Mr. Horowitz' article will appear in blue, my comments in white. All emphasis that occurs in the text is mine.

MY SUBJECT is Hillary Clinton in her role as America's foremost leftist. This is not an obvious idea to those leftists who identify themselves as radicals. Purists of the creed are likely to regard both Clintons as opportunists and sellouts of their cause. But the left is not and has never been a political monolith, and its factions have always attacked each other almost as ferociously as their political enemies. For those that still don't get this, for left read RED for right read BLUE. Each side thinks of its cause as every bit as much "religious" as "political" and therefore what each side considers to be RIGHT and WRONG carries a particular code of MORALITY along with it. Hillary Clinton is being used in this piece as both a personal representative of the RED side and how it thinks and also as a symbolic leftist. In both senses, she and her ilk are motivated by a SOCIAL IDEALISM that like all idealisms becomes both ideological and ultimately totalitarian.

It is possible to be a socialist, and radical in one's agendas, and yet moderate in the means one regards as practical to achieve them. Antonio Gramschi and Herbert Marcuse and their followers are good examples. To change the world, it is first necessary to acquire cultural and political power. And these transitional goals may often be accomplished by indirection and deception even more effectively than by frontal assault. Political stratagems that appear moderate and compromised to radical factions of the left may present an even greater threat from the perspective of the other side. In 1917, Lenin's political slogan wasn't "Socialist Dictatorship! Firing Squads and Gulags!" It was "Bread, Land and Peace." The Red League has ALWAYS been the party of LIARS simply because they could not tell the truth concerning their objectives and ever hope to win in a democratic struggle. The Democratic Party label is likewise a lie as were the Democratic Republics of Germany, Korea, and Vietnam, none of which were or are "democratic." Same goes for the "people's republics" which are neither for or by the people nor are they "republics."

Yet Hillary Clinton as America's "first lady of the left," is also not an obvious subject to many conservatives. And since conservative politics begins with the defense of America's constitutional order, this is a far more significant matter. Underestimating the foe on any battlefield can be a fatal fault; in politics likewise. This of course becomes somewhat thorny when the origins of the Constitution are included into the discussion, however the real political and in some cases cultural struggles are between the forces of the present order vs. the forces who want to establish their own order, neither to be confused with The New World Order. Neither of these forces concerns itself with the reality, presence or influence of The Barge, which floats above the action almost as the fabled gods of Olympus floated above the spectacle of the Trojan War.

The wit is sharp but the point just wide of the mark. There are many unprincipled narcissists in politics. But there has never been a White House so thoroughly penetrated by the political left. Noonan's psychological characterization is surely correct. But if Hillary and Bill Clinton were unable to draw on the dedication and support of the left-if they were Republicans, for example-there would be no prospect of a continuance of Them. The reasons for this are many; the Red League has the support of the Press and the Media, at least all that of which is not interactive, plus the support of the vast majority of Academe as well as of public school educators, the entertainment industry, the judicial system and most of the law profession, as well as most national and state government workers. The simple sense of it is that if a Nixon or a Reagan had been accused of what Clinton has done, they would have been gone by now. The Red League has managed to gain control of most of the vital avenues of political and cultural communications and with them what Horowitz calls the "continuance of Them".

Ever since abandoning the utopian illusions of the progressive cause, I have been struck by how little the world outside the left seems to actually understand it. How little those who have not inhabited the progressive mind are able to grasp the ruthless cynicism behind its idealistic mask or the fervent malice that drives its hypocritical passion for "social justice." Well, this here Polar Bear has.

No matter how great the crimes progressives commit, no matter how terrible the future they labor to create, no matter how devastating the catastrophes they leave behind, the world outside the faith seems ever ready to forgive them their "mistakes" and to grant them the grace of "good intentions." Because the rest of us are HONEST. When we say we are for helping the downtrodden, we really mean it. Those who talk most about it; the Red Leaguers, are really not that concerned. They'd rather wear a yellow ribbon, which draws attention to themselves as supporting some great noble cause. This is narcissistic!

As a student of the left, Jamie Glazov, has observed in an article about the middle-class defenders of recently captured Seventies terrorist Kathy Soliah: "if you can successfully camouflage your own pathology and hatred with a concern for the 'poor' and the 'downtrodden,' then there will always be a 'progressive' milieu to support and defend you." Easy to SAY, more difficult to DO. But it doesn't matter, for most people, just SAYING something is enough to get their support even when the speaker doesn't even mean it. Huey Newton, George Jackson, Bernadine Dohrn, Sylvia Baraldini, Rubin Carter, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rigoberta Menchu and innumerable others have all discovered this principle in the course of their criminal careers. Let's not forget this; from the perspective of the average middle class American, these people ARE criminals!

There is a superficial sense, of course, in which we were civil rights and peace activists-and that is certainly the way I would have described myself at the time, particularly if I were speaking to a non-left audience. It is certainly the way Mrs. Clinton and my former comrades in the left refer to themselves and their pasts in similar contexts today. But they are lying. (And when they defend racial preferences now-a principle they denounced as "racist" then-even they must know it). But they DON'T know it! The reason they don't is quite clear; they have made the truth and lies change places to support their idealism and their recourse to telling lies. Every good liar has to be good at telling lies or he would never be able to get away with it. Tell a really big lie, one with impossible conditions, such as I LOVE EVERYONE or I WANT TO HELP THE DISADVANTAGED or positing such an idealistic and FALSE notion as SOCIAL JUSTICE and most people who HONESTLY want to do whatever they can for the POOR, etc. will believe the lie, therefore...

The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity-often without even realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life. And this too is narcissistic!

Why, for example, if you were one of them, would you tell the truth? If you were serious about your role in humanity's vanguard, if you had the knowledge (which others did not), that you were certain would lead them to a better world, why would you tell them a truth that they could not "understand" and that would hold them back? The truth would be that in order to HAVE what the middle classes have, one must work hard, SAVE and INVEST and maybe after a lot of HARD WORK one might be able to afford the better things in life, might indeed even become rich. In order to "understand" they would need real education, something the Red League is NOT in the business of providing, therefore it becomes a ridiculous notion to think that a Red League candidate speaking on the subject of EDUCATION would have anything worthwhile to say about it, the problems of the current system or any really good proposals as to how to fix it.

If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints. If all the non leftists had the vision, we'd all be living in a leftist utopia by now. Fortunately only a few hundred million people had that vision for long enough to experience the leftist HELL of a totalitarian state.

That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism. And the narcissist has no further goal than to MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES. All the other fine sounding things they say are just that. They never intend on DOING ANYTHING constructive about anything they talk about!

That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth. The largest single truth about the Left is that they are responsible for more human deaths IN ONE CENTURY than can be attributed to any other single cause in the past TEN THOUSAND YEARS of recorded human history! They don't want to hear that Hitler and Stalin were one and the same, that Stalin and Kruschev were on the same side, that Castro, Gorbachov and the dictators who rule China are all on the same side. The Left will always make excuses for murder in the name of their idealism. What a terrible price to pay for narcissism; merely feeling good about oneself!

What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. And this too is true. But it is ALWAYS true. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer. And with it, their true aim would be realized, which is to come to power and to STAY in power and to ROB everything from those who worked hard and built the capitalist free world and HOARD MOST OF IT FOPR THEMSELVES as has been done in EVERY socialist or communist state! Horowitz continues, speaking directly to the leftists...

But you never had the honesty-then or now-to admit that. You told the lie then to maintain your influence and increase your power to do good (as only the Chosen can). And you keep on telling the lie for the same reason. Why would you admit that, despite your tactical support for civil rights, you weren't really committed to civil rights as Americans understand rights? What you really wanted was to overthrow the very Constitution that guaranteed those rights, based as it is on private property and the individual-both of which you despise. The narcissist cannot help but HATE anyone who looks better, feels better, does anything better than they do. Rather than do the hard work to improve themselves, their view of themselves is rather that others who are to blame for their lot in life should do the work FOR THEM. This is the oddest turnabout; that the slave when he comes to power wants everyone else to serve him.

It is because America is a democracy and the people endorse it, that the left's anti-American, but "progressive" agendas can only be achieved by deceiving the people. This is the cross the left has to bear: The better world is only achievable by lying to the very people they propose to redeem. Except that the creed is said but never really believed. What is believed is that the narcissist intends to GET EVEN or GET OVER on those who have done better than they have. It is frequently the case that the best minds and talents the Red League has are actually involved in politics whereas the best the Blue League has to offer are outside of politics, ACTUALLY RUNNING THINGS. This paradox has crippled the Blue League side for a long time. The Red League likes to TALK, the Blue League prizes ACTION. Most of the real action does not happen in governments anywhere on earth. The real action occurs when normal everyday people are out there working to create things or provide useful services.

Despite the homage contemporary leftists pay to post-modernist conceits, despite their belated and half-hearted display of critical sentiment towards Communist regimes, they are very much the ideological heirs of Stalinist progressives, who supported the greatest mass murders in human history, THANK-YOU Mr. Horowitz! but who remember themselves as civil libertarian opponents of McCarthy and victims of a political witch-hunt. (Only the dialectically gifted can even begin to follow the logic involved.) Especially when as it turns out from recently released KGB files that Senator Joseph E. McCarthy's crusade against Communist infiltration of our government and other institutions was well founded. It wouldn't have mattered much if McCarthy had been a better messenger or not, the Left had all the ammo it needed to seal his fate and mark him as a detested bogy man of the post war era.

To appreciate the continuity of communism in the mentality of the left, consider how many recent Hollywood promotions of the industry Reds and how many academic apologies for Stalinist crimes (in fact, the vast majority of recent academic texts on the subject) have been premised on the Machiavellian calculations and Hegelian sophistries I have just described. I'm certain you could write lots more on this subject alone.

Naturally, today's leftists are smart enough to distance themselves from Soviet Communism. But the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev was already a critic of Stalin forty years ago. Did his concessions make him less of a Communist? Or more? A communist to the end, more of an idealist perhaps, but cynical all the same, for Kruschev as David Horowitz probably knows was known as "Hangman of the Ukrane," a title he acquired under Stalin for being personally responsible for the murder of FIVE MILLION PEOPLE!

The short answer is that it was not the Communist Party that made the left, but the (small 'c') communist Idea. Social Idealism! It is the idea, as old as the Tower of Babel, that humanity can build a highway to Heaven. It is the idea of returning to an Earthly Paradise, a garden of social harmony and justice. It is the idea that inspires Jewish radicals and liberals of a tikkun olam, a healing of the cosmic order. It is the Enlightenment illusion of the perfectibility of man. And it is the siren song of the serpent in Eden: "Eat of this Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and you shall be as God." This is it in a nutshell; a FAITH based on an IDEALISM which is raising a false vision of the future of humanity to RELIGIOUS heights and projecting onto social and political instrumentalities of POWER for a "chosen few" to exercise over "the masses." The intoxicating vision of a social redemption achieved by Them-this is what creates the left, and makes the believers so self-righteous. You can hear it in the way they say things if you listen closely, they "talk down" to people, they affect an air of "knowing better" what they do not in fact know at all; how to run things effectively to make them work efficiently. They have very little "real world" experience. They like to slam their opponents calling them "greedy" which is in fact what they are themselves! And it did so long before Karl Marx. It is the vision of this redemption that continues to inspire and animate them despite the still-fresh ruins of their Communist dreams. Yes, I agree, social idealism is a very old idea.

It is this same idea that is found in the Social Gospel which impressed the youthful Hillary Clinton at the United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Illinois. She later encountered the same idea in the New Left at Yale and in the Venceremos Brigade in Communist Cuba, (led by a middle class Argentinean kid, Ernesto "Che" Guavara, who when given commend of the entire economy of Cuba, REAL HARD WORK, threw up his hands and walked off the job to go out and do more revolutionary things, because he found terrorizing and killing people more rewarding than actually working to make things run effectively for the people the revolution was supposed to help. Many narcissists enjoy bullying other people) and in the writings of the New Leftist who introduced her to the "politics of meaning" even after she had become America's First Lady. It is the idea that drives her comrades in the Children's Defense Fund, the National Organization for Women, the Al Sharpton House of Justice and the other progressive causes which for that reason still look to her as a political leader. Look at ALL of the organizations mentioned. Not one of them has done ANYTHING for ANYBODY but their LEADERS who are universally narcissists who pride themselves on lavish lifestyles!

For these self-appointed social redeemers, the goal-"social justice"-is not about rectifying particular injustices, which would be practical and modest, and therefore conservative. Hell no, that's way too much work! Their crusade is about rectifying injustice in the very order of things. "Social Justice" for them is about a world reborn, a world in which prejudice and violence are absent, in which everyone is equal and equally advantaged and without fundamentally conflicting desires. It is a world that could only come into being through a re-structuring of human nature and of society itself. Around THEM!

Even though they are too prudent and self-protective to name this future anymore, the post-Communist left still passionately believes it possible. But it is a world that has never existed and never will. although it has been tried many times throughout human history, always using the color RED for some reason. Moreover, as the gulags and graveyards of the last century attest, to attempt the impossible is to invite the catastrophic in the world we know. But even this has not stopped them. They cannot be stopped until WHAT THEY ARE and WHAT THEY INTEND is laid bare for all to see. Which is why....

But the fall of Communism taught the progressives who were its supporters very little. Above all, it failed to teach them the connection between their utopian ideals and the destructive consequences that flowed from them. The fall of Communism has had a cautionary impact only on the overt agendas of the political left. The arrogance that drives them has hardly diminished. Nope, and there's no worse arrogance than an arrogance without accomplishment. The left is like a millenarian sect that erroneously predicted the end of the world, and now must regroup to revitalize its faith.

No matter how opportunistically the left's agendas have been modified, however, no matter how circumspectly its goals have been set, no matter how generous its concessions to political reality, the faithful have not given up their self-justifying belief that they can bring about a social redemption. In other words, a world in which human consciousness is changed, human relations refashioned, social institutions transformed, and in which "social justice" prevails. What all this fine sounding sentimental garbage really means is a world where THEY ARE IN POWER ROREVER! Horowitz says the same thing...

In Peggy Noonan's psychological portrait of Hillary Clinton, one can trace the outlines of the progressive persona I have just described. She observes that the "liberalism" of the Clinton era is very different from the liberalism of the past. Clinton-era liberalism is manipulative and deceptive and not really interested in what real people think because "they might think the wrong thing." Real liberalism was about liberating human potential, especially at the lower levels of society. A lot of honest, well meaning people threw themselves into this hard work during the 60's and 70's and are still hard at it. But at the top of The Red League today there may not be any real liberals left. We only call people "liberal" today in a derogatory sense because they have adopted that label to describe themselves. But liberal in fact they are not. Clintonian liberalism is about doing whatever it takes to "spin" the truth, turn it around so that people will be fooled into supporting them as opposed to their enemies. When Hillary is criticized or openly attacked, when people like Rick Lazio, brazenly do the New York thing and get into her space, Hillary is "spun" as the victim when in fact the Red League makes damn sure that Lazio is made the real victim. But getting back to Clinton era liberalism as manipulative, Horowitz says,

That is why Hillary Clinton's famous plan to socialize American health care was the work of a progressive cabal that shrouded itself in secrecy to the point of illegality. Noonan labels Clinton-era politics "command and control liberalism," using a phrase with a familiar totalitarian ring. But, like so many conservatives I have come to know, Noonan is finally too decent and too generous to fully appreciate the pathology of the left. or how dangerous the Left really is to everything middle class America stands for.

Hillary Clinton is not so slippery. Despite the cynicism she shares with her husband, one can clearly observe an ideological spine that creates political difficulties for her that one knows he would be able to avoid. This is not to deny the force of her personal ambitions or the power of her narcissistic regard. But these attitudes could be expected in any member of a self-selected elite, especially one like the left, which is based on moral election. Such as "what to think" or "what to say," not "what to do." More importantly one has in the Clintons the essential combination that poses the greatest danger of idealism, especially social idealism, for the human race; SOCIAL IDEALISTS ATTRACT AND NEED SOCIOPATHS! Often they are one in the same. But where they are not, one character is certain to attract the other.

"In their way of thinking," Noonan observes of the Clintons, "America is an important place, but not a thing of primary importance. America is the platform for the Clintons' ambitions, not the focus of them." The implication is that if they were principled emissaries of a political cause, the ambition to do big things for America would override all others. Instead, they have focused on themselves and consequently have made the American political landscape itself "a lower and lesser thing." And that too is the goal of all narcissists; to put everyone and everything else beneath them.

They have "behaved as though they are justified in using any tactic in pursuit of their goals," including illegality, deception, libel, threats and "ruining the lives of perceived enemies . . . " They believe, she continues, "they are justified in using any means to achieve their ends for a simple and uncomplicated reason. It is that they are superior individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership." They do it for themselves; for the continuance of Them. That they are in fact NOT any more superior as individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership doesn't matter. Say it long enough and loud enough and people will just get tired of hearing their own minds say NO and give in. This is what the Clintons have almost proved is possible along with the willing acquiescence of the Press and Media.

Indeed, the Clinton-Lewinsky defense-accord which the feminists signed onto, can be regarded as feminism's Nazi-Soviet Pact. Their calculation was both simple and crude: If Clinton was removed, Hillary would go too. But she was their link to patronage and power, and they couldn't imagine losing that. Their kind was finally in control of the White House, and the conservative enemies of their beautiful future were not. Therefore they had to "spin" their way out of it. The Red League can sneer all they want and say "nobody has anything on our boy" but the people in their hearts know the truth; that Bill Clinton is a slime and his wife is a phony. As time goes on and talk radio and the Internet continue to grow, the lie is going to be harder to tell.

Peggy Noonan is right. The focus of Hillary Clinton's ambition is not her country. But it is not just herself either. It is also a place that does not exist. It is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one. But no, the new world with Hillary as queen will not be a better world for you and me.

Is there a practical difference in the modus operandi of Clinton narcissism and Clinton messianism? I think there is, and it is the difference between "triangulation"-a cynical compromise to hang onto power until the next election cycle, and "The Third Way"-a cynical deception to ensure the continuance of Us, until we acquire enough power to transform everyone else. ....eh, to ENSLAVE everyone else or KILL those who refuse slavery. It is the difference between the politics of getting what you can, and the politics of changing the world.

These staffers-political functionaries like Harold Ickes and George Stephanopoulos-serve as the flak-catchers and "bimbo eruption"-controllers who clean up his personal messes and shape his image for gullible publics. But they are also the idealists who design his message. And in the end, they enable him to politically succeed. These same kinds of people and in fact SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE are doing the same thing around Hillary as she runs for the U.S. Senate from New York, a place she cynically targeted for her own personal ambition, a place she is not from nor has ever lived in long enough to understand. True to form for Horowitz' analysis, it doesn't really matter. She could just as easily have picked California, but the slots there were already taken. Of course Hillary doesn't care for anything but herself. She's only using her U.S. Senate seat from New York as a stepping stone to becoming the first woman to run for president! Those of us who honestly don't care whether the president is a woman or not feel disgust considering that unless she is stopped, the first woman to run for president may be THIS woman!

It is Primary Colors' insight into the minds of these missionaries that is revealing. They see Clinton clearly as a flawed and often repellent human being. They see him as a lecher, a liar and a man who would destroy an innocent person in order to advance his own career. (This is, in fact, the climactic drama of the text). Yet through all the sordidness and lying, the personal ruthlessness and disorder, the idealistic missionaries faithfully follow and serve the leader. just as they did Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. etc. etc. to the tune of hundreds of millions of human lives snuffed out! Why? Because the social idealist is an ideologue who must resort to murdering anyone who stands in his way of achieving the social ideal, not for humanity, but for HIMSELF!

They do it not because they are themselves corrupted through material rewards. ...which of course comes with any campaign of rape and pillage, regardless of the means used... The prospect of fame is not even what drives them. Think only of Harold Ickes, personally betrayed and brutally cast aside by Clinton, who nonetheless refused to turn on him, even after the betrayal. Instead, Ickes kept his own counsel and protected Clinton, biding his time and waiting for Hillary. Then joined her staff to manage her Senate campaign. Ickes' father was in the FDR administration and was a known big "C" Communist. The apple doesn't fall so far from the tree. When it comes time to try and pin crimes on Bill Clinton, nobody sneers better than Harold Ickes. He's a true believer. All true believers are really good at sneering at their opponents.

The idealistic missionaries in this true tale bite their tongues and betray their principles, rather than betray him. They do so because in Bill Clinton they see a necessary vehicle of their noble ambition and uplifting dreams. He, too, cares about social justice, about poor people and blacks (or so he makes them believe). They will serve him and lie for him and destroy for him, because he is the vessel of their hope. This is why those who surround a dictator don't bump him off. If they did so, then their "place" in the order of things would fall to someone else. At least in the company of the swinish likes of a Clinton or a Stalin they have "place." It was always so, even back unto the times of the gods. And if any women out there think that only the men are such as would be sycophants to the profoundly evil among us, let me kindly remind you that history is full of stories where the fairest who decided to lie down with the foulest were women. And so has that also been, right up to the present day.

Because Bill Clinton "cares," he is the vital connection to the power they need to accomplish the redemption. Of course he really doesn't "care" at all as all his actions clearly show, but... Because the keys to the state are within Clinton's grasp, he becomes in their eyes the only prospect for advancing the progressive cause. Therefore, they will sacrifice anything and everything-principle, friends, country-to make him succeed. And have done so. Show me someone who has consistently supported Clinton and I will show you either a fool, a collaborator or a profiteer. In all three categories one will find narcissists and sociopaths in about equal numbers. And by the way, it has been the goal of the string pullers, in their relentless attempt to subjugate the American middle class, to create more narcissists and sociopths among us by means of a popular culture that promotes these two helpful character traits to its ends. Characteristics such as hard work, thrift, integrity, HONESTY, and respect for the law are not what the popular culture extols as character traits worth emulating.

But Bill Clinton is not like those who worship him, corrupting himself and others for a higher cause. Unlike them, he betrays principles because he has none. He will even betray his country, but without the slightest need to betray it for something else-for an idea, a party, or a cause. He is a narcissist who sacrifices principle for power because his vision is so filled with himself that he cannot tell the difference. Those who admire Bill Clinton are largely in the same trap with him.

But the idealists who serve him-the Stephanopoulos's, the Ickes's, the feminists, the progressives and Hillary Clinton-can tell the difference. Their cynicism flows from the very perception they have of right and wrong. They do it for higher ends. They do it for the progressive faith. They do it because they see themselves as having the power to redeem the world from evil. An evil that is largely good for a good that is largely evil. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their sordid and, if necessary, criminal means. Conservatives of The Blue League, WAKE UP! They HATE YOU! They want you DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!

And that is why they hate conservatives. They hate you because you are killers of their dream. Because you are defenders of a Constitution that thwarts their cause. They hate you because your "reactionary" commitment to individual rights, to a single standard and to a neutral and limited state obstructs their progressive designs. They hate you because you are believers in property and its rights as the cornerstones of prosperity and human freedom; because you do not see the market economy as a mere instrument for acquiring personal wealth and political war chests, to be overcome in the end by bureaucratic schemes. No, hard as it may be for leftists to believe, a real conservative regards free market economics as neutral like the weather, a natural force that cannot be denied without imperiling oneself and all of humanity. The reasons most conservatives have for not wanting much government interference with a free market have to do with the consequences for doing so. Conservatives HAVE usually thought of "progressives" as misinformed idealists, but as Horowitz says,

Conservatives who think progressives are misinformed idealists will forever be blind-sided by the malice of the left-by the cynicism of those who pride themselves on principle, by the viciousness of those who champion sensitivity, by the intolerance of those who call themselves liberal, and by the ruthless disregard for the well-being of the downtrodden by those who preen themselves as social saints. It was this last realization that for me spoiled the end of any connection I once had with The Red League and any of its many surrogates. They do NOT care for the poor, the downtrodden, etc. in the sense that they want to do anything constructive to help them get out of their situation, not if it means giving up their power.