of his favorite quotations, and one entry by Oliver Goldsmithrnseems to summarize his personality and politics: “Great mindsrnare bravely eccentric; they scorn the beaten track.”rn—from ]ustin Raimondo, “The Lion of Idaho: Wilham E. Borahrnand the Progressives,” November J998rn[Robert] Frost’s belief that we love the things we love for whatrnthey are, from our familiarity with them, made him highly criticalrnof those Americans who ignored their local and nationalrnloyalhes while seeking to embrace an abstract love for the wholernworld: “We think the word ‘provincial’ is a shameful word herernin America. But . . . you can’t be universal without beingrnprovincial, can you? It’s like trying to embrace the wind.”rnThroughout his life, the poet remained profoundly skepticalrnthat any meaningful or practical and effective love and loyaltyrncould be practiced by any individual beyond nationalism, forrnmankind in the abstract. Sovereignty began in the consciencernof each individual, and extended to his local community and finallyrnto his country, but not to a remote and abstract humanityrn. . . Frost’s skepticism toward Wilson’s League of Nations was extendedrnto the United Nations after World War I I . . . . The independencernof nations was primary to Frost; their interdependencesrnwere secondary, because nations, like individuals,rnneeded to be free to pursue their own destiny.rnIn an interview with Frost in 1957, James Reston summarizedrnhis negative conservative social and political views: “He isrnagainst everything and everybody that want people to rely onrnsomebody else. He is against the United Nations. He is againstrnthe welfare state. He is against conformity and easy slogans andrnMadison Avenue, and he hasn’t seen a President he liked sincernGrover Cleveland.” In 1959 Louis Untermeyer, Frost’s lifelongrnMarxist friend, also summarized what the poet most disliked,rnbut added what he insisted upon:rnHe is still against One World, World Federation, UniversalrnBrotherhood, Unity, the breaking down of barriers inrnthe interest of Oneness; he is unalterably against Onernanything. You may quote him to the effect that “Somethingrnthere is that does not love a wall,” but you can bernsure that he much prefers the opposed quotation thatrn”good fences make good neighbors.” He insists upon Nature’srndivisions and differences; in art, as in nature, wernwant all the differences we can get. In society, too. Wernwant people and nations to maintain their differences—rneven at the risk of trouble, even at the risk of fighting onernanother.rnFrost did more than pay lip service to individual freedom; hernloved personal freedom, for himself and other men and nations,rnwith an intense and constant passion, and he refused to sacrificernany part of his independence and self-reliance for the promisesrnof security by politicians or ideologues, whether national or international.rn—from Peter StanUs, “Robert Frost,” August J992rnTHE PARTY STATErnIn Washington, D.C., access and influence go hand-in-hand;rnthey are the stock and trade of the lobbyist, the lawyer, and thernpolitical advisor. They are, as well, the biggest “skill” current officeholdersrnand staff members can take with them when theyrnleave the government.rn—from Pat Choate, “Puppets for Nippon,” May 1993rnPeople choose sides in civil, fashionable, moral, or metaphysicalrnquestions ver}’ much as children choose which local footballrnteam they will (notionally) support. “I’m the sort of person whornsupports Everton rather than L^iverpool, pretends to adore thernQueen Mother and dislike Princess Anne, thinks that Qaddafirnis insane and Gorbachev is a nicer chap than Brezhnev, andrnvotes for Mrs. Tiggywinkle while expressing cautious disapprovalrnof her policies.” Or in other circles: “I’m the sort that wasrnborn under Aquarius, thinks the military-industrial complexrncontrols the Western world, and that ‘the scientists’ are only notrnrevealing their solution to death, UFO’s, and telepathy becausernthey’re in league with the Freemasons.” Taking a position, likernwearing a particular dress or choosing to drink lager, is expressingrnloyalty to a group, an image of oneself, a particular rhetoric.rn—from Stephen R.L. Clark, “Having Opinions,” April 1987rnAs semper fi is to Marines, “tax, spend, and elect” is to Congress.rnWhen political charlatans threw off the confining shackles ofrnlimited government once and for all during the New Deal, theyrnsoon deduced just how easy the task of buying votes became.rnCongressmen were more than happy to console dysfunctionalrnfamilies and anesthetize them from the devastations of parentalrninattention and folly, as well as the toll from government interventionrnin the economy, to get themselves reelected to a cushyrnjob with no heavy lifting. One glance at C-SPAN providesrnmore than ample evidence that flimflammery is still in sessionrnand flourishing. Note how they postiire, what they debate, andrnhow they are all so glad to be part of such a distinguished body.rnYou might soon forget that they produce nothing in society exceptrnmanaged chaos, empty pocketbooks, and hot air. But they,rnlike everyone else who pretends to an earthly throne, know whatrnis best for us—while we are more than happy to let them governrnour lives. What is the price of slavery compared to the joy wernfind in self-justification for wrongdoing?rn—from Robert K. Doman, “The Suppression of Public Virtue,”rnAugust 1995rnWhat the neoconservative logic comes down to is this. ThernUnited States has a moral responsibility to run the world. Butrnthe citizens are too stupid to understand this. That is why werncannot use democratic institutions like Congress in this ambition.rnWe must use the executive power of the presidency, itrnmust have total control over foreign affairs, and never bow torncongressional carping.rnOnce this point is conceded, the game is over. The demandsrnof a centralized and all-powerful presidency and its interventionistrnforeign policy are ideologically reinforcing. One needsrnthe other. If the presidency is supreme in global affairs, it willrnbe supreme in domestic affairs. If it is supreme at home, therernwill be no states’ rights, no absolute property rights, no true libertyrnfrom government oppression. The continued centralizationrnof government in the presidency represents the end ofrnAmerica and its civilization.rn—from Llewellyn H. Rockwell, ]r., “Down With the Presidency,”rnOctober 1997rn62/CHRONICLESrnrnrn