redblueamerica.com

Democrats, since the time of FDR at least (perhaps even earlier), have considered it a settled point that government should grow and expand in order to meet the "needs" of the people. In their conception of things, there are no needs that government cannot or should not try to meet if a sufficient number of people wish to see them met. Their politics, therefore, is about preferences and interests only. There is a long history among them of appearing to favor the weak over the strong. And I suppose that we ought to be grateful that they still have enough of a sense of shame to wish to convey that perception. But as time passes and the expansion of government continues apace, we have seen many examples of their professed concern for the weak actually working against the weak and in favor of the strong (dare I say, "special interests?"). And it is hard, really hard, to conceive of anything that Bill and Hillary Clinton do as being grounded in the service of the weak. It is in the service of the Clintons and their cronies--people who, though they may be many things, are hardly weaklings. So while it may certainly be true that the original thinkers who put the Democratic machine into motion were thoughtful and deliberate engineers, and had an articulate view of the ends of government it is also true that they set something into motion that no longer seems to require much thought beyond method.

Of course, this is part of its appeal. This is what makes it easy to be a Democrat or a liberal and, it's probably also why so many young people are attracted to its offerings. That, and the added benefit that comes from knowing that if you say the right things you will be given a pass when you don't do the right things. In their world, political virtue is saying and thinking "correctly" and it is almost always held to be superior to private virtue. And that, too, is easier to achieve. (To my liberal friends: When I say this, of course, I am talking about Democrats and liberals as a class and what they do together as a class and I am not talking about what they do or think as individuals . . . there are and certainly can be very intelligent Democrats and there are plenty of them who respect private virtue--at least in private. But when it comes to public arguments, their voices are united with these underlying assumptions of old. They call them principles, I say they're dogma.)

Republicans (especially conservative Republicans) have a much harder job to do. See the Bill Kristol's recent NYT article about the "Happy Warriors" we need to be if we mean to accomplish anything. We're up against the guys who offer freedom from thought and freedom from private virtue. They promise that you can chuck both of these difficult and annoying things and still be considered intelligent and virtuous! How do you argue against such seduction? Thinking is difficult and it makes people angry when all don't think as they do. So thinking can be unpleasant if your constitution is weak. Our party is charged with the burden of doing this thinking and persuading people to think along with us. We do not expect that after they are persuaded to try it on their own that they are going to be our disciples. Similarly, ordering your life in such a way as to promote virtue and happiness is difficult. It is even more difficult than working toward clear thinking. Our party is charged with the burden of persuading people to be good instead of just telling them to be "free" and "hope" and look good while you're doing both by chanting the right mantra--and then, when we fall (as all of us do)--we have the additional burden of answering to the charge of hypocrisy. And then we have try and explain the virtue of forgiveness? I mean . . . forget it! God's still working on persuading most of us of that one, isn't he? It's not even close. It's a wonder we don't all kill each other every election. And yet, we don't. And isn't that amazing? Shouldn't we remember that--especially when we reflect about the condition of the rest of the world? We're worried about McCain?! Are you kidding me? How would you like to be in Kenya right now? Or Pakistan?

So we've all had a terrible fight and our feelings are pretty sore. So what? We don't have to get married to McCain. Gosh, we don't even have to sleep with him! We just have to work with him. And, yes, sometimes we can even (and surely will) work against him. I know I'm looking forward to giving him a few black eyes. But not now.

Some may ask what we can be proud about in being Republicans now. Well, we can start by being proud of being Americans who think for ourselves and often against each other. My grandmother is fond of saying that she wouldn't give a nickel for a kid who didn't buck some, and I wouldn't give a nickel for a party that didn't either. Fighting in this way is a good and a dynamic thing. It keeps us alive and it keeps us healthy. We know that marriages last longer if the couple engages in healthy fighting--but, of course, we should be careful that fighting does not lead to contempt or silence. Those are deadly. We need to remember that the virtues of all the various parts of our coalition outweigh their vices and that, combined, we can do more good for the country and for each other than we'll ever do on our own. We can be proud that even as we pull a lever for he-whose-name-must-not-be-said in November, we will look much better with our noses pinched than the crying young twit who was choked up with irrational emotion at Obama's victory dance the other night.

Ever since we got creamed in the '06 mid-term elections, every faction of the party has been hard at work trying to convince itself and all the other factions that the thing never would have happened if only more things had been done their way. In the end, I think it's probably true that no one part of the party is exactly right in this argument about emphasis. The only thing that is clear is that the emphasis of '06 wasn't working. And, even then, it's only clear that this emphasis wasn't working in '06. I also don't believe that the people as a whole are so devoid of virtue or intelligence that they cannot be persuaded. So we had a fight about how to do things and now we're going to try to do this. I agree that it probably won't work perfectly--and probably it won't work as effectively as it might have worked another way. But the country does not deserve for us to give up and quit trying, even with imperfect material. It deserves happy warriors who will stand up and dust themselves off and keep at it. What else can you do? Talk of third parties at this juncture is so far beyond reasonable that I cannot countenance it. There won't be a successful third party, of course, but the Democrats might pay us to start one.