The following article was co-authored by Chip Hanlon and Rich Wagner.

The Grumbling. The head shaking. The anger.

Congressional Republican leaders clearly have no idea what we, their fellow GOP members (and financial backers), say to one another when we get together, yet for years one refrain has been constant: our extreme discontent over how the former GOP majority blew it on spending.

Budget earmarks, which jumped by 285% between 1994 and 2005 as their cost soared by 60%, stand as the perfect symbol of the GOP-led profligacy that drives us crazy still. In and of themselves, earmarks are admittedly a small part in the budget process, amounting to roughly 2% of the federal budget in 2005.  Yet they epitomize the fiscal recklessness that led to Republicans becoming a minority in 2006.

Unable to rein it in on the smaller earmark items, it's no wonder the Republican leadership continued to fail on the more critical structural spending issues such as entitlement reform and a reduction in federal spending (hello Prescription Medicare).  

Still oblivious to the source of our discontent, a number of free-spending Republicans recently rushed to meet House GOP leader John Boehner, urging him not to back an earmark reform proposal from the Republican Study Committee. The idea they fought so mightily against? A ban on earmark requests from Republican members of Congress for one year.

The porkers' struggle is typified by Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia--sponsor or co-sponsor of $83MM in earmarks in last year's budget alone--who, amazingly, defended earmarks as "being entrepreneurial about bringing something home."

In response to us on that remark, former Speaker Newt Gingrich scathingly replied, "There's nothing entrepreneurial about the Appropriations Committee spending other people's money."

Alas, bold GOP leadership on earmark reform is still nearly absent in Washington.  Michigan's Thad McCotter highlights this by arguing the futility of fighting for earmark reform, saying members of the House can't lead on the issue because, "...we are not the field marshals, we are the foot soldiers."

Thank goodness Newt Gingrich suffered no such humility in 1994.

And that's just the point, isn't it? Today's Congressional Republicans have lost all resemblance to the revolutionaries who then typified the principles our party could--and should--stand for.

Indeed, because today's Republicans are so addicted to pork and big-ticket spending, it is time to demand dramatic action.

Therefore, as a start, we strongly support and call upon the House GOP leadership to institute a minimum one year moratorium on earmarks by Republicans, and for the Senate GOP leaders to follow suit.  Concurrently, we urge other Republican donor groups to reinforce this important beginning through their influence as well, with the ultimate intent to work towards substantial Republican spending reform.

Second, we are dialoguing with like-minded groups across the country about electing new Congressional Republican leadership in both houses of Congress.  Regardless of November's outcome, it is time to make a clear statement to voters that we intend to establish a new team and goals, re-discovering our lost principles of a government limited in size, scope, and spending.

It is not credible to ask the American people to return Republicans to the majority when all we offer them is the same group of leaders and policies they so recently rejected.

It's not just "branding," but the right policies which will breathe new life into the Republican Party and re-energize voters.

And one more thing: come November 5th, should the current GOP leadership in either house survive to lead in a new Congress, the Lincoln Club of Orange County will review its financial backing of all Congressional Republicans, and we urge others to do likewise.  A GOP caucus that would re-elect such leaders is not one we would likely continue to support.

Because, simply put: we refuse to support a permanent minority.

Rich Wagner is the President of the Lincoln Club of Orange County. Chip Hanlon is a Lincoln Club board member, President of Delta Global Advisors, and Founder of GreenFaucet.com.
 

UPDATE: Click here to read Robert Novak's column in the Washington Post with his own take on this issue and this article.
 

Today, I returned from a trip to Europe with a few of the brightest minds in political communications including, Dave Bossie, founder of Citizens United and former Speaker, Newt Gingrich. The trip allowed them to shoot the final footage for Rendezvous with Destiny, a documentary about the legacy of Ronald Reagan through interviews with world leaders, historians, and former associates.

In France, we walked the shores of Normandy where the graves of 9,387 soldiers offer a moving reminder of the sacrifices made by America on behalf of freedom and where our 40th president marked the 40th anniversary of D-Day with a speech at Pointe du Hoc in the summer of 1984. In Poland, we visited with Lech Walesa, co-founder of Solidarity and in the Czech Republic we met with Vaclav Havel, the former president who embraced democracy in defiance of Communism. Both men recognized the failings of the extreme political left and were influenced during their careers by the optimism best communicated by Ronald Reagan.

So I return from this trip optimistic. Not because the opportunities afforded us by Reagan's vision have been truly embraced by Republican leaders. And certainly not because I believe the values of the right are best represented in the Republican's choice of John McCain. The economy is in trouble, the dollar is weak, energy prices are soaring, housing is in a slump, and food prices are on the rise. But I am optimistic nonetheless, perhaps because this trip has highlighted stories of individuals who overcame much tougher challenges and much longer odds than those we face on the political right.

And speaking of the political right, we are at a crossroads. Not since the days leading up to the Contract with America, has the need for a change in Republican leadership been so obvious. Republican leaders have failed us. For more than a decade, the vision and opportunities outlined by Reagan and further articulated by Gingrich have been squandered by ineffective Republican leaders who fail to connect with the values of the American people.

By definition, leaders lead. It is not enough to promote positions that are not-as-left as the Left and only challenge the periphery of the Democrat agenda. From spending and earmark reform to energy and health care, Republican leadership has marginalized its core values and appears content with permanent minority status; even as the prospect of an Obama presidency and expanded Democrat majorities in Congress looms large.

Indeed, change is in the air and through our own efforts and those of other like-minded organizations in the political arena, I am hopeful this election season will yield a new crop of capable leaders within the ranks of the political right.

Enjoy!

Scott W. Graves
Editor-in-Chief

The first thing that struck me about Governor Bobby Jindal was his age. At 37, he is among the youngest governors to ever govern a state in our great country. The second thing that struck me about the governor was the reason why he has been voted to the governorship by the citizens of the great State of Louisiana. Governor Jindal is an extremely bright, straightforward, no-nonsense conservative with a very impressive track record of success and achievement that belies his youth. It is not just that Governor Jindal has tackled some very big problems that I find very impressive (I'll share a litany with you shortly), but also his fearless nature in tackling these problems that have frustrated so many. Straight at it and with the zeal of a true believer, Mr. Jindal has battled government waste, corruption, inefficiency, bureaucracy, and largesse throughout his public career.

When I was first afforded the opportunity to meet Mr. Jindal, then Governor-elect, I leaped at the chance. As a fellow Indian American of approximately the same age, I had been following Mr Jindal's career with keen interest for some time. Our first meeting was brief, but memorable. After swapping a few pleasantries about our mutual English alma mater, he spoke gravely of Katrina and the plight of those hurt by the disaster, as well as the significant job that lay ahead as Governor of Louisiana. Since that day I've had two other opportunities to speak with Governor Jindal, and suffice it to say: I'm a very big fan.

Many are already aware of Mr. Jindal's impressive background, but rigorous scrutiny beyond the sterling academic credentials, blue chip employers, and political victories reveals a man whose entire life story is a testament to the American promise and the consistent deployment of bedrock conservative principles.

An American Story
Born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana to recently arrived Indian immigrant parents, Mr. Jindal started life the way many of America's citizens have, into a family that dreamed of a better life in a far away place and had the courage to pursue it. His father was one of nine children and the only one to be educated past the fifth grade. This is the kind of background that can serve to remind a person that anything is possible in life and especially in America. A Catholic since high school, Mr. Jindal's life seems to have been guided by two consistent themes: very hard work; and a steadfast adherence to a conservative orthodoxy.

Graduating Baton Rouge Magnet High School at age sixteen, Bobby Jindal left the South for the Ivy League. Opting to attend Brown University, he focused on Biology and Public Policy. Continued academic excellence was rewarded with a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford University, where he wrote for the New Oxford Review, and received a Masters in political science.

From Oxford he went to work for McKinsey & Company, the much vaunted management consulting firm known as a Tier 1 advisor to the largest corporations in the world. Anyone who spends any time with Mr. Jindal will immediately realize that he is not only very bright, but is willing to dive deep into any subject matter and develop thoughtful positions that are supported with detailed facts and thorough analysis. This is not a man who would prefer to employ soaring rhetoric to spew platitudes and revel in superficiality.

A Track Record of Results
In 1996, Mr. Jindal became Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. Upon his arrival the Department with its 12,000 employees represented nearly 40 percent of the state budget and was bordering on bankruptcy with a $400 million deficit. At the end of his tenure as Secretary, the Department had enjoyed three years of surpluses totaling $220 million.

By 1998, Mr. Jindal was appointed executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, a 17-member panel charged with devising plans to reform Medicare. The next year, at the request of the Governor's Office and the State Legislature, he volunteered his time to study how Louisiana might use its $4.4 billion tobacco settlement. Later that year, he became the youngest ever president of the University of Louisiana System, the 16th largest higher education system in the country which oversees the education of approximately 80,000 students a year. During his tenure he was instrumental in raising graduation rates, retention rates, increasing private donations and the number of endowed chair positions. He also implemented the state's first teacher guarantees and faculty rotation programs. In March 2001, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation. He was unanimously confirmed by a bipartisan vote of the United States Senate and began serving on July 9, 2001. In that position, he served as the principal policy advisor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On February 21, 2003, he resigned to return to Louisiana and make his first run for governor. After a narrow loss, Mr. Jindal turned his attention to Congress.

 He won the congressional seat from the 1st district with 78 percent of the vote, including strong support from small business owners. In keeping with his history of over achievement, he was elected freshman class president and was appointed to the House Committee on Homeland Security, the House Committee on Resources, and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. He was made vice-chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks. As a Congressman, he was a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee, consistently voted with the Republican Caucus and had an A rating from Gun Owners of America.

This track record of accomplishment and discernable results combined with consistently conservative politics propelled him in his second effort for the governorship of Louisiana. The citizenry of his state, fresh from the terrible wounds of Katrina, saw in Mr. Jindal an opportunity to try something bold and grand. They opted to pursue government accountability and competence. For Mr. Jindal it was yet another opportunity to serve the people of his home state through hard work and the application of conservative policy.  

Moving the Needle
I quickly learned that Mr. Jindal is very articulate, highly intelligent and willing to bring both of those strengths to bear in any discussion. He addresses you as though you were the CEO of a very large client that deserves and demands real answers. Lately, I've heard many people refer to Gov. Jindal as a Republican version of Sen. Obama; however, my immediate reaction upon hearing him speak both publicly and privately was that he seemed more like Bill Clinton: A willingness to address any topic, engage an audience or listener, and with precision and accuracy deploy compelling statistics to argue his point. Unlike the former president however, Jindal's world view is consistently conservative with a steady and reliable preference for less regulation, less taxation, a motivated private sector that empowers individuals and leads to a smaller role for government in our lives. Also unlike Mr. Clinton, Gov. Jindal brings a track record of success from the private sector to his government job and therefore rarely confuses government for a cure-all entity. He understands exactly how the tyranny of bureaucracy works to blunt initiative and burden the spirit of anyone who dares to try and build something.

His  Louisiana governorship is already off and running with a strong reform agenda. With a tough stand on earmarks combined with big successes in the areas of ethics, taxes and regulations, Gov. Jindal is creating an impact. His new ethics law, which takes effect in January 2009, will provide more information to the public about the personal financial interests of state legislators and public officials. The law earned 99 out of a possible 100 points by the Center for Public Integrity, placing the law on par with the nation's best financial disclosure laws. Just two years ago, in the same survey, Louisiana's financial disclosure law ranked in the bottom 20%. He has had similar success eliminating burdensome anti-business taxes and promoting his state as a good place to do business. He has invested in infrastructure and is taking bold action on education and workforce transformation.

When asked what he hopes to accomplish as Governor, he sees opportunities for improvement in many areas and is steadfastly tackling problems and working to engineer real world solutions to many of his state's most pressing issues. He consistently reminds staff that there is more work than days. Primary focuses include rebuilding New Orleans to be a strong and vibrant place and turning his state into a better place for its citizenry, with greater economic opportunity, less government interference and more efficiency.

A Conservative Core Ideology
When asked virtually any question, one is given an insight into the core ideology that seems to have directed Mr. Jindal since his earliest days in public office. An optimist instead of an alarmist, he has focused on bringing the best out of his state through consistent deployment of conservative political policy and common sense government, with an eye towards empowering the private sector and a healthy respect for what government does not do well. He looks to technology to reduce costs and inefficiency. He seeks to empower free markets and encourage prudent risk taking. Whether it's his distaste for entitlement programs that were often designed decades ago, his ideas for structural changes that would limit the growth of government (a 2/3rds majority to raise any tax, a line item veto, etc.), or his desire to meaningfully change the premises of the political dialog, his conservative ideology shines through.

A classic example of this arises when I asked him about his Indian American heritage and GOP efforts to speak to a broader demographic. Eschewing identity politics, Gov. Jindal simply responds that authenticity to core conservative principles is all that is necessary. When prompted, he argues that conservatives need to continue to work hard to reframe the debate in this country. His argument is that if conservatives have the conviction to adhere to their principles and do not suffer a paucity of imagination, their ideas will be ascendant. He argues that incremental change is not enough and instead seeks to alter the debate such that we can fundamentally address what government's role ought to be in our lives and how we can structurally move to meaningfully stop its growth.

Conservatives have had many champions, and over the decades the likes of Sen. Robert A. Taft, Sen. Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan served as beacon bearers for an ideology. Jindal has spent a lifetime in this fold and looks to continue this legacy into the next generation. George Will once described Sen. Barry Goldwater, as "a man who lost forty-four states but won the future." In Gov. Jindal, conservatives have won at least one state back. 

The California Supreme Court Lays Down the New Law on Marriage, at Least Until November

Conservatives often divide over what are called "social issues."  This is because there is a strain of libertarian philosophy that believes the government should stay far away from any unnecessary intrusions into personal autonomy.  Many libertarians thus support abortion rights and same sex marriage.
 
These are distinctly minority positions within the Republican Party, but not insignificant numbers of Republicans hold to them.  Many activists who want low taxes could care less about abortion, while many deeply religious conservatives who support protecting life in the womb and traditional marriage don't mind the idea of higher taxes if they are used to support anti-poverty programs in Africa or earth stewardship initiatives.
 
Anyone who has been around the GOP longer than a year knows that he or she cannot hope to speak for the "party" as a whole, and that coalitions always have been and always will be messy things, difficult to nurse along and requiring compromise. Well, most of the time.  This fall, four of seven justices of the California Supreme Court have launched a plan to bring the GOP together again.
 
This was not the intention of the four justices who imposed same-sex marriage on the Golden State on May 15.  The bare majority intended to publish its diktat and be done with it.  After all, they are the ones with the robes and the gavel.  They decide, we abide. Right?
 
The reaction to the judicial coup has been fast and furious. Because Proposition 22 had been passed only in 2000 and by the enormous margin of 61 to 39%, few observers thought the Court would follow the lead of the ultra-liberal Massachusetts Supreme Court and jam same-sex marriage down our collective throat.  But they did, and suddenly, conservatives and most Republicans have an issue on which 95% of the party can agree:  The California Supreme Court is out of control and needs a rebuke.  Because of the foresight of some activists, a constitutional amendment returning the definition of marriage to what it has been since the founding of the United States and of California will be on the November ballot, and a vigorous campaign to pass it will dominate the summer and fall.  Information on the amendment can be found at ProtectMarriage.com.
 
Many conservatives and Republicans support domestic partnership rights for same sex couples.  Some even support same sex marriage, though that is a distinctly minority view within the GOP and the U.S. generally.
 
But almost no self-respecting conservative or Republican can support judicial usurpations as gross as this one.  Most conservatives understand that limiting government's power requires that government be built on the bedrock of separation of powers into three branches.  They also understand that anything so radical as this decision, done by the slimmest of majorities and substituting the will of four judges for that of millions of voters doesn't deserve the dignity of being called constitutional law.
 
This has brought the party together and will keep it together.  A few high profile Republicans will urge the party to get over it and get on with it, but they will be missing the deep apprehension over this decision, and not just among religious conservatives though their dismay is intense and enduring. 
 
Courts are not to be trusted with this order of power.  If they can make up rights, they can destroy them as well.  A constitution so flexible as it can be manipulated to produce a brand-new right superior to the massive vote of the people affirming the old understanding is no constitution at all.
 
But don't believe me.  Believe Justice Marvin Baxter, a 20-year veteran of the Court who wrote this about his four colleagues' putsch:
 
Only one other American state recognizes the right the majority announces today. So far, Congress and virtually every court to consider the issue, has rejected it. Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage --an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law -- is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

But a bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will.

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People's will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power. The majority purports to apply certain fundamental provisions of the state Constitution, but it runs afoul of another just as fundamental-- article III, section 3, the separation of powers clause. This clause declares that "[t]he powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial," and that "[p]ersons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others" except as the Constitution itself specifically provides. (Italics added.)

History confirms the importance of the judiciary's constitutional role as a check against majoritarian abuse. Still, courts must use caution when exercising the potentially transformative authority to articulate constitutional rights. Otherwise, judges with limited accountability risk infringing upon our society's most basic shared premise -- the People's general right, directly or through their chosen legislators, to decide fundamental issues of public policy for themselves.

Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where, as here, the claimed constitutional entitlement is of recent conception and challenges the most fundamental assumption about a basic social institution.

The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice.

Californians of all political stripes should join to rebuke the majority of the court this November.  We are a self-governing people.  The majority of the California Supreme Court needs a remedial education in government.

What constitutes the indestructible appeal of modern liberalism?

It's a crucial question at a moment when voters seem more inclined to embrace a so-called "progressive" agenda than in any other election in a generation. With his maverick appeal, John McCain may still be able to compete successfully for the White House, but polling on issues and "generic" preferences shows heavy majorities preferring Democrats to Republicans.

Conservatives will return to decisive victories only if we come to terms with liberalism's durable and visceral appeal. The best way to overcome our ideological adversaries is to understand the emotional attraction in their approach to the major challenges of our time.  

While conservatives obsess over distinctions of right and wrong and insist that inevitable consequences must flow from good and bad behavior, liberals focus on differences of another sort entirely.

The rhetoric of today's left shows that they see society divided between the privileged and the powerless, the favored and the unfortunate, victors and victims.

And liberals feel an irresistible instinct to take sides with the less fortunate.

While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions. In place of the conservative emphasis on accountability, the left proffers a gospel of indiscriminate compassion.

This leads directly, and inevitably, to the liberal passion to sanctify victimhood.

"Enlightened" lefties long to embrace and exalt all those who claim to have suffered from hard luck or oppression: the homeless, single mothers, "people of color," homosexuals, AIDS patients, feminists, convicted criminals, Native Americans, atheists, immigrants and many more. Recent Democratic Conventions have resembled festivals of fine whines, with countless testimonials from one victim group or another expressing hopelessness and helplessness unless the Donkey Party returns to power.

The leftist impulse to side with the underdog has become so powerful that liberals never bother to inquire whether a given "oppressed" group counts as deserving or not.

For example, the widespread activism on behalf of the fanatical internees at Guantanamo remains one of the most spectacular displays of lefty lunacy in recent years. Aside from a common distaste for free-market economics and the shared desire for a reduced American role in the world, liberal ideologues share with exotic and angry third-worlders a sense of themselves as persecuted victims who blame all their problems on the United States.

The generalized anti-Americanism that afflicts so much of the contemporary left owes everything to this imperative to identify with the downtrodden. The United States is simply too prosperous and too powerful to win liberal sympathy while suffering nations (no matter how dictatorial their governments, or how dysfunctional their cultures) seem far more worthy of support.

Every important element of the liberal program stems from the one central goal of assisting the unfortunate. Pushing for higher taxes, expensive social programs, universal health coverage, lunches and breakfasts in the schools, income redistribution, affirmative action, reparations, a higher minimum wage, more generous foreign aid, multiculturalism, gay marriage, prison rights, generous benefits for illegal immigrants--all these leftist imperatives arise from a common commitment to protect the powerless and uplift the unfortunate.

In fact, recent press focus on psychiatric or economic problems with returning Iraq veterans connects this approach to liberal opposition to the war (where they naturally feel sympathetic to the less powerful or prosperous insurgents). Portraying our military as unfortunates with dim horizons and no viable alternatives to service, showing them as victims of a cruel system and a flawed policy, allows progressives to claim they actually support the troops as oppressed and hapless losers, rather than formidable and willing warriors.

The persistent preference for the purportedly oppressed applies only imperfectly to explaining leftist support for legalized abortion. The unborn, after all, plausibly qualify as the ultimate underdogs: innocent, fragile, utterly helpless. Nevertheless, they've never lived outside the womb and so failed to achieve the status of aggrieved victims suffering from racism, sexism, homophobia, economic oppression.

Moreover, the mother seeking the abortion represents a far more visible victim--which helps explain the desperate determination by pro-abortion forces to stop legislation in requiring abortion providers to offer ultra-sound images of the baby in-utero before the woman makes the final decision to terminate her pregnancy. In other words, they don't want anyone or anything to compete with the stressed, unhappily pregnant mother for pity and sympathy.

The hatred of guns also reflects the progressive preference for the powerless--nothing empowers an ordinary citizen as dramatically and directly as the ownership of a firearm and the knowledge of how to use it. To the liberal mind, Americans with guns look like potential bullies, while the unarmed remain appropriately defenseless. It's utterly predictable which group the left will prefer.

In fact, favored victim groups can lose their sacred claims on the liberal imagination if they become too successful or powerful--as evidenced by shifting perspectives on the State of Israel. In the wake of the devastation of the Holocaust, and with Jews fighting for their lives against massive Arab armies in 1949 and 1967, liberals naturally gave strong, nearly unanimous support to the Israeli underdogs. After the decisive victory in the Six-Day War, however, Israel assumed the role of regional power and began losing leftist support just as more and more conservatives came to appreciate America's reliable ally.

Today, after celebrating sixty years of vibrant independence, the Jewish state counts as far too triumphant, economically productive and militarily formidable to win much liberal sympathy, while the Palestinians remain so pathetically divided, dysfunctional, impoverished and inept that lefties (even Jewish lefties) react to their radical rhetoric with either applause or apologetics.

That's the problem with liberal sympathy for the downtrodden and underprivileged: if you make too much progress, you'll compromise your claims to advocacy and assistance. The best victim groups are those that reliably maintain their victim status. In this sense, the leftist world view effectively discourages empowerment or the pursuit of prosperity and pushes suffering subgroups to more or less permanent self pity.

Moreover, raising taxes on high earners in order to provide more give-aways to the unproductive clearly punishes success while rewarding failure. All but the most willfully blinded liberal activists understand that penalizing success helps to discourage it while giving benefits for failure and dysfunction encourages much more of the same. The massive failures of the US welfare system, and our ill-starred "War on Poverty," indicate that if you give people money in exchange for idleness you'll get more indolence, and if you take away more money from the most industrious you'll get less productive activity.

On occasion, conservatives criticize liberals for a failure to support standards or to make distinctions, but that's not entirely fair, since leftists do love to emphasize the difference between rich and poor, lucky and unlucky, winners and losers.

Conservatives need to affirm the notion that in the United States, such divisions cannot be considered permanent. In a nation of fresh starts and personal choices, misfortune should be viewed as a temporary status, and real compassion honors the determination to move forward, rather than rewarding expressions of self-pity. Leftists may feel virtuous, unselfish and morally superior for invariably embracing losers, but with this persistent (and ultimately punishing) preference; it's society itself that loses most.

You can understand why The Young love Obama. It's the life story that speaks to so many. Unlike boring normal people raised in the green gulags of suburbia whose experience is completely typical of American life, and therefore irrelevant, Obama was brought up in cool far-flung places. He may not connect with the eleven billion bitter gun-clinging God-bothering hill folk who clot the nation between the holy poles of New York and LA, but he appeals to every kid in college with a Che poster and a vague sense of anger that he's not a biracial hipster going to college in Hawaii.

Boring old people have their doubts, of course; that comes with the wrinkles and the saw-palmetto supplements. They wonder about his preacher, whose thunderous and corrosive sermons, to paraphrase Obama, might be summed up as "Yes We Farrakhan." But then they think back to the Sundays on which their much-beloved pastor took the pulpit and blamed the government for fluoridated water on Communists and Masons, and admit it: opened your eyes.  So who's to point fingers?

But then there's the association with that Bill Ayers character. One of the Weathermen. Told kids to kill their parents. Well, that was a metaphor, a figure of speech; he really meant that kids should kill someone else's parents, preferably if they wore a uniform. But that was so long ago, and he's all respectable now.

As we've been told, it's almost impossible to travel in the right - sorry, the better circles in Chicago without bumping into Professor Ayers at the market in the arugula aisle, the Blockbuster video store (haranguing the clerk for not having "Hair" on VHS, probably) the foundation board room,  where people of all political stripes meet. Why, some of them want a 70 percent capital gains tax, and others want an 80% rate. Hurrah for the big tent! And it stands to reason that you can't do the cocktail party circuit without running into at least one academic who was devoted to the destruction of America in his youth, but has mellowed to the point where he now just wants to give it a really bad rug burn.

Really, friends: who among us hasn't had to deal with former terrorists in your social circle? At first it's a bit awkward, of course; you're introduced to someone at the fundraiser for the National Association for Local Associations, and he looks familiar - heck, his face and his profile look familiar, and for a moment you recall the Pine-Sol aroma of your childhood Post Office. Odd. Why? You think  he was one of the Michigan Six, those free-spirited anarchists who planted pipe bombs in Salvation Army Christmas kettles, but the more you talk you realize he was one of the North Dakota Two, who put explosive devices in military day-care centers.

Well, imagine your embarrassment.  At least you were warm and interested and solicitous; these are survivors of a fascinating, difficult time in American history.  Let those among us who haven't spent an evening chatting merrily with an unrepentant Marxist cast the first I. F. Stone.

*  *  *

No doubt there are many who balk at Obama's old associations, but are disinclined to point them out. There are no enemies on the left, even the enemies of the reputation of the left. What's worse than actually being a Communist? Pointing out someone was a Communist.  As 4,296 movies and TV shows and documentaries have shown us, it is one thing to be a devotee of a collectivist ideology that strips away liberty, but quite another to suggest that soap producers are not obliged to sponsor their work.  It's certainly unacceptable to choose not to hire someone because he likes the taste of Uncle Joe's boot polish. Nowadays it is impolite to regard the 60s radicals as anything but colorful iconoclasts; history has been smudged and fudged to the point where the counterculture is now regarded as the actual culture.  

If there's something wrong with Obama's connections with radicals old and new, then there's something wrong with the grand narrative that puts Ho Chi Mihn up there with George Washington, and salutes the radicals for their brilliant re-imagining of the American experience.

If this is a fallen nation, it doesn't need a savior. If the radical boomers weren't the most important members of the most important generation in human history, then their ideological inheritors aren't fulfilling a long-promised mission to remold America. Or, as Ayer's cohort might put it, stab the beast in the belly with a fork. It would mean we are obliged to move ahead cognizant of our glories as well as our flaws, instead of pretending we can reboot America and sunder every rope that moors us to our traditions.

Really, where's the fun in that?