Indeed the greatest historical destroyers have been cultural movements based on misintegration. The 20th century saw the trail of destruction left by secular misintegrations: fascism and communism. But the world-historical champion of destructive misintegration is religion. As Dr. Peikoff observed, secular communism lasted little over 70 years. But Christianity reigned for 1,000 years, in the course of which it neatly disposed of most of the achievements of an entire civilization: classical antiquity. And now witness Islam with its bloody borders. What accounts for the difference? Dr. Peikoff surmised that secular ideologies quickly lost credibility when the earthly results they promised failed to materialize, while religion could always hold out promise of bliss in the afterlife.

It is, therefore, a mistake to infer from the destructiveness of individual nihilists to the conclusion that the left could be more destructive than the religious right. The left is nihilistic as a movement only insofar as nothing ties together its diverse strands but hatred for the right. It has the power to attract followers only insofar as they happen to share this hatred: it does not have the power to induce that hatred intellectually.

It is also, therefore, a mistake to infer from the goodness of many individual religionists to the conclusion that the right is a less destructive cultural force. Most Christians are just "Sunday Christians," who don't take religion seriously but lead productive lives. The debate over this election is not about the goodness of individual religionists, but about giving the religious movement the chance to spread its infectious influence and gain greater control of our lives on a national scale. It is, in fact, precisely because religious people are better people that religious ideological movements are more destructive: by appealing to moral ideals and hope for an afterlife, these movements are more likely to inspire better people to follow them and surrender their talents for the cause.

I do not think it is hard to see that a Bush win would give further momentum to an already growing religious movement in American politics. The evangelicals were very happy about Bush's convention, and should this be surprising? Leave aside his positions against stem-cell research and abortion, and his massive new campaign of censorship. I think his most dangerous religiously-inspired proposals are his "faith-based initiatives," because he is beginning to co-opt left-wing arguments to support them, e.g., by claiming that failing to fund religious charities "discriminates" against religion. When combined with arguments from "democracy" (and the fact that the majority of Americans are Christian), this could lead to massive federal subsidies for religion in America. And where there are federal subsidies, controls are sure to follow. This is why I think Dr. Peikoff is correct to state that Bush could do for religion what FDR did for the welfare state.