Given the recent reelection of President Obama and his fellow partisans, this just might not be a bad time to acquaint ourselves with the writings of 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Socialist rhetoric is in the air, and the air is thick. Rather than be burdened with guilt (and taxes) for our “lack of compassion” for “the disadvantaged,” we would be better served to call to mind Nietzsche’s contention that the socialists (or welfare-statists or “liberals”) among us are motivated first and foremost by their aching need for ever greater power. And that they seek to cloak their selfishness and dishonesty behind a veil of moral objectivity.

I consider — and repudiate — the notion that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for "the lesser of two evils" and amounts to a "compromise of principle."

I note the ways in which Hurricane Sandy dovetails perfectly with our political situation.

By looking at such diverse thinkers from the past as Machiavelli, Mosca, and Schumpeter, I show, first, that truth is not a virtue in politics and, secondly, why this is so.

Given all of the precious time that they have invested in talking about the gazillions in debt with which Democrats are saddling future generations, it appears that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have imbibed their party’s conventional wisdom to the last letter.

Some Ron Paul supporters argue that a vote for either Romney or Obama is unacceptable, for even if one can be said to be not as bad as the other, a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil — and it is always immoral to vote for evil. I challenge this reasoning in the light of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Is paleolibertarianism virtually dead? John Derbyshire seems to think so. In this piece, I turn to Ilana Mercer — Derbyshire's old friend — to show that it is not.

I argue that it will serve Mitt Romney well to avoid lending himself to any comparisons with George W. Bush and the neoconservative ideology of the latter.

College professors correctly lament students' disinterest in the liberal arts, but the professors, most of who are leftists, incorrectly point the finger of blame at the political Right.

Republican leaders' decision to honor Ron Paul with a video tribute at this year’s Republican National Convention didn’t sit well with some on the nominal right.

In an article appearing in National Review Online, “The Problem with Paul,” Jamie M. Fly and Evan Moore give expression to this angst when they refer to Romney’s and the conventional planners’ decision as “ridiculous,” “regrettable,” and “a mistake.”

This writer offers a reply to National Review Online's scathing critique of Ron Paul.