the “credibility gap.” They do not realize that the latter is the unavoidable consequence of the former.
If clear-cut principles, unequivocal definitions and inflexible goals are barred from public discussion, then a speaker or writer has to struggle to hide his meaning (if any) under coils of meaningless generalities and safely popular bromides, regardless of whether his message is good or bad, true or false, he cannot state it openly, but must smuggle it into his audience’s subconscious by means of the same unfocused, deceptive, evasive verbiage. He must strive to be misunderstood in the greatest number of ways by the greatest number of people: this is the only way to keep up the pretense of unity.
If, in such conditions, people are urged to cooperate, negotiate or compromise, how are they to do it? How can they cooperate, if their common goal is not named explicitly? How can they negotiate, if the intentions of the carious men or groups involved are not revealed? How can they know, when they compromise, whether they have made a reasonable deal or sold out their future? Since there is no way to do it – since concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles – men begin to regard social relationships not as a matter of dealing with one another, but of putting something over on one another. And the worst of it is not that this policy turns the men who act in good faith into easy prey for the frauds and the manipulators. The worst of it is the genuine misunderstandings between honest men who take the loose verbiage to mean two opposite things. If there is a surer way to breed mistrust and bitterness, I do not know of it.
In politics, the intellectuals profess their desire “to make democracy work” and their devotion to the will of the people as expressed by vote. How are people to choose or trust their representatives in an age of non-polarizing language? A parliamentary system stands of falls on the quality –the precision – of public communication (and its precondition: the freedom of public information). A program, platform, promise, or forecast of the future cannot be offered except in terms of explicitly defined principles – and such principles are the people’s only means of ascertaining whether a candidate has kept his word or not. In the last decades, people have become cynically accustomed to ignoring the empty catch phrases of campaign oratory and to voting on the basis of implications. But this does not work –as has been demonstrated definitively by Mr. Nixon, who made a U-turn on a dime (or on a paper dollar), discarding overnight every approximate principle he was approximately believed to stand for. (I shall discuss Mr. Nixon’s performance is a subsequent Letter). Whatever our politicians now talk about, they had better not talk about reviving anyone’s “faith in the democratic process” or about credibility.
In the absence of intellectual polarization, we are witnessing the growth of the ugliest kind of divisiveness or existential polarization, if you will: pressure-group warfare. The country is splitting into dozens of blind, deaf, but screaming camps, each drawn together not by loyalty to an idea, but by the accident of race, age, sex, religious creed, or the frantic whim of a given moment – not by values held in common, but by a common hatred of some other group – not by choice, but by terror.
When men abandon principles (i.e., their conceptual faculty), two of the major results are: individually, the inability to project the future; socially, the impossibility of communication. Trapped in a maze of immediate problems, with no means of grasping the context, causes, consequences or solutions, men seek a way out by ganging up on one another, which means: by accepting brute physical force as the ultimate arbiter of disputes. A shrunken, range-of-the-moment mentality sees other men as the immediate cause of its troubles; it can see no further; forcing its demands on others in the only answer it can grasp. But these others, acting on the same non-principle, gang up to retaliate and to force their demands, which lead their intended victims to gang up, and so on. Who is the ultimate victim? The smallest minority on earth: the individual – which means: every man qua man.
Is there a solution? Yes. In its present state, what this country needs above all is the clarifying, reassuring, confidence-and-credibility-inspiring guidance of fundamental principles – i.e., in modern parlance, intellectual polarization.
This would bring to our cultural atmosphere an all-but-forgotten quality: honesty, with its corollary, clarity. It would establish the minimum requirement of civilized discourse: that the proponents of ideas strive to make themselves understood and lay all their cards on the table (including their axioms). It would leave no significant audience or influence to those who specialize in the unintelligible, or preach blatant contradictions, or proclaim ends with total unconcern for means, or hold fundamental principles they would not dare name openly, or disseminate anti-concepts. It would enable men to know their own stand and that of their adversaries. It would enable them to make conscious choices and to take the consequences – or to change their course, when proved wrong. What they would regain is the power to understand, to consider, to judge – and to communicate with one another. What they would lose is the sense of suffocating in a smog of impotent bewilderment.
What if men disagree, you ask? No open disagreement can be as destructive as the secret, nameless, virulent hostility now splintering this country.
But isn’t unity desirable you ask? Unity is a consequence, not a primary. The unity of a lynch mob, of Nazi storm troopers or of the Soviet press is not desirable. Only fundamental principles, rationally validated, clearly understood and voluntarily accepted, can create a desirable kind of unity among men.
But such principles cannot be defined, you say? Check your premises and those of the speakers who told you so. There is a science whose task is to discover and define fundamental principles. It is the forgotten, neglected, subverted and currently disgraced base of all the other sciences: philosophy.

Ayn Rand