Okay, English majors, please do me a favor and grade this paper:

Hmm. As the parent of two teenagers, I come out in hives when someone tells me something is “cool.” As for “sexually repressed bigoted” etc.; I thought Sarah Palin kicked that pretty decisively into the ditch, as an emblem — I hope she won’t mind my saying so — of happy reproductive vigor in the framework of traditional companionate marriage. And if it’s “freakshow” you want, check out some of the lefty blogs. “Fundamentalism” is just American religion, and always with us. It does no great harm that I can see, and some of its strains — Mormonism, for instance — are wonderfully encouraging of good citizenship and reproductive success. Libertarianism ought anyway to be able to make some kind of appeal to fundamentalists. Liberty includes tolerance of religious diversity: that is almost the first thing it meant in these United States! Why that wouldn’t appeal to religious minorities of all sorts, beats me.

I certainly agree about “compassionate conservatism.” I came in for some obloquy on this very blog a few years ago for calling it “turkey poop,” but in retrospect I think I was too kind. At least one of its aspects — the determination to show kindness to poor people by making it easier for them to buy houses, by chucking sane credit standards out the window — contributed mightily to our current economic mess. And there are certainly people in the GOP who think our error has been that we weren’t “compassionate” enough. In fact that is probably George W. Bush’s thinking, and John McCain’s too. I’d like to see the GOP get its green-eyeshade image back; but alas, green eyeshades in the kind of deep recession we are entering are snowflakes in hell, politically. We must hunker down and look to the future.

For political power — i.e. for actually getting anything done — third parties are a poor bet. There’s a lot to be said for sticking with the devil you know, and hoping to trim his horns.

Although, if Sarah were to defect to the Libertarian Party …