The American Spectator : Non Campus Mentis

Text Size

Non Campus Mentis

By Jay D. Homnick on 11.21.08 @ 6:05AM

Time for Republicans to give it the old college try.

The late Rabbi Shlomo Freifeld (1925-1990) was a genial giant of about six-six with broad shoulders. He once entered his bank, a student in tow, to cash a check. The teller was awed by his size and blurted: "Wow, you are the tallest rabbi I have ever seen." When she saw the amount on the check, she sent him upstairs to the manager's office.

"I don't know about this, Rabbi," the manager clucked. "Your account lately has been a bit short."

"You see the lesson?" Freifeld asked his student. "Down here people think we're tall, but up there they know we're short."

As true as this is of life in general, it is more poignant by half when applied to what remains of the Republican Party. The farrago of futility that has recently attended their efforts has not cost the midgets running the party any sleep. They think they know it all, if not more, and their time would now be best spent running down the one effective campaigner of recent years, Sarah Palin. Probably I am not alone in looking forward eagerly to see what delights they have in store for us in coming years.

But what about "up there"? When seen from a higher vantage point, is it all desolation from here on out?

HERE IS MY IDEA. It strikes me that the cycle of defeat will almost inevitably continue unless the Republicans go on offense a little earlier in the education of the individual citizen.

Remember how the odds are stacked. Each American attends elementary school with all Democrat teachers. Thence to high school, all Democrat teachers. TV and newspapers, all Democrats. There are some Republicans on radio, but radio is boring. Onward to college, with all Democrat professors, but wait… who says that Democrats have to own college too?

Actually, going to college is your first individualistic move. There is no government compulsion, no parental control. For once you are engaged in a Republican free-enterprise limited-government type of move and it feels good. Democrats are hijacking that delivery but that need not be the case.

So how about this for an approach to revitalizing the College Republicans and converting it from nerdy to cool? The College Republicans, perhaps under a new name, should design a strategy stressing how the very independence university life should foster is expressed in the conservative view of governance. The way to do it might be to drive a put-up-or-shut-up wedge into the college population with this implicit challenge: Are you really your own person?

Driving around campus would be a huge thrill if half the cars had a bumper sticker saying: "If your parents made you go to college -- you are a Democrat. If you went to college on your own -- you are a Republican!"

Try these: "Those who can't do, teach… that the government should do it all." "I came to college to be stand on my own two feet, not on Uncle Sam's stilts."

The larger point is this. We have grown accustomed to the notion that the college years tend naturally to leftism, because people are not yet (for the most part) required to earn their own money. This is ceding vital territory to the Democrats, giving them a four-year head start on Republicans for winning hearts and minds. Every new Republican needs to be not only won over, but won away from a first love. Bad for business, that.

By taking up the cudgel and fighting hard to inspire young college students, with the argument that freedom from government control is cool and liberating, the playing field can be significantly leveled.

The proof that I am right is the late Sixties and early Seventies when the Democrats swelled the ranks of their voters by using this exact method. The government was described as fascist and warlike, and pushing back against its excesses was the quintessential expression of collegiate liberation. The government represented Republican law-and-order, the enemy of freedom.

Live free or die, the American Revolutionaries said, and it is the Republican Party of today that expresses this sentiment. A party that can't sell freedom to a college student is not likely to win many elections.

topics:
College Republicans

About the Author

Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he performs his original composition, "Buy You (Bayou) a Drink".

Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment

Jason| 11.21.08 @ 8:59AM

This strategy just might work. Liberalism has become so prevalent on college campuses, its starting to look conventional. Conservatism, by being unconventional could be perceived as being cool.

Wendell Griffith| 11.21.08 @ 10:04AM

Dear Mr. Homnick,
For the last twenty years I have been a Professor of History at Northwest Florida State College. Ours is a lovely campus nestled on 250 beautifully wooded acres in northwest Florida and, as far as I know, I am the only unrepentant Conservative on the faculty and as such am the faculty advisor for the College Republicans.
On November 5th a group of my colleagues gathered outside my office and chanted “Yes we can – Yes we did!”. I responded with “Yes you did and I congratulate you on your victory.” As they have neither sense of irony nor humor, they departed confused at my lack of hate and discontent. As they also have no sense of history, they have absolutely no idea what the nation is in for now.
Anyway, I enjoyed your article Non Campus Mentis but hope you do know there are some few of us left who understand and teach the first principle of conservatism, natural law and the sovereignty of the individual. You will also be pleased to know that the vast majority of my students are about ready to take up the pitchforks and torches, not over abortion or same-sex marriage, but against the wasting of their future by a Congress willing to throw bad money after bad in the current economic crisis.
There is hope for the future but it does not reside in the elected ‘representatives’ of the people. It lives in the upcoming generation. I will do what I can to piss them off and get them into the streets.
Sincerely,
Wendell Griffith

Alan Brooks| 11.21.08 @ 10:50AM

Problem is morality on campus: none.
Repub or Dem, if you are 18- 21 your hormones lead you to rut. But look, if premarital sex doesn't bother you then there's no problem. As the libertarians say, "do as thou wilt".
Just too bad all virtue went out of style 43 years ago...

Servius| 11.21.08 @ 12:24PM

Can we follow it up with a more active Republican Party when they get out of school? Didn't we used to have regular precinct meetings with speakers and ideas and coffee and cake?

L. Ross| 11.21.08 @ 1:33PM

I like this article. I like the idea of getting kids in college to try on conservative ideas and ideals. However, I suggest we enhance the rebellious image of being a Republican. Rip off the latest Microsoft advertisement where a bunch of hip, cool people say "I'm a PC" in Microsoft’s response to the successful Apple attack.

There's no reason we can't have a bunch of cool people with cool clothes and cool jobs stand up and say "I'm a Republican." Scuba divers, snow boarders, B.A.S.E. jumpers, astronauts, fighter pilots, race car drivers, the list goes on. Then, at the end of the commercial, we could have a small snippet about Republican history, and what we currently stand for. For Pete's sakes, how many kids these days know that Republicans freed the slaves? Or passed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing their right to vote?

I'm suggesting that we need to take back our brand, spend dollars rehabilitating the brand, and teach people that being a Republican does not mean that you are old, out of touch, heartless, and only interested in protecting those with money.

We are the party of self determination. Blazing your own path forward. We are the party of innovation and development. We are the party that cherishes human life above all else. We are the party of individual responsibility and accountability. We are the party that recognizes that humanity is as much a natural force on the earth as anything else, and tries to balance the needs people with the rest of the natural world. None of this is something to be ashamed of. Unfortunately, we need to advertise these facts clearly, because most people have no idea about this.

That's my two cents, anyway.

megapotamus| 11.21.08 @ 1:57PM

This is somewhat plausible but at least five elections too late. With The One ensconced the gulf between parent-directed actions and self-directed is about to be swamped by Obama-directed. You should check out Rahmbo's aspirations on this topic. College will be "free" to all. "Service" will be compulsory for most. HeadStart will be universal and "incentivized" with little party favors like innoculations so the Democrats can get a HeadStart on indoctrinating your children as to your uni-cultural heresies. The only good news is serious, serious bad news which is that the universities have almost fully abandoned teaching anything useful or even truthful. Outside of mathematics and hard sciences there is nothing; NOTHING left of Socratic inquiry, skepticism or critical thought. The study of history is nothing more than an exercise in studious ignorance. But reality always will intrude. The puffed-up job market that astoundingly found lucrative parking slots for the imbeciles produced from this catastrophe has bumped up against the limits of blab-a-blab to put food on the table and a roof over one's head. Collapse is inevitable though given the monstrous endowments and other resources ironically at the command of Marxist professors it will not be near soon enough.

Marc Jeric| 11.21.08 @ 2:18PM

There is an old adage that says "If you can, you do; if you can't, you teach". University professors, especially at state-run ones, are almost all rejects of private enterprise. No wonder they are almost all socialists and believe in trickle-up economics, which is a total idiocy. The same goes for other government employees - a large majority are also rejects of private enterprise; there they can tell the can-do people what they can and cannot do, "to protect the poor, the disadvantaged, the sick, etc." In this way their laziness, ignorance and incompetence are covered up by a mantle of "social justice".

Phil King| 11.21.08 @ 2:46PM

Why not a GOP university organized in similar fashion to the Military Academies? Congressman could nominate solid YRs from each district and we could turnm out educated, conservative and patriotic future leaders. Charge tuition if need be or require organizational employment in return for education. It wouldn't be a party school but might just be a Party University.

Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 4:38PM

Professor Griffith --

Help me out. When was the "natural law" passed?

Your "sense of history" should comprehend that? Also, exactly how, I'd be interested to learn, does your knowledge of history help you know what we're "in for" now?

st louie mo| 11.21.08 @ 7:13PM

lemme butt in and answer for the professor

answer 1. at the creation

answer 2. hoover, fdr, carter.

Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 7:44PM

St Louie --

OK. If "natural law" was passed "at the creation," how can we teach it as history?

History is the story of human actions and affairs. There's no such thing as supernatural history.

"FDR" as an answer for the professor's vague and dark prophecy?

Churchill called FDR the greatest man he'd ever known. FDR lead us through WWII.

He doesn't belong in the same sentence (or list) with Hoover, that's for sure.

But perhaps the professor will butt in.

Jeremiah| 11.21.08 @ 10:45PM

Phil King --

That sounds nice, and I suppose schools like Pat Robertson's are sort of along those lines.

It's not a very good way to develop a university, however, which, despite what you may believe, is build according to scholarly principles and not principles of convenience to today's Republican party.

Roy| 11.22.08 @ 3:26AM

Wow, you guessed it, I don't believe that for a millisecond. "Build according to scholarly principles, at least to the extent that those principles are convenient to today's Democratic party" now that I would buy.

As far as the original article: you can try. You might make a dent, but I have my doubts. The kind of "freedom" that college students are interested in is primarily freedom from accountability, and Republicans are never going to be seen as the party offering that.

Wendell Griffith| 11.22.08 @ 4:53AM

First, there is a difference between natural law and the laws of nature. The latter dictate the forces of physics. The former dictates that all are free and sovereign individuals, responsible for their own actions. I teach my students to think for themselves. Whether or not they heed that lesson is up to them. From what I read on ratemyprofessor.com, the majority of them like my classes.
If we are going to steer this Republic to the center we are going to have to use the college age generation as oarsmen. The only way to do that is envigorate their minds. Get them angry enough at how far we have drifted from the principles that built this nation and they will get out the pitchforks and torches.
We start on 8 January with a 'Back to Classes, Back to Values' rally. This is the petition we will be circulating.

We the undersigned, Americans all, commending ourselves to the Republic and the blessings of liberty, do hereby command our elected representatives;
As our great charter, we recognize only the Constitution of the United States, which declares We the People have established this Republic to guarantee the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. We therefore charge you, in the name of The People, that you shall not squander our natural rights in the service of temporary political expediency.
Resolved, that We the People, do unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States against every aggression foreign or domestic, and that we support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the Constitution and that we do explicitly declare that the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the Constitution, are limited by the plain sense and intention of the Constitution.
That the People do also express our deep regret, that a political spirit has been manifested by the federal government to enlarge its powers by a grotesque misinterpretation of our Constitution and that the Executive and Legislative Branches have designed to expand their enumerated powers so as to consolidate their powers, the inevitable consequence of which would be to transform the republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at best a mixed oligarchy of the present political class.
That We the People particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the late case of the " Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 " which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and executive powers, subverts the general principles of free government. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and any other bill of law expending the common wealth to private enterprises are a reproachable inconsistency, criminal degeneracy, and a blatant violation of the Constitution, which may be fatal to the Republic.
That we, having ever felt the most sincere affection for our fellow Citizens and the most conscientious fidelity to our Constitution, do solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of our fellow Citizens, in confidence that they will concur with us in declaring, that the act(s) aforesaid, are unconstitutional.

Wendell Griffith| 11.22.08 @ 5:00AM

Thanks for the butt-in St. Louie. Correct on both counts. I would add Wilson and LBJ to the list. Mark Twain said history never repeats itself but it often rhymes.

Jeremiah| 11.22.08 @ 2:21PM

Professor Griffith --

Just so I'm clear (as a good student, I always take notes), the "list" of presidents that somehow demonstrate we're "in for" something horrible because Obama was elected includes the following:

Hoover, FDR, Carter, Wilson, and LBJ.

If I can fill in the terms of this enthymeme, I take it you think Obama is taking these above as his (very mixed, complex) model for governing. Hoover and Carter, included? Why not Clinton and Garfied?

Can I offer an alternate theory about your students' enjoyment of your classes?

The students probably just like you and find your lectures and readers interesting. You seem like a nice fella, and so I wouldn't doubt it.

That does not mean, however, that they're all that convinced by your politics. They might be, but there's not evidence for that in the fact that they like your class.

My point is important because you people have got to understand that students do not attend school to be politically conditioned, and professors -- who are, by and large, liberal -- do not have time to indoctrinate their charges, or really the interest in doing so.

The coincidence of the term "liberal studies" with the word "liberal" in the realm of politics is not accidental. But universities for 30 years have been turning out students whose politics reflect those of the country at large -- basically centrist with some tendencies to the right in the area of social areas and to the left in the area of government policies like middle class entitlements.

1968 was a long time ago, folks.

Jeremiah| 11.22.08 @ 2:32PM

error: "to the right in the are of social policy..."

One last thing: even in the humanities, where teaching political philosophy and cultural criticism would seem to invite professors to indoctrinate students, this does not happen nearly as frequently as you'd guess reading conservative critics of the university.

Professors, TAs, and adjunct instructors (increasingly the people actually teaching students) have more work than most of you would imagine just teaching their students to read and write at a college level. That work takes so much time, effort, sweat, blood, and tears -- many, many tears, I'm sure the professor would agree -- that urging them even to vote becomes a very low priority.

At universities, people read. They're interested in books and demand that people substantiate claims with evidence.

These values are enough to put them in bad odor with the New Conservatives: the Palin and Bush inspired anti-intellectual mob from Moronia that brags about its ignorance and wears it as a badge of pride to remain stubbornly ignorant of what is actually going on in the world.

Sorry folks, truth hurts.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.22.08 @ 4:10PM

If the Republican Party wanted to appeal to young people, they could have nominated Ron Paul for President. I don't really know what the GOP can do now. Maybe adopt a sane, anti-interventionist foreign policy? Now that Hillarious Clinton is going to be Secretary of State, it shouldn't be too difficult to outflank the Democrats on one of the few issues where their activists & ideologues actually have a point (and are about to be betrayed by their leaders). Of course, we all know that when Barack Obama decides to expand the War on Emmanuel Goldstein, er, I mean "Terror," the Republicans will back him 110 percent. I think its time to abandon the Republican Party, and start building a viable, conservative-nationalist-populist, freedom-loving third party, to replace the GOP, just as the early Republicans replaced the perfidious Whigs. The Republican Party has become a bad joke. Nominating John McCain for President sounded an awful lot like a death rattle to me.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.22.08 @ 4:16PM

" At universities, people read. They're interested in books and demand that people substantiate claims with evidence.

Yep, that is very true. The Republican Party has become an embarrassment to even right-wing people with brains. Its become an absurdity. It is a party that celebrates the virtue of ignorance. They might as well just formally rename it The Stupid Party. They haven't nominated a good candidate for President since 1984. It is time for them to go.

Jeremiah| 11.22.08 @ 4:30PM

Kevin --

You may have a point. The only candidate that motivated any college students other than Obama was Ron Paul (except for a few remaining supporters of Nader).

I don't think you'll fine Empire Building to be one of the major priorities of students now leaving college to find the so-called fiscally conservative Republicans have turned this country into a mega-sized Argentina. Bush set out to reduce the USA to the cringing level of a banana republic when he found out how easy it was for cronyism and corruption in those unfortunate nations.

Nevertheless, you all can can sit back and complain about Obama and Clinton secretly resting much better in the knowledge that adults once again are running Washington.

I bet not 1% of the readers of Am. Spect. will have any more serious harm done them than a tax cut, and the infrastructure rebuilding that will spur this economy in the next two years will quietly benefit most of you. And don't worry, you still get to blame everything on Jimmy Carter and maintain Obama's allegiance to Al Quaeda.

I love this country.

Bob| 11.22.08 @ 4:33PM

Kevin, you are getting close to the issue. Current Republicans are anti-intellectual, which by definition, makes them unlikely candidates to get advanced degrees and teach at the university level. At the heart of this are the social conservatives that put belief ahead of reason. College is for the discussion of ideas, i.e., "reason" and church is for the inculcation of belief. The repudiation of conservative intellectuals like Brooks and Will demonstrate this trend.

Kevin Riley O'Keeffe| 11.22.08 @ 8:07PM

Fair enough, but David Brooks is no conservative. He's about as far to the right as David Gergen or William Cohen.

Michael Ellis| 11.22.08 @ 10:48PM

Ha. I love it when people say things like "social conservatives ... put belief ahead of reason." True enough, but at least they have the good sense and honesty to admit that their beliefs are based on faith. Believing in God is no stranger than e.g. believing that government-run health care will be less expensive, more efficient and more available than a privately-run system. In fact in many ways it's much less strange in that the existence or non-existence of God can't be proved or disproved either way, whereas socialism in various forms has been attempted and discredited time and and time again.

Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 12:20AM

Michael Ellis --

You don't know for certain that government run health care would NOT be better and cheaper than what we now have, that's for sure. Your faith in the "invisible hand of the market" is a little too like a faith in a false idol.

When we stop giving insurance companies money that they then use to disqualify us, it will be a good day. I don't care how we do it. I just want to stop paying them to figure out ways to deny me coverage when the time comes.

Billions are spent every year on disqualifying people who need to see a doctor. Your telling me that money would not be better spent on the doctors themselves?

Oh yes, by all means -- let's keep giving money to the insurance companies to invest on Wall Street, and then if we get sick, wait and see if they prefer to pay. Because as it is now, they only pay if they prefer to pay. What a bargain! Where do I sign up?

Dorothy| 11.23.08 @ 12:38PM

Government run health care has been shown to be a failure in Canada and the UK. Conservatives are not anti-intellectual. They liked Palin as an example of Citizen Legislator not policital ruler for life. People like Will and Frum who want to reform the party by writing articles about what we can learn from the Brits is a joke and should be rediculed and laughed at. We left Europe for a reason, look at the misery they are in now with high immigration=loss of identify; high unemployment, high taxes, etc. Conservatives want a return to first principles of individual liberty and responsiblity for your actions, and truth & conviction of moral virture, less government intrusion, more constitutional.
Government run Social Security is always the perfect example of failure of trust in the legislature to do anything right. And failure to enforce the rule of law as it applies to immigration is another. Conservatives are not anti-immigrant, just against lawless invasion.

Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 1:10PM

Dorothy --

Where exactly do you get your information about Canada and Europe?

My suspicion is that you've heard Sean Hannity repeatededly claim that public health care "has been shown to be a failure in Canada and the UK."

Canada and the UK have their problems, no question, and neither are as successful as France (which you don't mention at all) or Germany.

However, the actual people who live there are far more satisfied with their health system than Americans are. Increasingly, middle class Americans (hard working Americans) face financial ruin if a member of the family becomes ill. This is absurd and inhumane. It is also dreadful for the economy.

Here's a question: why do countries with public health systems NOT have car manufacturers groveling for money in front of legislators?

What happened to this country so that we stopped manufacturing automobiles!

The larger picture here, though, Dorothy, answers to the larger issue treated by the thread:

Too often conservatives are happy to live in an echo chamber in which Rush or Hannity start a "fact" going (e.g. "governmnent run health care has been show to be a failure") that is then endlessly repeated until people start to believe it must be true.

But it just ain't. I recommend you GO to Europe, see how people live, make some friends there, ASK them what happens if they get sick.

Do they fear that sickness will prevent them from keeping their (reasonably sized) home?

No.

Do they fear that sickness will drag them into bankruptcy?

No.

Do they constantly worry that their "insurance" companies are scheming to find ways of disqualifying them?

No.

NO, no, no, darn it all. There are dozens of alternative models of health systems. Instead of falling back on stale ideological myths and shibboleths, conservatives should do some learning and thinking and experimenting so they can be a part of the solution instead of tired old Chorus for the Ronald Reagan presidency.

Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 2:14PM

Dorothy--

One last thing. You write that conservatives liked Palin because she was a "citizen legislator" and not a career politician.

But is this true?

I understand her biography differently.

We're supposed to see Palin as a regular person who rolled up her sleaves and went into government to clean things up the way a determined house frau restores order to her kitchen after Thanksgiving.

However, Palin is in fact -- a career politician. After a stint as a sports reporter, she became a mayor. Then she worked in some capacity in the oil industrty (no more oil people, please!) as a liason with the government. Then she became governor of Alaska.

As governor of Alaska, she has achieved one very, very big thing on behalf of her people: instituting, in grand socialist fashion, a HUGE windfall profits tax on Big Oil, which she then distributed EQUALLY among her people. (Sounds like what the Democrtats have been trying to do these past five years....)

She's a popular governor, alright, as any would be if they started mailing checks for 3,000 dollars to every man and woman in the state. And good for her. I'm not criticizing.

But. I'm also not falling for this nonsense that she's innocent of government and somehow "outside" its workings, because that's just sheer nonsense.

Surrender, Dorothy! Get some information from some of those evil newspapers you and Sarah hate so much. Then we'll talk.

Alan Brooks| 11.23.08 @ 4:54PM

Republican college students differ little from liberal students: rock music, DVDs, sex, all the rest. Pardy Hardy, Marty.

Good luck.

Alan Brooks| 11.23.08 @ 5:02PM

ah, yes, forgot to mention drink and maybe a little bit o' that mary-wanna.
Gotta have fun. Unwind from studying. Get Down to it, babes.
Even if a student is a Republican...

Francis Beckwith| 11.23.08 @ 5:42PM

"When was the `natural law' passed?"

When was the rule passed that said that all laws must be passed in order to be laws?

If there was no such law passed, then you accept a law that was never passed, namely, the law that nothing is a law unless it is passed. But then on its ground your rule cannot be a law. Thus, we can safely ignore it without violating any epistemic obligation.

Try again.

Francis Beckwith| 11.23.08 @ 5:47PM

"You don't know for certain that government run health care would NOT be better and cheaper than what we now have, that's for sure."

Now look who is putting belief ahead of reason. For you would never accept this argument: "You don't know for certain that God doesn't exist, and thus I am justified in believing he does."

Try again.

Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 6:54PM

Francis Beckwith --

Health turns out to be one of those things that are not amenable to a "free market" solution (as though we lived in a "free market").

We are not rational actors when we are sick, for one thing, and medical technology has a way of outpacing market controls.

We are forced to pay for doctors. We don't choose to go to them, the way we choose to buy a BMW or a Honda. "Insurance" was an attempt to remedy this, but it failed. Marketing and denying claims eats up billions that might better be spent keeping costs down.

I for one refuse to keep forgoing rational solutions in the name of some worn out ideological claims that are -- in fact -- faith based, and not reasonable.

Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 7:06PM

Francis --

I'm taking your two posts separately.

Your explanation of "natural law" is not very easy to comprehend, so I can only do the best that I can to respond to it. Maybe you have a point. I just don't know what it is.

"Natural law" is a useful metaphor, but it has no ultimate governing authority over us. I can think of very few examples of "natural law" that are not demonstrably conditioned by historical forces -- although certain broad precepts seem to hold sway.

Killing, stealing, and disturbing the peaceful order (like talking on cell phones in a coffee shop) are in one way or another proscribed in all human societies, and some kind of sexual morality prevails in all as well. How these things are articulated and whose actions they constrain and what scope they give to people change drastically in different times and places.

Plato lived in a time when learned, cultured, elite members of society (all men) viewed sex with young boys as the most perfect human relationship. (This view was not shared by Socrates, and we think not by Plato as well.) Only very sick people in our society think this is the case. But we still place a high value on love, friendship, and in one way or another, erotic relationships.

Human beings tend to have a kind of moral solidarity with other human beings. We are social animals. Even the word "I" is never one man's alone: it is used by every sentient human being. It's meaning is social.

We are inclined to build communities in which others like us can thrive. What exactly "like us" means is the subject of anthropology, philosophy, religion, literature, sociology, theology, and any other study of human beings.

Jeremiah| 11.23.08 @ 7:09PM

"Like us" in enlightened, liberal societies comprehends a class co-terminating with the human race.

In tribal societies and at Sarah Palin rallies, the group covered by "like us" is much smaller, and inspires the involved to resent and hate outsiders.

That's pretty much natural law as I understand it.