Wasn't it Churchill who said that any young man who wasn't a compassionate liberal was cold-hearted but who had not become a practical conservative by the time he was an old man was not a realist? Something like that?
But then, Churchill didn't help save England by being flexible and compassionate. He was stubbornly focused on one goal, and that's all that mattered. And he was certainly a man for and of his times. He wouldn't have made it past the PC standards today, much less the phototelegeneic and healthy living requirements. Right? When I was preparing to teach high school history, I was instructed to continue explaining to students that the difference between the GOP and DEMS after all these years could still be distilled to what each party proposed to do with any leftover revenue. In the 70s the GOP was advocating Reagan's "trickle down" theory that was supposed to create jobs (true, but just takes 10-15 years to really make a difference). That is still the philosophy, I believe, behind Bush's tax cut for the wealthy, that in time they will invest and create jobs. As I've said before, I don't believe that malarkey, that they all invest domestically, because a lot of foreign real estate and luxury goods are purchased to shelter income without paying taxes at home (witness Richard Perle was interviewed for a story in August on Iraq from his vacation home in France). While it's his personal choice and I love Provence, it doesn't always sit well with downsized and Enronized American taxpayers hoping to keep their primary mortgage. Maybe it's one of the ultimate blue-collar vs French cuffs issues. But with the rise of the Christian Conservative movement in the GOP, it became possible to say that "liberals" believe that there are more options and "conservatives" believe there is really just one way - theirs. Generally speaking, that's why liberals in the US are typically in organizational disarray while they celebrate their diverse opinions and conservatives can be in frightening lockstep. Cheers! Karen
