Organizing Your People
Julian Sanchez has a very thoughtful critique of the “rebuild the party” initiative to upgrade the GOP’s use of high-tech tools. I agree with everything he says, but I want to emphasize a point hidden within one of Julian’s points:
Moreover, you’re still fundamentally doing political organizing. Part of what made Obama’s vaunted online operation succeed where Howard Dean’s fizzled—and this is something his online people themselves always stress—was that it was an organic component of the broader brick-and-mortar campaign.The core skill set here is still political: What you need are people who know enough tech to understand how the different tools can work with each other, and with more traditional tactics, toward the ultimately non-technical goal of persuading moderates and mobilizing your base. The tech is only useful in the hands of people who are, first and foremost, good at doing those other things.
The fact that online political organizing is still political organizing leads to, I think, a larger issue here. Organizing suburban evangelical mega-churches did a lot for conservatives. But adopting suburban mega-church organizing tools wouldn’t be a very smart strategy for progressives. The audience is wrong. Conversely, outreach to black ministers does a lot of good for Democrats but doesn’t work for Republicans — the black churches are full of black people and black people don’t like Republicans. And at the moment, neither does the core audience for things like Twitter and Facebook. Under the circumstances, it’s difficult for the GOP to do lots of useful organizing on social media platforms.
42 Responses to “Organizing Your People”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
The optimum Republican response to the 2008 election cycle would be for all of them to close the garage door with the car running. A more peaceful, civil, tolerant world would result.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:52 am
This point is very relevant to land use and transportation issues. There is an enormous gulf in attitudes between, on one hand, the civic association types whose attitudes are typically reflected in local weekly papers and on the other hand the blogosphere. Auto vs transit, sprawl vs density, etc. It’s mostly a generational gap, although probably not entirely.
David Alpert of Greater Greater Washington has pioneered using his blog as a tool toward stimulating actual political activity by his readers. There needs to be more thought about how to do this.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
As a black female, I probably like some Repubs more than some black churchs. My maternal grandprarents were Repubs, until 1964 when my grand dad changed parties, my grandmother stayed faithful to the Repub party until her death. The Repubs did free the slaves you know.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 pm
You are making one of the mistakes of the Clinton campaign, assuming the Internet is inhospitable to certain people and ideas. There are a lot of people on the Internet, they are not all on facebook. The Obama campaign spent much more time organizing within their private site, MyBO, and doing outreach to niche social networks than they did organizing on facebook or other major sites.
The tone of most Internet discourse is historically libertarian, and Republicans did pretty well online for many years. The tools themselves are ideologically neutral. There is no reason Republicans can’t use online organizing tools and the right messaging and channels to organize their constituencies.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
btw, the Repubs base- you know “real” america, probably don’t have internet access, as in computers at home. I hope they stay in the dark, never become technologically aware, and slither away into the abyss.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
There is no reason Republicans can’t use online organizing tools and the right messaging and channels to organize their constituencies.
Despite many of our claims (Republicans prefer top-down propagation of talking points, Democrats prefer grassroots organizing), there’s no reason Democrats couldn’t have used talk radio to organize their own constituencies. However they didn’t, and Republicans gained the first-mover advantage. I suspect a similar thing has occurred with social networking and blogs… Democrats have established themselves in that space and perhaps even won over the constituencies who would find these tools inherently attractive. The Republican tools that lead them to success are likely nothing that we’ve discovered yet and won’t be similar to the tools that the Democratic party has right now. I do get the impression that twitter is becoming a primarily Republican tool. Right-wingers at least seem pretty obsessed with it for messaging purposes, while online liberals seem to regard it as an amusing toy. I’m sure other new tools will appear in the future that the Republicans will gain a foothold in which will fit well with their own constituencies but whose success can’t be replicated by Democrats.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
I have to laugh when I see Red Staters write about the importance of openness, bottom-up organization, and such. What on earth suggests that they have the slightest clue how to make any such thing work? It’s less that specific ideas in the conservative movement are bad (though lots are) as that the very way they go about forming and using ideas is bad.
January 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
The Republicans fell off the cliff when they lost David Brooks’ technical-managerial types. (Read the election results closely, and you’ll see the key vote swing occurred in places with large numbers of people working in and around suburban office parks.) These people socially network relentlessly, through professional associations, civic groups and informal networks. If they don’t use Facebook and the like, they certainly use e-mail, so they can be organized electronically.
The Reps probably will try to reach out to the managerial class through subgroups within professional organizations, chambers of commerce, Kiwanis, Toastmasters, fraternal groups and suburban/upscale-urban civic associations. They have a pretty good chance of making inroads, especially if the stimulus-recovery programs prove corrupt, excessively porky or overly bureaucratic.
Where the GOP will run into a herding-cats problem is among small-L libertarians. Trying to organize libertarians is probably pointless; they are today’s version of Will Rogers’ “I don’t belong to an organized party…” And neither party is likely to appeal to this group en masse as the economic crisis spawns higher public spending and a more “intrusive” regulatory apparatus.
@Rob: Google “NASCAR,” “World Wrestling Federation” and your local mega-churches before telling us that “real [sic] America” lacks Internet access. They’ve got it, and they use it.
January 3rd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
This belief that all Republicans need to do to recover is to embrace the internet and adopt a bunch of cutting-edge technologies reminds me very strongly of efforts to quick-fix failing schools by putting in high-speed internet access and giving every student a laptop.
The basic problem with the Republicans is that their policies are unpopular and provably catastrophic. Putting energy into setting up MeeBo and Twitter accounts just puts off the hard, messy effort of reassembling their majority coalition.
January 3rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm
There are two things conservatives websites proficient at: purges of ideological deviations, and wistful essays about how the party needs to rely more on the openness of the internet.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The internet makes a good echo chamber and multiplier.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:25 pm
How explicit is the GOP in using web sites that their base does like Free Republic, Malkin, Atlas Juggs or Stormfront?
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
i think everyone can agree the ‘08 campaign was pretty awful and amateaurish for the Republicans. There seemed to be something serious amiss, I kept feeling. McCain, frankly, was an awful candidate, who couldn’t organise a decent campaign for the life of him. I mean, there was the best campaign strategist in ages, Karl Rove, sitting in front of him, and he didn’t take the guy. And his team is obsessed with the whole anti-Bush thing, which cannot have played well. (Has anyone ever won by taking down their own party’s top guy? I doubt it). Frankly, McCain just had a bunch of really mediocre people with serious vendettas against the GOP establishment, i.e., formula for failure.
It was a huge contrast to the Bush campaigns, really, which were professional, tight-knit, and on-message all the time. Obama’s campaign was actually remarkably similar to the Bush one in the sense of how well organised and disciplined it was. McCain’s entire campaign was a bad joke until they had to bring in Schmidt to avoid utter embarrassment, and even then he wasn’t in total control. I mean, there is a something quite heroic about the way McCain went down, his being a good man and a good soldier and all that, but he was on lousy campaigner, and the mediocrities he surrounded himself with just made it worse. The negative attacks on Obama should have been begun from the get-go, so as to disallow Obama to get his message across and pigeonhole him so to speak. They didn’t, and let Obama define not only his own message but (negatively) McCain’s as well (the whole Bush III BS and all that).
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Anyhow, the point I am trying to make, is that I don’t know how much of the GOP’s problems are internal. I thought they had terrifically bad luck, and it was a perfect storm really. For those who think that the GOP needs a rethink-thru-time-in-the-wilderness, that makes as much sense as “cleaning up the excess from the economy through a recession.” You can afford to do a turnaround while in you are in office; when in you are the wilderness, the more U-turns you do, the more clueless and unsure you look. Frankly, if the GOP lets the Democrats have any sort of real control over the national agenda, they risk being made completely irrelevant. Congress had a lower approval rating than Bush and yet the Democratic majority was still enlarged, whereas Gingrich’s (pretty awful) screwing over of Clinton’s presidential agenda produced unprecedented Republican dominance.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Another thing, I think, one has to notice about GOP’s lack of recent success is how bizarre it is. For example, I was shocked to discover that Obama had raised more money than McCain, which is something that was so atypical that it had to be an one-off thing. The GOP congressional people, however, did just as well or better than the Democrats, so I think a lot of the GOP’s problems are quite unique. For example, Calif. was the first and NY the second state in terms of Obama donations; you can bet on all those NYC lawyers and bankers not donating in 2010/2012 because they either a) are out of a job or b) are screwed by the Dems. new laws. Whereas the GOP, with Texas being number 1 and Calif. being no. 2 states, are pretty safe when it comes to money.
And frankly, most of this stuff happened back when we were still in relatively flush times, when rich people were willing to finance say, tax hikes for some sort of liberal idealism. With economy now in the tank, I very much doubt that the wealthy who so vociferously backed the Dems are going to be asking for tax increases and salary caps in 2010/2012.
January 3rd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Another thing, I think, one has to notice about GOP’s lack of recent success is how bizarre it is.
Yes, I can’t possibly imagine how the GOP ended up as screwed as it was, what with the unpopular war, poor economy, mismanagement of the government, and desperate desire of the electorate for something other than the standard GOP platitudes. How bizarre. Must have been a fluke that the Republicans lost this cycle.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I made a passing observation or two on Erickson’s post here, fwiw.
“Stephen Myles St. George Says [...] (Has anyone ever won by taking down their own party’s top guy? I doubt it)”
Has anyone ever won by playing up their top guy who has 27% approval ratings?
No.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Look, I think a lot of this stuff is really, frankly, wishful thinking on the part of the Left. A lot of the Left’s commentators talk about the GOP needing a new-think away from the legacy of the 40 years is, I feel, more motivated by the instinctive abhorrence of Goldwater/Reagan Republican ideological fixation than by actually pure logical analysis that such a dramatic shift will do the GOP any good. I am not saying that people are being motivated by their own feelings more than reason when they come to this conclusion, and I am not saying the conclusion is necessarily wrong, I am just saying that there looks like to be a bit of a mental feedback loop on this.
Look, the fact of the matter is, Goldwater/Reagan conservatism is actually the only conservatism to be a dominant national ideology at any point of time since the time of FDR. Eisenhower might have been a beloved president, but frankly his domestic policies would have made any modern liberal very happy. They weren’t small-government, fiscally conservative, individual responsibility policies. He wasn’t by any classical, Burkean definition a conservative. I think that is part of the reasons liberals thought a “better” GOP would be one that rejected the legacies of Nixonland et al, because frankly, that wasn’t a truly conservative GOP, more like a Democrat-lite.
Sure, one can say the GOP race and union-baited and all that nasty stuff, but the problem with that proposition is that if GOP didn’t race-bait it didn’t meant the same electoral calculus went away. If someone seriously didn’t like the civil rights movement and vociferously would support an anti-civil-rights candidate, such a candidate would emerge anyways and get elected. Perfect example: Strom Thurmond. He got locked out of the Democratic senate nomination because he was such an awful racist, but hey, he won as a write-in, the only case in Senate history. So in a sense it was very inevitable. If the GOP didn’t do it, the Dixiecrats would keep doing it until they break apart the national party and shook up the scene.
So of course liberals would like Republicans to renounce the legacy of the last 40 years. Because before that it was pretty much a liberal consensus with no room for orthodox conservatism. In ‘58 in UK, for example, Harold Macmillan (aka Supermac, a sort of super-squishy Rockefeller Republican) was so against orthodox economic conservatism of Lord Thorneycroft, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he and his junior ministers, Enoch Powell (regrettably a racist) and Lord Rhyl (Nigel Birch), resigned en masse.
What comes down to is this; if you take away Goldwater and Reagan, all you have left is a liberal consensus with a pretty thin veneer of occasional conservative protest. (Taft-Hartley, etc). There was no conservatism intellectualism to speak of back then. (Buckley was the first) That is hardly what anyone would want the GOP to “rebirth”/”refresh”/”rethink” into. That is not a new conservatism; that is essentially a rejection thereof.
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Sorry messed up the bold
January 3rd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Or put this another way, if conservatives don’t champion reducing the government and eliminating racial preference, what do they champion then? bigger government and affirmative action?
January 3rd, 2009 at 7:35 pm
“Or put this another way, if conservatives don’t champion reducing the government and eliminating racial preference, what do they champion then?”
Setting aside the argument about how much investment the GOP or conservatives have in “eliminating racial preferences,” that’s not a bad question.
Though I expect you and I ask it from different angles.
I’d also suggest, and not expect you to agree, that folks of your view very quickly run into a no true Scotsman problem.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
It wasn’t too long ago that many took it for granted that socially liberal (or indifferent to social issues), usually economically conservative, and ultra-hawkish (and therefore pro-GOP after 9/11) “warbloggers” would dominate the Internet for years to come. I think the jury is out on whether Yglesias’s generalizations are any more likely to be true five or ten years from now.
Plus, something like Facebook has so many millions of users that even if, say, only a quarter are pro-Republican, that is an enormous group of people.
January 3rd, 2009 at 8:56 pm
I’d also suggest, and not expect you to agree, that folks of your view very quickly run into a no true Scotsman problem.
I suspect you are actually right. I am aware that my political opinions are at (sometimes great) variance with most of those who call themselves Republican. I subscribe, fundamentally, to the counter-Enlightenment Burkean conservative tradition. That is perhaps why I am so disappointed in the Republicanism of the post-war decades up until Goldwater. It had absorbed the Enlightenment way thought, hook, line, and sinker.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
“It wasn’t too long ago that many took it for granted that socially liberal (or indifferent to social issues), usually economically conservative, and ultra-hawkish (and therefore pro-GOP after 9/11) ‘warbloggers’ would dominate the Internet for years to come.”
Speaking as someone who just passed his 6th anniversary of blogging last week (and used to be on Matt’s blogroll back when he was still at Harvard), I’d have to quibble that it definitely wasn’t true that “warbloggers” were “usually economically conservative,” and not particularly true that they were “ultra-hawkish.” Hard as it may be to believe for folks who came along to blogging post-2001, “warblogger” just meant “blogger on politics and world events,” originally. It had no distinctive meaning of “rightwing,” though it does happen that many of the original “warbloggers” were rightwingers or went that way more and more rapidly post September 11th. But it was more or less just a generic term for blogging on events, rather than tech stuff or a niche, originally.
“I suspect you are actually right.”
That’s very enlightened of you.
I would point out that Eisenhower certainly seemed conservative at the time to Democrats, but wouldn’t expect this note to change your views, and to be sure, to many in the Robert Taft wing of the GOP, let alone the McCarthy/Nixon wing, he seemed dangerously pinkish.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Sorry, my 7th anniversary, not 6th.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
“It wasn’t too long ago that many took it for granted that socially liberal (or indifferent to social issues), usually economically conservative, and ultra-hawkish (and therefore pro-GOP after 9/11) ‘warbloggers’ would dominate the Internet for years to come.”
Oh, and not that I’m disagreeing with this point; I’d just suggest phrasing it as ‘rightwing bloggers,” or “conservative and libertarian bloggers,” rather than using the term “warbloggers” to make your point.
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
That is perhaps why I am so disappointed in the Republicanism of the post-war decades up until Goldwater. It had absorbed the Enlightenment way thought, hook, line, and sinker.
You should meet Hector. The difference between you and Hector is that Hector at least accepts the reality that the western democratic system is essentially an Enlightenment-era one. To advocate for an anti-Enlightenment politics is to argue against our political system itself– not that there’s anything wrong with that (I recognize the validity of arguments in favor of other systems) — but it’s not our system.
Stephen, I think you seem to be unclear about what politics is all about. It’s not about any kind of intellectual movement: politics is about electing people to solve problems and electing people who you believe are going to divide up our public assets in ways which align with your own priorities. Right now, people elect Republicans because they want someone who’s going to fight more wars, serve as a voice of the lost cause of the confederacy, articulate voters’ discomfort with abortion, and give the promise of lower taxes. You don’t have to dress is up in a lot of verbiage about standing for “freedom”– America was founded on the idea, and no party really “owns” freedom as its ideology.
Right now, people feel that the push to war was futile, isn’t really in the mood to hear from evangelical confederate jokers, feel that opposition to abortion doesn’t help increase the value of their collapsing retirement fund, and realize that essential government amenities need to be paid for. Now, until Republican politicians come up with solutions to their problems and start proposing to divide up the public purse in a way that the majority of Americans find attractive, they’re going to be in the wilderness for a while. What you discussed earlier is a big reason why the Republicans lost– there is an anti-intellectual, anti-Enlightenment faction in the USA, but it’s not large enough to win a majority. When it looked like that crowd was in charge, large swaths of Americans who are actually advocates of the pro-Enlightenment way of life and the pre-Goldwater Republican politics were inevitably going to head over to the Democrats. The market for the specific policies you prefer is, at times, large enough to win a majority, but the cultural trappings of the modern Republican party end up embarrassing the suburban professional class to such a large degree that when those cultural trappings dominate the Republican party, the Democrats win.
Also, the identity/ideology of the Republicans’ target market is a shrinking one. If they want to succeed in the future, they need to address the concerns of the growing populations. And let’s face it: there aren’t enough small-town white evangelicals in rural states to drive the Republicans to victory, if that’s the identity they want to hang their hats on.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 pm
The difference between you and Hector is that Hector at least accepts the reality that the western democratic system is essentially an Enlightenment-era one.
I will have to respectfully dissent on that point. The rationalism of Enlightenment always made me rather nervous. Fundamentally, I just don’t believe man to be perfectible. Rather more ominously, Enlightenment rationalism was the logical basis of communism, which would have been impossible without positive rationalism about the perfectibility of man. I always thought that there would be no Karl Marx without Rousseau, or at least without the preeminence of Enlightenment thought. The liberal democracy is more a result of medieval English guarantees for nobility, being spread out and “trickled down” to the general population over time, than of the Enlightenment. Universal suffrage was not enacted in Prussia and England until well late in the 19th century, perhaps even later.
The countries which abide the most by Enlightenment principles, countries like France, Francophone Belgium, and others, have stagnated the most in recent decades because they are trying to square the actual fact of man’s imperfectibility with a political realm of discourse framed around positive rationalism. Countries that are, on the other hand, much more sceptical, like the U.K., Germany (which is heavily Lutheran in mode of though), and the Netherlands (which is Calvinist) have done much better. So it does have consequences for our politics; one, to be vigilant against those policies which are based upon the assumptions of rationalism and human perfectibility.
Now, admittedly, GOP politics don’t always go to this level of philosophical differentiation. It does have some elements that are, unfortunately, not well grounded in good thinking and more on, as you like to say, “small-town white evangelicals in rural states.” Abortion and homosexuality, for example, have become far more inflamed issues than necessary or appropriate. (I am in favour of choice; I am ambivalent, frankly agnostic, when it comes to same-sex marriage). Nonetheless, I thought Roe vs. Wade was a misguided decision because it was clearly a matter of legislative, not legal authority. And the invocation of the Confederacy is justifiable only in the sense of asserting states’ rights, but in probably little else. I am ambivalent about not only Iraq and Vietnam, but also the First and Second world wars.
Perhaps this has to do the fact that I am a strong cultural Protestant despite being unreligious (I went to a culturally very Broad Church high school), but I don’t think it is right or fair to reduce Republicanism to ugly populism. I do see a good philosophical basis for vindicating the Republican legacy of the last 40 years.
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 pm
“Stephen, I think you seem to be unclear about what politics is all about. It’s not about any kind of intellectual movement: politics is about electing people to solve problems and electing people who you believe are going to divide up our public assets in ways which align with your own priorities.”
I’m not Stephen, and I’m like, pro-Enlightenment, but I have to say that that’s more than a little arguable.
“Rather more ominously, Enlightenment rationalism was the logical basis of communism, which would have been impossible without positive rationalism about the perfectibility of man.”
That’s defensible, but logically the taint doesn’t flow backwards, which is where you seem to go wrong. Enlightenment rationalism is also the logical basis of democracy, and Classic Liberalism (aka “conservativism”). I’m also a little baffled that you seem (perhaps I’m misreading you) to be strongly associating the Enlightenment with Catholicism, which strikes me as weird.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I’m also a little baffled that you seem (perhaps I’m misreading you) to be strongly associating the Enlightenment with Catholicism, which strikes me as weird.
No. You will notice that I left out Italy there. Italy is very Catholic, but not very awfully Enlightenment. (Garibaldi was a bit of an aberration). They are independent, although yes, Catholic countries tend to lag for some reason (Weber Thesis?)
And it is a pretty common misconception that democracy results from the Enlightenment. 100 years after the philosophes, England and Prussia still did not have universal suffrage. Parliament, the fount of modern democratic government, was originally an instrument of aristocratic control and only become a vehicle of mass democracy owing to economic necessity. Democracy has more to do with the economic developments of the Industrial Age than anything; its precepts, such as rule of law, and sanctity of property (I think you are familiar with the dictum of Road To Serfdom), are from an earlier age, far removed from the Enlightenment (Magna Carta, Glorious Revolution, etc).
In fact, it could be argued that the very concept of rule of law and sanctity of property are based on the imperfectibility of man. Marx certainly viewed private property as a holdover from a feudal age. The very paragon of classical liberalism, the Economist magazine, most emphatically rejects the perfectibility of man, a central Enlightenment idea. Burke, from whom I draw my inspiration, drew his inspiration not from the philosophes, but from things like tradition and custom.
January 4th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Sorry, to explicate my rule of law comment a bit further:
The whole tradition of law by precedent, which is the case in Anglophone countries like the U.S. and the U.K., is by, definition, pro-tradition and anti-rationalist. In perfect rationalism there is no such thing as precedent, or there is but it has no guiding value. So that’s why I assert the rule of law in the modern, Anglo sense to be very non-Enlightenment.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:15 am
In fact, it could be argued that the very concept of rule of law and sanctity of property are based on the imperfectibility of man. Marx certainly viewed private property as a holdover from a feudal age.
You’re trying as hard as you can to place thinkers like John Locke outside of the framework of the Enlightenment which is what Gary Farber is calling “weird.” The American Constitutional form of government is one that is essentially a product of the Enlightenment. You can argue that this is a bad thing, but you shouldn’t try to deny this simple essential fact. You’re trying to hang your hat on “the perfectibility of man,” which blinkers you to what the rest of the enlightenment was all about… and if you look at the radicalism of the American experiment, you sometimes have to wonder if that mindset didn’t play a big role in the formation of the nation, as well.
You’re wondering what Republicans will stand for. They will stand for what any political party stands for: giving power to their supporters, or at least the faction preferred by those supporters. As the traditional (ie, last-40-years) Republican interest groups shrink, they’ll go off in search of different ones.
January 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
“And it is a pretty common misconception that democracy results from the Enlightenment.”
I’ve never seen anyone assert that democracy immediately followed the Enlightenment, which is what you seem to be debunking. But that seems more a straw creature than not to me.
“100 years after the philosophes, England and Prussia still did not have universal suffrage. Parliament, the fount of modern democratic government, was originally an instrument of aristocratic control and only become a vehicle of mass democracy owing to economic necessity.”
I wouldn’t argue with the first half of your second sentence, and wouldn’t argue with the essence of your second half, save that I would argue over “only.” The reasons for the expansion of suffrage in Great Britain and Prussia were varied, and included various reasons necessitating from enlisting larger proportions of the masses within the political system, as well as including idealistic democratic theory to some degree (idealism was hardly the primary reason, I’d agree, but I wouldn’t agree that theory can be divorced from the events and reasoning behind expanding suffrage).
“Democracy has more to do with the economic developments of the Industrial Age than anything; its precepts, such as rule of law, and sanctity of property (I think you are familiar with the dictum of Road To Serfdom), are from an earlier age, far removed from the Enlightenment (Magna Carta, Glorious Revolution, etc).”
Again, I don’t think this is a wacky or unreasonable assertion, but I don’t think it amounts to the wholesale divorce from the changed beliefs the Enlightenment led to that you seem to believe it does.
However, we’re not arguing facts, but opinions, here, and I’m content to leave your beliefs in peace.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 10:37 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Great site. Good info
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
buy viagra online
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 6:28 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Thanks for the review!
viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra