Comments on: Loyalty http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=loyalty n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: The Economic Nationalist http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/comment-page-1/#comment-12760 The Economic Nationalist Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:34:25 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/#comment-12760 [...] Daniel Larison writes: Something that the defenders of party loyalty seem never to be able to grasp is that loyalty is a mutual obligation. It is not only something that supporters are supposed to give to their party, but it is something that party leaders owe to the people who put them and keep them in their positions. [...] [...] Daniel Larison writes: Something that the defenders of party loyalty seem never to be able to grasp is that loyalty is a mutual obligation. It is not only something that supporters are supposed to give to their party, but it is something that party leaders owe to the people who put them and keep them in their positions. [...]

]]> By: The Economic Nationalist » Blog Archive » Daniel Larison on loyalty http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/comment-page-1/#comment-12759 The Economic Nationalist » Blog Archive » Daniel Larison on loyalty Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:32:20 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/#comment-12759 [...] Daniel Larison writes: [...] [...] Daniel Larison writes: [...]

]]> By: Howard J. Harrison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/comment-page-1/#comment-12750 Howard J. Harrison Thu, 31 Jul 2008 03:05:16 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/#comment-12750 It is a pithy explanation: <em>Something that the defenders of party loyalty seem never to be able to grasp is that loyalty is a mutual obligation. It is not only something that supporters are supposed to give to their party, but it is something that party leaders owe to the people who put them and keep them in their positions.</em> I have never been able to find quite the right words to explain this. These are the right words. Well said. <em>Howard</em> It is a pithy explanation:

Something that the defenders of party loyalty seem never to be able to grasp is that loyalty is a mutual obligation. It is not only something that supporters are supposed to give to their party, but it is something that party leaders owe to the people who put them and keep them in their positions.

I have never been able to find quite the right words to explain this. These are the right words. Well said.

Howard

]]> By: Adam01 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/comment-page-1/#comment-12699 Adam01 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 21:53:00 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/07/29/loyalty/#comment-12699 Economiccaly populist, anti-war, moderately conservative Democrats, are doing very well in usually reliably Republican districts. I take Glenn's point, but had Cazayoux & Childers run as unabashed progressive candidates those seats (and the Congress) would still be in Republican hands, and this administration would be well on its way to Tehran. Economiccaly populist, anti-war, moderately conservative Democrats, are doing very well in usually reliably Republican districts. I take Glenn’s point, but had Cazayoux & Childers run as unabashed progressive candidates those seats (and the Congress) would still be in Republican hands, and this administration would be well on its way to Tehran.

]]>