There's a lot of interesting stuff here. I strongly agree with most of it. I'll respond to the parts I disagree with.

What passes for a Democratic philosophy is a hodgepodge of little problems that the gov't can help you with. They are not united under a single philosophy-- a strong federal gov't as an instrument of change. Many of them are deeply distrustful of the federal gov't for the military, drug war / prison-industrial complex, and law enforcement spying on and trying to discredit groups and demonstrations.

It's odd to hear him say Republicans are united behind military spending right after saying the Democrats are the ones who believe in big gov't. If you exclude Social Security and Medicare (based on the fiction that they're separate insurance programs) and include health and education programs for veterans, war is what the gov't spends most money on. There's a bipartisan consensus in support of huge military spending.

I agree with the stuff toward the end of the article, esp that it's contradictory to expect individualism to flow from the party to the individual. I agree if individualism becomes more widespread, politicians will respond.

Somewhere toward the end he says words the effect of "our society is in grave peril." People commenting on gov't, social problems, etc usually feel the need to say things are horrible. I don't know if that view drives them into writing, if that's what gets readers, or that's how their readers see the world. Whatever the reason, I agree with him the need for more individualism and less statism. I don't see we're in immediate peril.

I believe we are witnessing the old 'divide & conquer' tactic. The question is, who's directing it? And why are the people voting in spineless, lily-livered squabs in office to begin with? (Boener, McConnell...)

Interesting quote from Keynes. He may well be right. Damn, where does that leave free market capitalist?

The very definition of political party is nothing more than collectivism, power and influence seeking.
I doubt that politics and it's parties can ever exist in the same room as individualist Objectivists, free market capitalism, and certainly not with individual natural rights and freedom.

Objectivism is a philosophy not a political party. The goal of objectivist should not be too closely aligned with any political party or movement. The goal is to change the underlying philosophy and the politics will follow.

This quote from John Maynard Keynes of all people explains it.
“The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist (philosopher).”

I see this in the gulch everyday. People think they are coming up with an original position, when in fact they are just repeating a (long dead) philosopher's position and usually not as well as it was originally stated.

Objectivism, unlike Republicanism, has the principles around which like-minded individuals could coalesce, but such individuals have decided that such coalescence is not in their own best interest.

Without a unified Republican party, there will soon be no place in which one will be able to find a little parcel of paradise. Where I live is still a great place, but very recently, my university is starting to have budget issues because of the economic problems elsewhere in the world. It feels like a balloon that is slowly deflating.