The most fascinating discourse of this election cycle, for me, has been those in the conservative movement who recognize that their movement is adrift without a rudder, in this nearly-post-Bush era.

I’ve already touched on this here, here, here, & here (& many other places - click on “The GOP” over on the right, in the categories, to get the full list)

Over the course of the next 10 days - & beyond - I hope to highlight some of this fascinating discussion.

The questions that remains to be answered: how long will it be before conservatives regain power in American government again? & who will be the standard-bearer to take the conservative movement in a new direction?

I agree with blogger L’Hote who says he is tired of what he sees, which is an unhealthy preponderance of the implementation of the phrase President Bush used in the days after 9/11: “you’re either with us or against us:”

“There’s been a lot of talk in reformist conservative circles about what the litmus test for conservatism is these days. It’s simple: the willingness to participate in dividing the country between worthy people and rotten people. There’s no ideology or policy preference or philosophy or method of intellectual comportment that holds a candle to hatred of the other, in today’s American conservatism. To that extent, a reformist conservative is no conservative at all. Some will deny this. But they only have to look around to see the absurdity of this claim. Spend a few moments on Red State. Cruise around the Corner. Follow Instapundit’s links. Check out Drudge. Watch Fox News. Attend a McCain/Palin rally. Tell me what you see. You can certainly question the right of these culturally conservative institutions to expel anyone from the ranks of conservatism, but if we recognize that they represent a kind of conservative center, we should acknowledge that this center seeks to define conservatism by its willingness to exclude others from real America.

This isn’t fair to many conservatives. But there simply exists a conservative movement, a conservative center of gravity, that has moral content. And that mainstream of conservative thought insists on cleaving these bright lines. So while I have sympathy for those who come under criticism here unfairly, to an extent this is an inevitable consequence of exactly the “big sort” that the Republican mainstream has been engaging in.

…

There comes a time when a reformer has to realize that what he is reforming is beyond saving. At what point does the conservative zeal for punishing the wicked Blue become such a dominant narrative on your side that principle demands you abandon the designation? Conservatism is not going to give up on dividing the nation into camps of the worthy and the unworthy. It is not going to stop questioning the patriotism of those who disagree with it. It’s the engine that powers the ideology. It’s possible that conservatism can be saved from pure other-hatred. But I am beyond skeptical. Those who question this allegiance to pure identity politics are quickly smacked down by the conservative message-discipline machine. (A machine which has no liberal analog.) What’s more, those conservatives who do pose these kinds of questions then become twice as likely to traffic in apologetics for the same kind of behavior, as their professional lives depend on not going too far off the reservation. (Pick your favorite CW-questioning conservative blogger. Wait for them to post something critical of conservative hatred of unreal America. Now see how long it takes them to turn around and excuse a similar but less intense argument. I think you’ll find it happens with almost mathematical precision.)

So look, conservatives– if you’re going to engage in tribalism, here is your party. Here’s your tribe. It’s at an extreme place. I can’t continue to take stock of conservatism as it currently stands and deny that the only meaningful criteria for designation as a conservative is willingness to cast your opponents out of the American experience. (Which is an act of extreme intellectual violence.)”

Well said.

Yes, I know this is an election year, but this whole “whose side are you on” mentality is really what’s contributed to driving this country into a ditch.

I believe more pluralism is what’s called for. That’s the system of government the founding fathers believed in. Pluralism is when various groups who share a common interest band together to bring about change.

Pluralism has never failed to exist in this country; it’s just that these days it is often groups with corporate or lobbying interests (Wall Street, anyone?) that have really been able to exploit pluralism’s power.

There is no problem that we can’t come together to solve - even if it’s only for that one problem.

I believe that deep down in my soul.

So let’s stop the bickering, & caring about sides or teams, stop the discussions about what constitutes the “real America” et al, & roll up our sleeves & get to work - no matter who wins the presidency.

Please? For the country?