Unhappy Conservatives

Andrew Sullivan has blogged a lot about his dissatisfaction with the direction of the current party. Many of his readers feel the same way and one has written about what conservatism should be in his opinion.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that the coalition I'd like to see now would have two or three main pillars.

One piillar would be rooted in the idea that less is better than more when it comes to government -- that less regulation is better than more regulation, that decisions ought to be made by people close to problems, that markets ought to sort things out when possible.

Another pillar would be rooted in the traditional processes of our constitutional system, It would be based on an appreciation of the wisdom built into our system -- the value of checks and balances, the necessity of spreading power around, the importance of oversight, and even a real commitment to collegiality and a rejection of smears and ad hominem attacks in political discourse.

The third leg of the tripod, though, is the interesting one, because it's something that comes out of the far left. In fact, it's so far to the left that it wouldn't fit into today's Democratic party. I'd like to see an acknowledgment and rejection of some of the brutality of American foreign policy. I'd like us to explicitly own and reject what we did in places like Iran before the Shah, and in Guatemala.

That sounds good to me, though I would be happy with a lot less partisianship and demonizing of anyone who disagrees with you whether it is on the left or right. We will never accomplish anything great as a nation if we are constantly playing these games of right and wrong. Disagreeing with someone is fine; in fact it is healthy. Calling your opponents traitors or fascists is only going to lead to division and bickering.