Generally speaking, Ayn Rand often praised liberals for their intellectual approach to social problems, while conservatives only rest on tradition and faith.

Thumbs down, not for disagreeing - which many Objectivists do with various conclusions and even some assumptions (as for instance, see the thread "Are You an Objectivist?") - but for your crude language. Have you no other thoughts in your head that you must denigrate this discussion board and its participants, while you yourself remain a moocher? If Ayn Rand was so completely wrong on so many major issues, then why do you grace us with your presence? Would you not be happier on a conservative, Christian discussion board where you could commune with others of your like and kind? The free market for ideas allows that.

To speak to the point: Ayn Rand had more than enough words of condemnation for liberals. I only point out that she had praise for them, as well. Similarly, while her marginalia to "Conscience of a Conservative" was biting in its criticisms, she nonetheless endorsed Sen. Goldwater's candidacy for the presidency.

Technical philosophy requires an analytic and synthetic approach at the same time, a rational integration of empirical concretes into wider abstractions. Determining the context for a problem is critical to defining its objective characteristics. Hence, the philosophy is called "Objectivism" not "Absolutism."

I am religious, but agree with the basic philosophies of Objectivism.

For example: I have no obligation or duty to help the poor, but I have the right to do so if I so choose. I choose to do so because it makes me feel good (provides value to me) to help another and that is my sole motivation for doing so. People understand this to varying levels.

I hate calling oneself a conservative, liberal, libertarian or any other canned group. I am far closer to a Libertarian than any other group, but I do not agree with some things that platform likes as well.

I am me. If I am in a room with one or more other person and we agree on everything one or more of us is not using reasoning and the mind. This creates a failure to discuss our differences, which hopefully would cause all in the discussion to double check there premises for conflicts with there core values exposing areas where all is not clearly understood and reflection on what is not understood, thus creating a better understanding for all.

The real problem with the "Conservitives" is that they are conservative (meaning small government) in economics and liberal (meaning large intrusive government) in social policy.

What I think of as a true conservative does not want to use force to push their ideas on others, period.

A true liberal wants to push there values on others.

Example: A woman should never be forces to get or not get an abortion but a doctor should never be forced to give or not give one. Let each person do according to there values.

Both the traditional liberals and traditional conservatives have issues they attempt to use force to make happen for all. It is the places where force is used that they are both out of line with God, Objectivity and reason.

I agree with your last statement 10000%. I would even argue that is not the best way to root for a team either.

We are in agreement. If the author had stated "Traditional Republican conservatives..." the statement would have been essentially true.

This polarization of so much of society and the willingness of so many to embrace a label of being either on the left or the right is troubling to me. They defend positions like a fan would root for a team, rather than by open debate, exchange of ideas and thoughtful conclusions.

Agreed. The difficulty is trying to fit ideas into a paradigm that is itself changing. The author of this piece states:

"Conservatives are more likely to favor faith, tradition, and duty as core values."

Many young conservatives/Republicans are actually leaning, as you noted, libertarian. Likewise, many young liberals/Democrats are acting in line with faith (in society), tradition (of the New Deal), and duty (to other people).

I have always viewed Rand as a Libertarian. I have never viewed her as either conservative or liberal in any classic sense.

I think that the left is just equating her with Republicans because of the recent influx of libertarian thinking into the party mainstream. From what I have read, she certainly supported capitalism and individual rights over any collective, ideas that many conservatives share, but she was also a pro-choice atheist, which provides common ground for many on the left.