Seems to me the problem ties in closely with abortion & related matters. Forty years ago there was pretty good consensus about fundamental moral issues. Differences in economic outlook are not trivial, but no one is going to be driven to hysteria over differences in what the top marginal income tax rate should be. But the institutionalization of abortion and the related schism over morality broke the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" glue that held the political scene together. As this schism has grown (see the nearly complete switch of the South from D to R), the need to speak softly in order not to alienate various elements in one's own party has greatly shrunk.

You wrote: "...they must make arguments for their own election; so they have been forced to turn to ad hominem attacks and demonization of their opponents."

Yes, indeed they have. And for a very short and pointed expansion on that theme go to the piece by Michael Novak at:

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=169

Great link, Luciferous.

Nice analysis. This also leads to the "Problem with Kansas" genre of Democratic writings. They're program is so tailored to their conception of voter self-interest, narrowly defined, that they can't process the idea that most voters don't vote solely on self-interest.

I think the main blog entry and the comments above all make good points.

But unlike many of my fellow conservatives and Republicans, I am not as sanguine about the prospects for lasting conservative politics in the United States -- if by that we mean, more individual freedom, less government control, some reasonable restoration of religion and morality in the public sphere, and a continuing allegiance to the history and principles of the United States as they existed before the 1960s deluge.

First, I predict that healthcare in this country will be effectively nationalized within the next 20-30 years. Of course, as in countries like Canada, the rich will always have "private" options to choose from, but the entire system of medicine as it has developed in this country will be undermined -- and with it the quality and progress that marks American medicine.

Why will this happen? Because too many people think of healthcare as an entitlement, and only the best healthcare at that. We're not talking about "safety net" programs. We're talking about the wholesale socialization of 10-15% of the entire economy.

There is no question that healthcare is the leading wedge of socialist politics in this country. I fear that very few people will understand, let alone accept, the free market position in this area.

The next area of the economy that is liable to be socialized, in practice if not in name, is the energy sector. Another huge sector of the economy, and one that underlies all others. Again, too many people think that gasoline and heating oil, etc., are entitlements. When something is seen as an entitlement, then the "solution" to perceived high prices, shortages, etc., inevitably becomes a government takeover. Sure, this never solves anything, only makes matters worse. But our country is deeply illiterate when it comes to understanding basic economic principles, and many people are fundamentally hostile to free market concepts. Yes, the Left has done a brilliant job of brainwashing Americans. And they continue to do so.

The growing "environmental" consciousness of the average American (to wit, consider how many people today unthinkingly accept "global warming") will provide the rationale for all sorts of economic regulations on individuals and businesses. We already have them, and they are just going to get worse. The ratchet only moves in one direction in this area, and has since the 1970s.

So goodbye to much of the remaining economic freedom we have in this country. Political freedom already is under attack, through campaign finance "reform" that is now targeting the internet and the very "cooperative" communities that are discussed in the blog entry.

As for a meaningful moral restoration, I'm afraid we're fighting a losing battle on this front. The secularist, hedonistic genie was let out of the bottle three decades ago, and there is no going back. If anything, the hostility of the establishment towards "traditional" values has increased, so that almost any respectful mention of Christianity in the public sphere has become problematic. (Satire and criticism is fair game.) Despite all the political efforts of conservatives over the years, the role of religion (at least Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism) in our public life is more precarious than ever.

Finally, the combination of out of control immigration and widespread multiculturalism is undermining the cultural foundations of this country. The idea that the United States can assimilate millions upon millions of people from very different cultures, ad infinitum, and without an aggressive policy of "Americanization" is pure fantasy. Americans are a particular people, with particular values, practices, and beliefs. It goes without saying that we're not interchangeable with Mexicans or Chinese or Indians or whoever. The more our country is populated by these sorts of folks, the more it will begin to look and function like the countries where they came from -- and where individual freedom, limited government, and Christian traditions are not necessarily as valued. Q.E.D.

So I am not nearly as hopeful as many of my brethren on this side of the political divide. I think that the Democrats' political weakness is more a sign of their failed leadership than a reflection of the American people's intrinsic support for the Republican message. Wish that it were otherwise, but I see no reason to think so.

Even the deep divide over how to respond to terror demonstrates the trouble we're in as a nation. What would have been a no brainer only a couple generations ago, is so controversial that a nonentity like Kerry almost got elected president in 2004. The nation that elected Reagan in 1980 and relected him in 1984 does not appear to exist anymore.

novak's analysis was good as far as it went, but he makes it sound like this acid approach always works and doesn't have consequences. seems like the dem's are paying a price now for this tactic. also, in a connected world it's harder to keep people ignorant of what is really going on.

The Wilson article was very, very good.

I might suggest that the responsibility for polarization is not quite so evenly shared as the writer would have us believe. Rather, the conservative side has put us in mind of the warning sign said to exist in some French zoo: "Warning: dangerous animal--when attacked he defends himself."

I no more blame my side for fighting and winning a defensive culture war than I blame the allies for fighting and winning the the war against the Nazis and Japanese.

Furthermore, I continue to hold that much of our polarization is itself the deformed offspring of the father of everything. The fools who attempted to fight a war of policy, that is, Vietnam, with draftees were the polarizers. That was the insanity which drove millions of individuals to the hard left. Many of them remain there to this day in a united front with haters of America and haters of the West of every description.

Most of these victims, victims I name them, as having lost soul and manhood, were no worse than mere cowards and slackers to begin with. It was Vietnam which made them into traitors and enemies of their own people.
________________________________

David: Do not accuse those who choose righteousness and salvation of lacking "self-interest."

Lou: That second self-interest should also read "self-interest, narrowly defined."

As with all human affairs, there is never just one cause. One must add to all of this the effects of gerrymandering, which enables office holders to select voters which rewards those with clear (i.e., polarized) political views.

Didn't realize a favorable citation of Whitehead was allowable on this blog. I'll have to process that.

Why not? His remark to Bertrand Russell ought to go on up the masthead, it explains 90% of this blog:

You know, Bertie, there are two kinds of people in the world--the simple-minded and the muddle-headed. You, Bertie, are simple-minded; and I am muddle-headed.

Of course it's the mark of a real intellectual stud to be both. Feel free to add your own examples.

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."--Winston Churchill

Of course we're polarized. We've got one party whose foreign policy consists of coddling terrorists and whose domestic policy consists of coddling criminals.

We used to have more consensus. But beginning in the 60's, the Left began to call into question not just conservative policies, but foundational concepts of our society, such as the very exitence of patriotism. When they declared "The personal is political", they were saying no sphere of life was off-limits to government, a radical view that not even the New Dealers would have recognized.

Americans have largely rejected their ideas. Hence the obsfucation, vote fraud, character asassination, delay, impeachmentism, mindless oppositionism, malicious prosecutions, media distortions, legislation by lawsuit, and the great hope, judicial fiat. All are symptoms of a party that has lost the Battle of Ideas. And being declared the loser is "polarizing". It's unavoidable.