Recently, while debating the Iraq War, it occurred to me that I had begun to revel in bad news. I was happy to hear that things were going bad in Iraq, because I was so filled with disgust at Bush & Co., that I wanted his poll numbers to stay down. Just like a politician, at some point, I had lost focus on the solution to the problems, instead opting to vent my rage, get my revenge, say "I told you so," and win the next election. With that attitude, I had no right to become indignant when some chickenhawk called me unpatriotic. When you're against a war upon which your antagonist has gambled his legacy and the success of his party, its easy to be unpatriotic. Its easy to hope that things keep going bad. But it IS unpatriotic. Just because Bush framed the debate that way, doesn't make it any less so.
To me, the essence of patriotism is putting one's country's best interests ahead of any other interest - at least when voting and politicking. Of course, that's not to say we should all enlist, even if we were fighting one of those rare wars that were necessary for our national security. But in carrying out our duties as citizens in a democracy, we have a responsibility to rise above politics, anger, even ideals, in considering what is truly best FOR OUR COUNTRY. If we can't do that, then how can we ask it of our elected officials?
Where am I going with this? I think, by embracing gut-check "principles" and Newt-Gingrich-style populism, many liberals have become complicit in the culture war.
Don't get me wrong. In the wake of 2001 - 2002, I, like most liberals, felt betrayed by the Democratic Party, the media, most liberal think tanks and organizations, you name it. I had "lost my religion," so to speak, and stopped watching the news. For the first time ever, it occurred to me to pursue a career around making lots of money, rather than "fighting the good fight." (I was a college junior). Thankfully, Governor Warner began to have some successes in my home state, and Howard Dean emerged voicing my concerns that had been ignored. I tuned back in.
So what happened after 9/11? Do we blame the DLC? Liebermann? "The press"? In retrospect, I think it was an atypical response to an unprecedented event, on the part of the vast majority of our citizens and institutions. Its not fair to blame "moderates," because even most "liberals" were MIA. God bless Howard Dean, but its not fair to blindly push to the populist left, punishing the moderates for something that was not entirely their fault. Nor does it make any sense to sacrifice another election on the alter of the culture war.
We have every right to be angry. Some bad people have done some very bad things that affect all of us. But by indulging this anger, we perpetuate the culture war, and by perpetuating the culture war, we perpetuate the decay of our civic, democratic culture. To be clear, I think the biggest threat to our country is not any one Bush policy, nor the Iraq War, nor terrorism, nor Rovian political tactics, nor O'Reilly's misinformation - the gravest threat is the culture war itself. By throwing stones in the culture war, we put our allegiance to a few abstract principles ahead of our allegiance to our country. This is the same thing that the religious right has done - regardless of the humongous problems we're facing as a country - they've opted for their religious ideals, letting the world go to hell. Our principles may be better, but our principles can be just as useless, or even counterproductive, when facing complicated problems of foreign or economic policy.
Politically, we'll lose the culture war. The culture war has always been a distraction - smokes and mirrors concocted by the neo-cons, to rally the social conservatives and convince them to vote against their own interests. They set up a proxy battle that they knew they could win, and now we're dutifully playing our part. Policy-wise, how can we solve the unprecedented, enormous problems we're facing as a country, when we're more focused on our anger at Bush, or Liebermann, or FOX news, or whatever? How can we address complex problems like the energy crisis, national security concerns, or the disappearance of our middle class, with oversimplistic, ad-hominem-inspired values (e.g. out of Iraq, no matter what)
The Democratic Party should embrace effective governance as our mantra. We should engage everyone in a dialogue about the problems we face as a country, and govern pragmatically, with a willingness to compromise, and an eye towards the future. We should be able to say to the other side, "We may disagree on principles, we may have different values, but we will govern responsibly, and we will govern accountably, and we won't allow any abstract ideals to blind us to the rough-and-tumble world that we live in. There's our unifying theme. What could be a more stark contrast to the last 6 years?