It's a healthy exercise to periodically evaluate the differences between conservatism and liberalism, and George Will provides that service with an editorial that is as lucid as it is persuasive.

The only quarrel we have is reflected in his final paragraph:

Conservativism is realism, about human nature and government's competence.  Is conservatism politically realistic, meaning persuasive?  That is the kind of question presidential campaigns answer.

The problem is his final sentence, which presupposes a wisdom in the electorate that may have attenuated in the last dozen or so years.  Indeed, an argument can be made that although problems in Iraq and a smattering of Republican ethical lapses were key in their 2006 losses, another contributing explanation is a tectonic evolution in the electorate.  Specifically, that the traction gained in the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress, which was largely attributable to compelling arguments for the virtues of smaller government, may be wearing politically thin.

Education, with a dash of historical insight, are the sunlight of politics, and since both seem conspicuous by their relative scarcity these days, many people appear to be persuaded by the merits of left-leaning government.  From 'diversity' and 'identity politics that has convinced many that racism and sexism are systemic diseases that justify government intervention to our capitalist system that rewards thrift, hard work, and talent, which legitimizes income redistribution through confiscatory taxation, we may well be entering an era of interventionist government policies.

Here in Colorado, Referendum C, which was one of the largest tax increases in the state's history, passed by a small but meaningful margin, which signaled the electorate's appetite for and apparent trust in a larger government footprint.  With Democratic Governor Bill Ritter doffing his moderate campaign costume Coloradoans can expect a prospective fusillade of tax increases and more government programs all in the guise of helping one allegedly downtrodden constituency or another.

It's all part of the broader liberal legacy at the federal level which has so thoroughly savaged the notion that less government equates to greater individual freedom.  Which is why conservatives, who believe legislation should have more than a superficial respect for our Constitution, are called radical and extremist. 

It is at once the epitome of ego gratification and a cowardly acquiescence to political fashion when politicians sign on to legislation that expands government, redistributes tax payers' money, or creates programs to force equal outcomes.

Against that potent political backdrop, making the case for the virtues of unalloyed conservatism, which has a uniquely unemotional appeal predicated by what many today considered an icy embrace of culturally extinct principles, is an uphill challenge.

For a refreshing blast of fresh rhetorical air read the cross-cultural editorial by Cal Thomas concerning our challenges and obligations in Iraq.  Among many others, he raises two salient points:  The first is that Iraq is but the current front in the war against radical Islamism, and the second is that we must honor this commitment lest we lose the first battle in this broader war.

For those familiar with the intricate and nuanced geopolitical mechanisms that led to the genesis of World War One, which amount to a failure of the much-vaunted diplomatic notion of transnational allegiances, wars are often ignited under curious circumstances.  However, once they begin, their outcome becomes progressively evident by how each side prosecutes its strategy which itself is inextricably related to the political realities each faces at home.

That's why the United States, which maintained a policy of studied neutrality, didn't enter WW I until April of 1917.  By that time the horrific battles at Somme, Ypres, Marne, and Verdun had been waged, and, on the first day alone at Somme the British suffered 58,000 casualties, with one-third of that number dead.

Stunned by the staggering losses the allies' war effort might well have ground to a halt with Germany and its allies declaring victory.  But the obligation to honor one's commitments was a far less endangered virtue in those days which, in conjunction with our contemporary in-bred cultural confusion concerning the existence--much less the nature--of this enemy, conspire to create a broad-based diffidence and apparent willingness for many to simply wave the white flag.

We can debate the origins of this civic malaise but there is no question about its authenticity, and the hatred directed towards President Bush is evidence that it is based more on political hysteria than an objective rendering of events leading up to our invasion of Iraq. 

Not unlike most wars, the post-invasion period has been fraught with profound challenges and setbacks, and although the U.S. is facing unique political, strategic, and tactical challenges, they are different only in kind,  not degree.

Therefore, our options are clear:  Be faithful to our obligations by sustaining our political and military efforts in Iraq or fold as many Congressional Democrats would suggest. 

Based on America's conduct during both world wars last century, which do you think would best honor its sense of honor and commitment?

Many politicians, like school children, require the encouragement of consensus in order to take a stand on contentious issues.  The illegal immigration legislation that was written to excuse politicians' lack of principle may turn out to be the bill that nullifies that codebook for cowards because it is thoroughly irritating mainstream voters across the electorate.

George Will, writing in Newsweek brings a welcome measure of common sense to the matter by first observing that it's a cumbersome and abysmally complex measure, which, we would argue, appears to be purposeful.  Solving this problem is actually simple unless you are convinced that criminals should be provided special privileges, which, in our age when the designation 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are often inverted, is rapidly becoming the norm.

As Mr. Will makes plain, the use by politicians of all stripes to characterize the presumed goal of this legislation--to bring the illegals "out of the shadows"--is an transparently craven way to suggest these non-citizens are living compromised lives in the darker reaches of society.  That argument is best quarantined from the debate because it presupposes an unwarranted special protection for people who have broken our laws.

Progress in a society that blurs the distinction between 'legal' and 'illegal' is halting at best.  It's further confounded by a media that is so thoroughly complicit in disguising the truth about the problem that it should effectively recuse itself from further participation.

But since so much is at stake, from a new Democratic voting bloc to the canard that the illegals will augment Social Security payments, we can expect this debate will reach a shrill crescendo before abating.

Powerful images and concepts such as 'sacrifice' and 'hero' have a kind of cultural half-life, and, as such, we should expect them to become degraded through casual over-usage, not through intentional abuse but because our understanding and appraisal of them inevitably changes with the passage of time.

Therefore, it's a useful exercise to cast a deeper retrospective eye to recalibrate those notions to ensure that those who have made the ultimate sacrifice are given our deepest respect and appreciation.

One of the most poignant and evocative works concerning war and sacrifice was a short poem written by Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, M.D., of the Canadian Army, in 1915, during the three battles at Ypres, in Flanders, one of the most savage of the war.

McCrae, a surgeon, worked for seventeen straight days on soldiers from a number of countries, all of whom were disfigured and dying from their wounds; he wrote:

I wish I could embody on paper some of the varied sensations of that seventeen days... Seventeen days of Hades! At the end of the first day if anyone had told us we had to spend seventeen days there, we would have folded our hands and said it could not have been done.

One death particularly affected McCrae.  A young friend and former student, Lieut. Alexis Helmer of Ottawa, had been killed by a shell burst on 2 May 1915.  Lieutenant Helmer was buried later that day in the little cemetery outside McCrae's dressing station, and McCrae had performed the funeral ceremony in the absence of the chaplain.

The next day, sitting on the back of an ambulance parked near the dressing station beside the Canal de l'Yser, just a few hundred yards north of Ypres, McCrae vented his anguish by composing a poem.

In the nearby cemetery, McCrae could see the wild poppies that sprang up in the ditches in that part of Europe, and he spent twenty minutes of precious rest time scribbling fifteen lines of verse in a notebook.

In Flanders Fields

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Note the sense of entreaty that the unfinished business of war be carried to term by the living lest those who have perished "shall not sleep."  The timeless relevance of that line echoes in the minds of those who understand the nature of commitment and honor.

Next, we turn to one of the briefest but most compelling speeches in American history, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.  Critics have endlessly analyzed it, arguing that Lincoln probably read Pericles' Funeral Oration because of the structural similarities.  But regardless, it's an enduring tribute, not only to those who died in a war whose consequences reverberated further than they could ever know, but as a lasting endorsement of America's unique experiment in self-determination predicated on universal liberty.

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

We can only imagine the tens of thousands of lives that were lost during our nation's wars--lives that were youthful, strong, and hopeful--cut brutally short, never to know the many joys and pleasures we so often take for granted.

May God bless the legions who gave their lives and who now rest in cemeteries here and abroad, all so that we--and millions the world over--might live in freedom.

As cultural bellwethers go, high schools are clearly incubators that help define the social parameters of acceptable behavior as well as implicitly shaping the moral contours of behavior for our young adults. 

Last month, here in Colorado, Boulder High School hosted the lofty sounding Conference on World Affairs, whose name and venue effectively foreclosed the opportunity for a balanced curriculum.  That fate was effortlessly realized when Joel Becker, a clinical psychologist from Los Angeles, made the following declaration:

I'm going to encourage you to have sex, and I'm going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately.  And why I am going to take that position is because you're going to do it anyway.

As a retrospective glance through the past four decades will demonstrate, the progressive cultural license to expand our erstwhile "oppressive" and "authoritarian" civic language into regions heretofore unexplored has achieved its dream of an America sans rules or obligations.  In their view, cultural or intellectual encumbrances are but quaint conventions that are as stifling as they are expendable and they doff them with the same level of insight as a snake molts its skin.

So, here we are, listening to a licensed psychologist lowering the moral bar for our impressionable youth, encouraging recreational sex and experimentation with illicit drugs, in an a priori capitulation to the moral barbarism inherent in adolescence.  Acting as though stupidity were a virtue, the modern liberal appears to be preoccupied with a focused search for the bottom of our cultural cesspool and, as with any pilgrimage, it is instructive to witness the byproducts of its moral implosion. 

From the Lord of the Flies to Catcher in the Rye, the modern intellectual instinct is a deep and abiding outgrowth of a melding of, among others, Thomas Hobbes and J. J. Rouseau, whose focus on the purely utilitarian--read, morally bleak--view of human nature, at once inhibits civic optimism and degrades our historical social consensus creating a myriad equally legitimate cultural offshoots, each more tenuously connected to our past than the last.

Ipso facto, we're left with the likes of high school students who are held to a profoundly lower level of accountability, one which insists that our baser instincts are, paradoxically, the high watermark of human nature.  It doesn't bode well for our civilization because the moral and ethical challenges that life presents are timeless and largely irremediable, and they demand a civic and cultural rigor conspicuous by their absence in our brave new world.

Unlike nearly any other piece of legislation in recent history, the bill addressing illegal immigration--not the "immigration bill," because legal immigration is more or less functional--is being studied and debated in both the halls of Congress and in homes and workplaces across America.  Add to that the lively debate in the blogosphere--in contrast to the virtual uniformity of consensus in the mainstream media--all of which points to the fact that it's an issue of real concern for the electorate.

Consistent with numerous so-called bipartisan compromises, this bill displeases as many people as it pleases, but the balance could be stronger on the positive side if its sponsors had made one minor change:  Demand a certifiably sealed border before any other provisions are triggered.  It's a simple concept and one even the Europeans understand.  Whether you're in Germany or Italy or Greece, borders are respected and crossings are monitored. 

Yet we here in America feel compelled to apologize for asking for a fence to prevent the legions of illegals from flooding our nation while draining health care dollars and increasing crime rates.  A sea of polls are now out, most of which are so meticulously crafted as to guarantee a predictable outcome, which is to say that Americans welcome "immigrants."  Well, there has rarely been a time that we haven't, it's the illegal immigrants we're concerned about.

And, it's not just about fairness, although that is paramount in voters' minds.  Indeed, why should people who have been soaking up free and costly resources not be deported?  The simple reason is that we haven't the political will, any more than we do for insisting that English should be defined as our nation's language.  Someone would be upset and that is the modern cultural equivalent of putting someone in stocks at the edge of town.

Beyond fairness, we're also concerned about the thousands of illegals with known terrorist ties.  Todd Bensman's four-part article in the San Antonio Express-News brings a thoughtful and restrained analysis to this underreported subject and provides credible evidence that Islamic radicals can and have breached our borders numerous times in recent years.  Many of these are not the sanitized, arms-reach types that al-Qaeda recruits to ensure they can travel freely--these are bona fide terrorists.

So as we celebrate the alleged wisdom of this bill we might ask the most compelling question that seems to be missing from the talking heads and pundits:  Why can't we close the border first?

Political posturing in the guise of moral superiority is an unsightly display of intellectual insecurity, and presidential hopeful John Edwards' speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations was a text book example.  Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to President Bush and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives, savages his speech and lends credibility to the notion that denial is a hallmark of modern liberalism.

Edwards attacks the president for his use of the phrase 'global war on terror,' because, in his view, it has "damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world."  We'll let Mr. Wehner eviscerate Edwards' argument, which he effortlessly does, but we must ask what the trial lawyer means when he insists that we must "move beyond the idea of a war on terror."

'Terrorism' is a necessarily broad term which includes a variety of militant groups, but it's one that was clearly used as a euphemism after 9/11 and it's further proof--as though more were needed--that the motivation to avoid offending people, in this case Muslims, is as misguided as it is unhelpful.  Not unlike the left's summary dismissal of racial profiling, the political correctness that informs the Bush Administration's lack of candor is only something that will be exploited by those intent upon our destruction.

Which leads us to question whether Mr. Edwards' underlying point is that we're not, in fact, at war at all.  That we're only abetting the anger of rational Islamists who are merely defending themselves, whether it's in Iraq or any other front in this 'war.'

A familiar assertion that is so commonly repeated by liberals that we've become numb to its charge is that America has lost its "moral leadership," which for them is code for their belief that we should be in virtual lockstep with Western Europe's wholly misinformed approach to foreign affairs.  For some curious reason, inaction, dilatory tactics, and interminable talks are the recipe du jour for those whose moral sensibilities are injured by talk of military intervention.

If you listened to Mr. Edwards' speech you heard unstinting criticisms of the Bush Administration but very little in the way of alternative options that have the ring of truth.  Indeed, whether it's Edwards or Senators Biden, Durbin, or Schumer, try as you may, all you hear is the echo of the word "withdraw," without any acknowledgment of the pandemonium that would inevitably follow.

These aren't serious people and it would be a sign of political maturity if the American people rejected their adolescent ideas as unfit for a Republic of our stature.  As you read the quote from Edwards' October 10, 2002 speech at the end of Mr. Wehner's piece--which provided a full-throated endorsement for our invasion of Iraq--you might ponder the nature of political chameleons, the famed cousin of the political opportunist.

By now, readers have heard the unfounded and self-serving comments by former President Jimmy Carter about the Bush Administration.  For those of you who recall the Carter Administration, it might seem odd or brazen or both that Mr. Carter has the temerity to criticize any administration given the abysmal failure of his own.  Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe performs a valuable service by chronicling Carter's myriad missteps, miscalculations, and outright stupidities.

However, beyond setting the record straight by opening the shutters on Mr. Carter's stunningly egregious presidency, it might be instructive to question the former president's motivation while pondering whether he's learned anything whatsoever about geopolitics and foreign affairs during his years in public office.

It would provide even more alarming revelations by recognizing that Carter's assessment of the Bush presidency is not fundamentally at odds with that of many liberals, here and abroad.  The key to breaking the political and cultural code of modern liberalism is to understand that their polity is predicated on notion that all systems of governance are equally flawed and enlightened, that for all its original fanfare during its infancy, America has been as strong a force for ill as it has been for good.

Moving deeper into the core of this perverse rendering of our Republic we find people who feel habitually compelled to excuse our nation's values, from our system of capitalism and our trade agreements to our decisions concerning power projection and military intervention.  Indeed, they seem to express a civic dyspepsia which amounts to a lamentation that we're not more like Europe.

Self-loathing is also an integral facet of this phenomenon, which seems to celebrate America's setbacks and failures while reflexively charging "the establishment" with systemic racism, homophobia, sexism, and, most recently, Islamaphobia.  It's a culturally tight-knit system of thought that allows neither counterarguments nor sufficient intellectual sunlight to permit growth of any kind.

The Carter Administration, as Mr. Jacoby deftly argues, is perhaps the perfect embodiment of the malaise of modern liberalism, from its abject diffidence about the use of the military to its thoroughly misinformed approach to economics.  Add to that mix its staunch defense of every liberal program designed to solve--read, perpetuate--the ills of America's lower income citizens, not to mention its unwavering dedication to the "enlightened" morality that underwrites liberalism's insistence that abortion is a matter of "choice" and "convenience" and you have the perfect recipe for civic and cultural disaster.

Given its rich legacy of endlessly thoughtless policies, we must marvel that  Mr. Carter and his liberal acolytes don't have the honesty to turn their vast critical apparatus inward--but self-examination has never been a hallmark of modern liberalism.

You may recall the moderate voice of former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry, a decorated war veteran and member of the 9/11 commission.  Mr. Kerry's editorial in today's Wall Street Journal provides a high altitude analysis of America's reasons for the war in Iraq, and in particular, credibly acquits the argument that Iraq is just one front on the broader war against Islamic terrorism.  That's an argument you won't find on the editorial pages of just about any major American newspaper, the Democratic National Committee's talking points, or any Democratic presidential nominee's platform.

The most compelling reason to continue this war is not just to provide the opportunity for self-governance in Iraq (as Mr. Kerry notes), but more profoundly, a nominal democratic regime in Iraq would have seminal geopolitical aftershocks in the region.  As he further argues, if Democrats don't understand this it should come as no surprise that the American people don't trust them with the reigns of power.

It is also refreshing to hear a Democrat talk candidly about the efficacy of tactical military interventions against the nascent evil inherent in the radical Islamists.  For reasons that defy common sense, the modern Democratic sensibility cringes at the prospect of attacking a nation, even one that is totalitarian or despotic--which is to say, an Iraq, where people were routinely murdered, women's rights were nonexistent, and people lived in a state of permanent fear.

In a recent interview on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, the actor Jon Voight was asked about his poignant and powerful film, Deliverance, specifically what constituted its central message.  Mr. Voight said it was all about evil and the options we have for confronting it; he then noted that after a period of deliberation it should become clear that the only way to secure our freedoms is to confront evil--to destroy it before it destroys us.

Isn't that what we're doing in Iraq, which is the central battleground for the Islamic terrorists?

For readers who might have seriously contemplated a President Hillary Clinton in the White House we offer Anna Quindlen's analysis in Newsweek as evidence that even liberals have a sense of humor. 

Although consistent with her liberal brethren Quindlen misses a major reason that Senator Clinton is not likely to inhabit 1600 Penn, she does raise the compelling point that the senator is the precise antithesis of candidates voters are typically drawn to. 

That is, she's a master of the system and machine politics, she has a remarkable lack of candor and comes off as shrill and angry, and, finally, she is a faithful practitioner of Clintonian politics which means she believes she's smarter than everyone and can convince any skeptical voters of her omniscience.

A secondary point that Quindlen only provides drive-by attention to is that polls that address the concerns of having a woman president are notoriously misleading because no one wants admit such an allegedly despicable thing in our presumably enlightened day and age. 

Yet it is estimated that a significant number of Americans have serious doubts about whether the vaunted "female style" of leadership with its connotations of canny insight and nuanced sensitivity would be able to make tough decisions in situations where one scenario would guarantee the loss of many lives for the possibility of reducing greater losses later. 

For all the phychologizing about the unsubtle nature of male authority and the horrors of paternalism, throughout history great men have stood up to tyrants and despots and have not hesitated to aggressively prosecute wars, battles, and counter-strikes where innocents may be killed, but thoughtful people might question whether a woman has that level of callous disregard when the goal is a greater good.

Beyond that, those who have seen Clinton in action during her husband's eight years in office can be excused for questioning her ethical certitude.  Indeed, from the Rose law firm billing records to the 900 FBI files on Republicans, this was an administration just teeming with corruption.  However, unless the media miraculously grows a spine, much of that will be deemed ancient history.

Towards the end of her editorial, Quindlen notes that Clinton's "human traits are too seldom on display," yet it might just be the case that she is all too human.  Indeed, she is a rare amalgam of Lady Macbeth and Richard III, which is to say a master of cunning, calculation, and studied prevarication, all without a scintilla of remorse that might inhibit future machinations.

Perhaps the perfect player in a Shakespeare play, but is this someone we want in the White House?

That an argument is driven by political motivation is typically evident by the reflexive need to prematurely advance it, well ahead of events that will provide the ultimate arbitration.  David Broder's piece in today's Washington Post is a quintessential example, characterizing President Bush and Britain's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, as "two wounded warriors."

For those with more than a pittance of historical understanding we might recall the speeches of Sir Winston Churchill in the late 1930s as he implored his quiescent nation to rise against the menace manifest in Germany's Hitler.  Recall also the thunderous applause that Neville Chamberlain--the intrepid appeaser--received in 1938 after signing the Munich Agreement which gave Hitler Czechoslovakia with the hopelessly naive caveat that he would go no further.  Chamberlain's "peace in our time" speech was the antecedent to a war that took the lives of over 40 million.

It's therefore instructive for the likes of Mr. Broder and the millions of intellectual lemmings who are so thoroughly convinced that America and Britain's efforts in Iraq constitute the height of imperialist folly or something more prosaic such as gross mismanagement, to consider Iraq an evolutionary initiative not one whose outcome is driven by the admittedly daunting challenges to date.

As history will also testify, wisdom is an incubational commodity, and although the outcome in Iraq is uncertain at best, it's only those with a dull polemical ax to grind who are convinced of its presumed failure and are willing to assert, as does Broder with respect to Messrs. Bush and Blair, that history will not kindly judge the "wisdom of their policy and conduct of their government."

Indeed, it took three Punic Wars to adjudicate the outcome of the intense hatreds between Rome and Carthage, and there were innumerable instances during America's Civil War when either side could have been legitimately deemed the victor. 

In truth, with so much hanging in the balance in terms of stability and the future of the Middle East, a measure of restraint is in order, if only to save critics the potential embarrassment should America achieve its goal of providing the Iraqis with the opportunity for civic stability, and, perchance, self-governance.

It's almost an article of liberal faith that the ability to misconstrue the essence of a message is a inalienable birthright.  John Dickerson, writing in Slate, argues that Libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's counter-message at the recent Republican debate was criticized because he expressed "unpopular opinions."  The confusion between popularity and the credible explication of events is, indeed, a hallmark of modern liberalism.

Mr. Dickerson further expands his theme by arguing that Paul's assertion that 9/11 was the result of our presence in the Middle East is, in fact, a GOP talking point.  However, as always, he misses the larger point:  bin Laden himself has issued fatwas that stipulate that America's power projection worldwide, but in particular in the Middle East, were the predicates for 9/11, so that is not at issue.  Rather, the more profound question is whether the U.S.'s efforts to correct the balance of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes is a legitimate global role?

That is, does Mr. Paul's appraisal of American values include its renowned exceptionalism, and does he agree that the degree to which the U.S. can seed those democratic values in otherwise hostile civic nations not only improves the lives of their citizens but provides a measure of security for ourselves?  Or, is he effectively arguing that the U.S. should mimic the isolationist instinct of the late 30s and wall ourselves in from the world, hoping the Islamic barbarians will decide to no longer pursue our demise?

Dickerson's other points merely confirm the left's apparently limitless capacity for drawing the wrong conclusions as he argues that the GOP should allow opinions such as Paul's because theirs is allegedly a big tent party.  Whether pro-abortion candidates such as Mr. Guiliani should be allowed into the party will play itself out as the primaries heat up, but the more fundamental question is whether the party wants to brook theories that are antithetical to the core values of our Republic--specifically, that America is an unambiguous force for good in the world, that the radical Islamists are, in truth, the agents of evil.

The problem with Mr. Paul's argument is that it challenges those historically hallowed precepts and implicitly suggests that the Islamists' civic philosophy is on equal moral footing with ours and, as such, that they have the right to attack America.  It's a despicable inversion of the truth but one that the liberal arm of the Democratic Party shares with Mr. Paul.  As such, he would be welcome in that party rather than running as a Libertarian Republican.

If you think that yesterday's announcement of a compromise, bipartisan immigration bill is a capitulation to the political realities of our judgment-free culture you're onto something.  Scan the editorial pages of our major newspapers and you come away with the sense that principle has been jettisoned in favor of prosaic consensus.

Today's Denver Post is a case in point with its fawning adulation and faux seriousness for a bill that will do nothing to secure our borders and will effectively guarantee a major influx of new illegals.  We might begin by asking why criminals are called "guest workers," and why people who drain our public coffers of health care and education dollars are apparently immunized against the same kinds of consequences any of us would face had we broken the law?

As we've intimated in these columns, there is a powerful cultural prohibition against enforcement for those with even a hint of victim status and so they're provided a safe legal harbor from the consequences of their criminal behavior. 

This travesty is consistent with the liberal play-book which creates policies that produce monumentally obtuse downstream problems after which they write vastly complex and expensive bills to resolve them.  A further civic sin is that with daft complicity from our contemporary Republicans--who bear but a glancing similarity to erstwhile conservatives--they let the problem fester (read 13 million illegals) until it's so large that they throw up their hands and tell us we should just give up.

We should expect liberals to become effervescent over this kind of surrender but when a so-called conservative--that is, "maverick"--such as Senator McCain sings its praises we can be confident it's watered down gruel.  Add to that the excitement at the White House, which has never been a fan of tough immigration legislation, and you have the kind of policy love fest that is guaranteed to paper over the problem with new layers of bureaucracy and emotionally cathartic measures that advance the cause of ersatz bipartisanship at the cost of a substantive solution.

What else would you expect from this largely unprincipled Republican Congress and timorous White House?

I.  Paul Wolfowitz & The World Bank

If you randomly asked your family or friends about the World Bank you would likely elicit a shrug indicating what most of us know about that organization, which isn't much.  However, if there were an award for corruption beyond that of the United Nations, the World Bank would be at the podium accepting the prize.

Rife with favoritism, nepotism, and your garden variety corruption, the World Bank and Paul Wolfowitz were a match made in regulatory heaven.  That's why the news that Mr. Wolfowitz has agreed to begin discussions to craft a deal that would effect his resignation is such bad news.  It's also why officials at the Bank have pursued his departure so aggressively.

Ever since he took the reigns, the Bank's underworld voices--in no measurable way different from Mafia crime bosses--bridled against his efforts to regularize the organization with policies that brought needed standards and transparency to an organization notorious for its operational opacity.

It will be interesting to see who will be the next president, but odds are it will not be someone of Mr. Wolfowitz's caliber who was making meaningful strides at cleaning up an organization that just reeked of corruption.

II.  News from Colorado

Two stories from Colorado are noteworthy today.  The first is that former governor Dick Lamm's is the latest voice to join the chorus decrying Denver Democrat Rosemary Marshall's bill that would loosen the rules that define the documents required to obtain a drivers license or identification card. 

The bill, currently before Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, is a monument to stupidity and political correctness (excuse the redundancy), but hardly a surprise in light of the legislation emanating from Democratically controlled legislature.  From tax increases to encroachments on the rights of hospitals owned by the Catholic Church, Colorado Democrats are rapidly running up the score on patently hard left legislation.  Predictably, Mr. Ritter, who ran as a moderate Democrat, has doffed his sheep's clothing and revealed the fire-breathing liberal at the core of his political heart.

Sensible Coloradoans can only hope they continue to amass a record that will convince the electorate that one term in power is all the state can afford.

The second story is the decision by a committee at the University of Colorado that Professor Ward Churchill not be fired, only suspended.  Readers will recall that Mr. Churchill was appropriately put in stocks for his comment that the victims of 9/11 were "little Eichmans," a grim and wholly indefensible allusion to the Nazi murderer.  That led to an investigation of his research which proved that the professor was guilty of plagiarism and other acts that generally shine a dim ethical light on someone in his role.

As the committee concluded, Churchill's work was "below the minimum standards of professional integrity and...requires severe sanction."  Colorado University President Hank Brown will be the ultimate arbiter in this pathetic display, but we would begin by once again noting the double standard in our institutions of presumed higher learning.

To wit, an argument could be made that Mr. Churchill should have been fired for his comments about the 9/11 victims, which would uphold the rich Constitutional case law that makes perfectly clear the limits on our First Amendment rights.  No university should have to tolerate such stunningly absurd statements, but the committee gave him a pass on that and went after the easier target, research malfeasance.

Observers of our twisted culture know that a day doesn't pass without some evidence of calumny directed against Christians and conservatives.  But that elicits nary a raised eyebrow much less formal condemnation because in our halls of higher education it's stipulated that those aren't protected groups--that is, they're not the pet groups that liberals have deemed worthy of special treatment.

So, we'll close this latest chapter of high cultural drama resigned to the fact that gross and inflammatory language is tolerated when its the product of a arch-liberal professor against mainstream Americans.

In the parlance of educators, this was a "teachable moment" that was lost in the maze of political correctness.

Unlike reckoning one's position on the ocean, where a variety of reliable tools and equipment are at our disposal, trying to negotiate through the political storm that is currently brewing is a far more daunting challenge.  Republicans under President Bush have been buffeted by the winds of political miscalculation and flawed management of a war, and now we must wonder what the 2008 elections might hold.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard outlines Mr. Bush's predicament and what must be done to right his ship of state.  Suggesting that the Republican presidential candidates' stars are connected to the president's, Mr. Barnes makes the credible argument that both Congressional Republicans and the president must give voters a reason to support them.  Political confidence in Republicans is clearly lacking, in large measure because the of problems in Iraq, and, in particular, because many Americans in this day and age have the patience of adolescents and the attention span of pre-adolescents.

One of the key challenges inherent in our contemporary culture--which drives the electorate's political bearing and assessment of candidates--is the growing endorsement of public policy as a mechanism to provide favors to targeted--so-called deserving--constituents.  Coupled with a nascent confidence in government at all levels as worthy of more robust funding, we're witnessing the coalescence of a moderate voter who is looking for ways to solve our problems, from health care to the war on terrorism.

Unlike the early 1980s when President Reagan said that government is the problem, and despite the fact that current polls holds neither the Democratic Congress nor Mr. Bush in high esteem, people want things fixed.  Therefore, they're looking for managerial competence and are also willing to forgive a candidate such as Rudy Guiliani if a significant part of his platform doesn't conform to that of the Republican Party. 

Arguments are now surfacing that the "new" Republican Party is looking for just such a candidate.  If you have the time and energy, you can slog your way through Thomas Edsel's piece in The New Republic which makes a circuitous and highly digressive argument that Mr. Guiliani is right for the GOP because the party is moving away from a strict adherence to conservative social policies.

As we have argued, the entire country appears to be moving to that mushy middle where candidates without rhetorical edges and, what are deemed by contemporary standards as extreme views, seem to prosper.  Which would certainly help explain Mr. Guiliani's current success in South Carolina where Mitt Romney, a staunch conservative (albeit a recent convert) is polling poorly.

Many, including Mr. Edsel, argue that 9/11 has supplanted the social conservative agenda for Republicans, and, although he conveniently overlooks it, that has a certainly plausibility if only because so few Democrats seem to share in the view that Islamic terrorism is real.  They certainly pay lip service--witness Hilary and Obama--but when it comes to supporting the NSA's electronic surveillance program, or any other aggressive initiative that reflects an acute understanding that al-Qaeda's primary goal is to obtain a nuclear device, their fervor is overtaken by party politics.

Whether Mr. Bush and his Congressional party brethren will rise to the occasion and announce some bold initiatives is anyone's guess, but in a sense it doesn't matter because so much of the air has already left their sails that the momentum seems to have shifted.

That's unfortunate because if the Democrats take over at 1700 Penn and maintain their control in Congress we can be assured of higher taxes--which will hobble the economy--and less security around the globe.

That takes us back to the electorate that seems lost in a political storm and is groping for direction.  Will they look to the Democrats or Republicans?