No objections to the content. But what I think remains the problem - and I’ve seen you articulate this recently too - is a lack of proposals from conservatives that convincingly take the equality-of-opportunity issue seriously without falling into the confusion you describe. Or what list of programs/proposals from the right - successful, unsuccessful, good but politically untenable, whatever - out of the last decade would you consider representative? Or do you think there really has been a vacuum in this area from the right that needs to be filled?

What I think has kept conservative platforms untenable for liberal yuppies like myself is our perception of not only a bankrupcy of ideas but a more general disinterest in addressing inequalities of opportunity. These, to many of us, are not only an obstacle to prosperity under the conservative model but a national tragedy and embarrassment. This is especially so - and IMO, ought not to be a partisan issue at all - in the case of children and their reasonable claims on society for basic health care; safety; a basic education not markedly inferior because their community is poor, with a realistic opportunity for higher education, etc. if their families can’t/don’t provide these.

This bankruptcy and disinterest may be more perceived than real…but in my search of conservative blogs so far I haven’t found much to convince me otherwise. (The only exception has been the occasional framing of the school voucher issue as an approach to our nationwide education problems.) I would love, if you’re so inclined, to hear a conservative articulation of how serious a problem inequalities of opportunity are to you, which ones you take most seriously, and what sort of general platform your political philosophy would offer them. And I’m far from the only one…from what I’ve seen, this is what my generation talks about, when we talk politics.

Unfortunately, most on the left confuse “equality of opportunity” with “equality as a result.” This presupposes massive government intervention to “level the playing field.” There is a conservative case that can be made for some redress of past injustices in the law but it is my contention - and most other conservatives - that the intervention goes way too far and has now devolved into little more than the law catering to one or more special interest groups.

To work toward a society where all have the same chance at jobs, education, etc. should be the goal of all. The question is should we try to evolve toward a color blind society where one rises as a result of their natural gifts and hard work or one where government mandates “equality” based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity alone - exactly the opposite of “color blind” and a society where racial and gender nose counters dominate. Conservatives reject this intrusion because both in logic and in practice, it divides us and does not advance the cause of equal opportunity but rather is conscious discrimination. Not just against white Christian males, mind you. Asian Americans are experiencing discrimination because the number of qualified candidates who wish to enter quota-oriented schools or educational programs exceeds the number of “places” that have been reserved for them. Jewish Americans are treated similarly.

The answer is a recognition of past discrimination and laws that facilitate advancement. Attempting to define “equality” by divvying up jobs and education in some ludicrous effort to legislate “fairness” is the wrong approach.

ed.

Please, smart conservatives. Come back. You’re the ying to our yang; we need the rise of an intelligent conservative movement to hold us back from our worst instincts. I look forward to the next William Buckley. And make a good enough intellectual argument, and I could see myself voting (R) next time.

But, psst, do me a favor: kindly jettison the Dobsons and the Brent Bozells from your coalition. ‘Kay, thanks.

After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion the Chicago Bears are a superior football organization in every way to the Minnesota Vikings. This has not been a easy realization for me to come to, as I am a long time fan of the Vikings, having been one for over 30 years, plus I am a season ticket holder. However, the facts are the facts.

First, the Personalities of the history of the Bears far outshines those of the Vikings. From Red Grange and Bronko Nagurski thru Dick Butkus and Mike Ditka, onto Jim McMahon and Refrigerator Perry, and today with Devin Hester and Brian Urlacher, their players have color. The only comparable Vikings players in the color category were Jim Marshall who is known more for a boneheaded play rather than his greatness, Carl Eller, whose color comes mainly from beating up cops, Randy Moss whose color came from stupid antics (although both Bears fans and Vikings fans find it hard to fault him for mooning the Packers’ Fans), and Onterio Smith who was caught with a prostetic penis used to fool drug tests. Advantage Clearly Bears.

Second, Coaching. First the Bears had George Halas, a legendary coach who won several NFL Titles. Their next great coach was Iron Mike, who won them a Super Bowl, and did so with flair and earned cult like status in Chicago. Our guys? Norm Van Broklin who succeeded only in running off one of the best QBs of all time, Bud Grant, a great coach who couldn’t win the big one, Jerry Burns, a guy known mainly for underachieving on the field and dropping an f-bomb every 4 words in press conferences, Denny Green, another under achieving coach, Mike Tice the ticket scalper, and Brad Childress, perhaps our worst coach ever (and I haven’t forgotten Les Steckle). Advantage? Da Bears.

Third, we have to look at the uniforms. Clearly the Bears uniform is superior. Once upon a time the Vikings had good looking uniforms as well, but some ex-Giants fan owner gave us uniforms that look better suited for Arena league play. The Bears uniforms on the other hand, reek class and sophistication while still maintaining a tough guy apperance. Advantage, Da Bears.

Fourth, Stadium. The Bears play in a historic stadium where the atomic bomb was created, it’s called Soldier Field. There’s no way some teflon bubble named after a squishy liberal Vice-President can top that. Plus, why the hell are the Vikings playing inside anyway. Whimps. Advantage, overwhelmingly Da Bears.

Fifth, Cheerleaders. The Bears cheerleaders all appear to be created out of Greek Mythology tales surrounding seduction. The Vikings’ cheerleaders appear to be scooped up out of a Hennipen Avenue crack house. Advantage the Bears.

Lastly, History. The Bears have on overwhelmingly rich history filled with legendary plays and players, titles and greatness - sending their fans to both the highest peaks and the lowest valleys. The Vikings on the other hand have only set up their fans for habitual and continual disappointment.

Yes, when you add it all up, the Bears are clearly the superior football organization.

Your average Republican voter (as opposed to ideologue) is going to wonder why he has to pay for other people’s crap while remaining prudent and self-sufficient in his own life. Eventually he asks himself, “If we’re going to have democratic socialism, I may as well get mine.” He isn’t rich, but he has to pay the costs of other people’s failures (prison, welfare); subsidize other people’s lives (eduction, corporate subsidies); and clean up the messes of very stupid and venal people (Enron, bank bailouts, etc.).

Where’s the REAL Republican opposition to any of this? Or the real opposition to Jihad, for that matter? It doesn’t exist.

So we go back to tending our own garden. But if this is best that Republicans can do, then it really isn’t worth the fight.

don’t worry about it.

ed.