This chapter reviews the material presented in this book, including the history of novel legal doctrines; the use of libel law for political purposes; the interrelationship between politicians, media, and political followers; and the recurring debates over the ethics of comment from a distance. Goldwater was so far ahead of his time in understanding the political value of lawsuits that he anticipated the conservative legal movement of the 1980s. I then propose an alternative approach to the Goldwater Rule, drawing on the work of philosophers James Madison, John Rawls, Jacques Mauritain, and Martha Nussbaum to argue for a more liberal and tolerant guideline for psychiatric comment on public figures. The APsaA, in response to the Fact episode of 1964, adopted such a guideline under President Heinz Kohut. The result was a respectful and ethically coherent stance that has stood the test of time. Instead of banning comment outright as the APA’s Goldwater Rule does – a form of coercive paternalism in the sense described by philosopher Sarah Conley and others – I argue that the psychiatric community should respect the conscience of the individual psychiatrist acting in good faith.