You are absolutely correct that absent a revival, awakening (we’ve had at least two great awakenings, but only one great depression so far), or illumination of conscience, the cause of returning to puritanical values – both on chastity and prudence, but also frugality and industry are futile. Yet we are celebrating the resurrection, and the ascension and pentecost are coming.

Libertarians who don’t wish the unwanted virtues involving self-control are misguided. As are the social conservatives make the identical mistake. Fortitude can only exist and enable and support all other or no other virtue.

Greed, Envy and Sloth destroy the economy. Wrath and Pride cause war. Lust and Gluttony destroy the person, family, and the community. But all are paths away from the shining city on the hill.

It matters little whether America is dragged into hell by clasping it’s guns, wallets, or vibrators. It has to deny itself, and take up the cross – mostly of it’s own creation – and retrace the path of descent, but backwards.

It will be uphill, but the hand of the savior can reach down to give us a pull. Yet to grasp his hand, we must let go of the evil anchors.

Jake

I would like to respond to this sentence….

fiscal responsibility and a tight monetary supply, to say nothing of reintroducing a currency backed by specie, have few or no constituencies behind them

I believe that you issue 3 tenets that are not well tied together.

Fiscal responsibility as a general belief is sound practice. While there are likely times for deficit spending, our government seems to believe that the norm should be large deficits while the exception should be a balanced fiscal policy. I fear that this will, ultimately, be the undoing of our nation.

Specie backed currency is simply a check against growth. No matter what you choose to back your currency with, you are implicitly accepting that some arbitrary supply constraint will dictate how quickly your money supply, and by direct relation your economy, will grow.

Money supply should be somewhat fluid so as to contract and expand when necessary. As with my first point, the fact that our government allows political fickleness to influence the supply of money does NOT mean that a tight money supply is inherently superior to a loose money supply.