I’m sorry if I misinterpreted you. After the proposition that the religious right will keep us “on the straight and narrow” you have a long section on the not-necessarily conservative bent of evangelicals and devout Catholics (because Catholics weren’t for limited government during the Inquisition!), report that American conservatives “have not, historically, been very religious” (really?), and pointedly note that the great conservative presidents weren’t churchgoers.

I really thought you were suggesting something larger with all this. If not, no problem. We can agree that the existence of devout Christians in the U.S. doesn’t guarantee limited government. In fact, that seems obvious. But I’m sure you will agree, in turn, that the Religious Right has been identified with the rise of a more conservative, anti-government GOP over the last 25 years. So, despite your theoretical points about how evangelicals and devout Christians needn’t support limited government, in fact they have been a major ally of the party that has been trying to do something about it (not always terribly successfully, granted).

Also, your dire pessimism is overblown. You say that Social Security reform isn’t fundamental–but compared to what? What previous Republican president has proposed anything this big? And you should check out what Steve Moore was saying about Bush I in NR–let alone what he would have written about the Bourbons or Habsburgs!