The 2006 election was a disappointment for many, especially those who fear what a shift to the Left will mean for security in the light of radical Islamic terrorism, their hostility toward Christianity and religion, and concerns about illegal immigration.  Arthur C. Brooks offers encouragement in his Wall Street Journal article.  I learned about him when I read about his recent book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.  Being a professor, he draws conclusions from research instead of offering opinions to suit an ideology.

In other words, it pays to promote what you believe.  I wrote previously of my high regard for Milton Friedman’s ideas, ideas which I adopted because they make so much sense. I highly recommend that you read Free to Choose and even Capitalism and Freedom, if you really want to get a solid grounding.  I have assembled here a sampling of what others, who know more than I, have had to say about him since his death.  His books' titles make his priorities clear, and we should promote them, to both Americans and Christians.  We should never, never voluntarily surrender individual freedom to any government, party, or ideology, no matter how much they promise to protect or provide for us.  We should oppose all efforts to take our liberty with every legal right we possess as citizens, and we should be ready to defend such liberty, both our own and that of other peoples, whatever the cost.

I consider Friedman’s ideas to be critical as we face a Democratically-controlled Congress of representatives, most of whom prefer big government, the minimum wage, redistributive taxes, unions, and many other ideas that Friedman discredited.  They may not truly represent the majority of us, but they will have the power to implement their priorities.  Americans need to hear why socialism is a bad approach, so they can work toward opposing it; people need to understand that it threatens individual liberty without a real benefit, in the long run.

I know many Christians lean toward socialist ideas, thinking that they offer the best chance to help the oppressed and needy, around the world. I respect their desire to help, but I fear any approach that requires yielding power and authority to centralized government or even a worldwide agency such as the United Nations. Lord Acton’s wisdom, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” echoes the Word, “ ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD Almighty.”  By the way, Lord Acton was another great defender of liberty, well worth consideration.  Here is where Brooks offers genuine data to prove that a conservative approach is more effective.

If you’re not familiar with Milton Friedman, the following links will give you an overview.  I will begin with the most recent by Paul Greenberg.  I follow with one from another favorite, William F. Buckley.  Thomas Sowell, who also ranks high on my list, wrote of Friedman at his 90^th birthday.  Here’s the tribute from the Cato Institute.

You can get a good idea of Friedman’s views by reading his interview from PBS.  You can find plenty of socialists, of course, who despise what Friedman stood for, and yet he wasn’t quite libertarian enough for the other side.

With the Democratic takeover of Congress their affinity for controlling everything else from Washington, his remarks on the fall of communism in another PBS interview are especially memorable and well worth reading.  Michelle Malkin offers some links to both comments and videos.  Another conservative/libertarian blogger has some good things to say, but be sure to check out his links, too.  Another interview also has some good stuff although I’m not sure of the date.

I like how this tribute begins.  Happiness, contentment is a better goal, is a direct product of individual freedom, and Friedman stood for that more than any other principle. I am a big fan of Hillsdale College and its commitment to take no government money; here’s an interview they published earlier this year.

        ******

I picked up Tammy Bruce’s The New American Revolution and began reading it.  She is a self-proclaimed Democrat who opposes most of what the Democratic Party espouses, something she calls “malignant narcissism.”   Rather, she advocates “radical individualism.”  The former has a psychological definition, but the self-centered lust for power, even as we face the threat of radical Islamic terrorism does seem almost pathological.  What she calls "radical individualism" is actually just true individualism or the liberty that those such as Milton Friedman or Biblical Christians stand for.

The latter phrase isn’t original either, but I respect how she uses it.  You can get a taste of Tammy Bruce at her web site, but be warned.  She describes herself as “a pro-death penalty, gun-owning, pro-choice lesbian, former NOW chapter president, who voted-for-President Bush, and a progressive feminist.”  Obviously, I don’t agree with her about everything, but she is someone with whom I could disagree openly and respectfully, something that many progressive secularists will not allow, a distinction she demonstrates, and a distinction for which she has paid, as those on the Left have attacked her for having and speaking her own mind.

Speaking of those who say what they thing, I recently finished Ann Coulter’s Godless: The Church of Liberalism.  I enjoyed it, but not without a little guilt.  Coulter represents a dilemma I haven’t quite resolved.  On the one hand, I think Christians have an obligation to “Be civil,” as ambassadors of Christ and in order to engage those with different opinions in a constructive manner.  On the other hand, I fear Christians have become far too passive and withdrawn.  Like the “frog in the kettle,” we are slowly being boiled in our anti-Christian culture, and many of us don’t have the good sense or awareness even to jump out, let alone demand that the fire be put out.
 
David Limbaugh documents the case far more thoroughly in his Persecution: How Liberals are Waging War Against Christianity, in the manner you’d expect from a lawyer.  Coulter was more fun to read, but both books are frightening reminders of how much a segment of our population hates Christians, unless they are silent and passive.  I don’t think we can afford to be either.

Many people talk about a "culture war."  There's no doubt that many of us have concerns about protecting traditional values and our Judeo-Christian heritage.  However, I think the "war" is more basic.  We must fight to protect our right to debate the issues, persuade our fellow citizens, and speak as voters so that the majority prevail.  Many are working to prevent that, to silence honest debate, to shame or scare people into silence, to overturn the will of voters through the courts, and to so centralize power in Washington that the will of the people is powerless.  It's a fight to preserve and even restore basic freedoms of speech (versus political correctness),' of religion (not from religion), and true choice.  That's what Friedman, Bruce, Coulter, and Limbaugh have in common, and what I believe is a fight we may be winning but we must be sure to win.