Catherine,

Agree with your sentiments. Am totally secular (an atheist, to be exact) and yet detest the righteous on both sides of the cultural divide. I have fewer friends than I used to but also no longer waste any time at all on arguments with all and sundry.

Battle fatigue afflicts anyone who’s not fighting to defend his homeland. Lincoln faced the draft riots; W is facing discontent and a kind of media riot. Yes, Lincoln was also considered a rube, a baboon etc, but I don’t see much moral depth to Bush. Otherwise he would have acted swiftly to contain the Abu G mess before it became a media feeding frenzy.

We absolutely need a third party in this country, one that is pro-free trade and pro-military intervention abroad.

In other words, a party that’s resolutely in favor of global engagement, as opposed to the increasingly distinct whiff of isolationism I sense from both sides. Bush talks a lot about “peace” now– funny, but I don’t recall seeing UbL’s offer of a truce anywhere– and we can expect Kerry (if he’s smart) to soon start riding the anti-outsourcing and protectionist horse as hard as he can.

But I think there’s an odd alliance to be forged out of those who accept that we are, so to speak, in the world to be of the world: hawks of all economic backgrounds, free traders, and what will soon be the largest ethnic minority, Latinos. The latter favor trade agreements like NAFTA and could, I believe, be brought around to support a free-trade, hawkish party of fiscal conservatives in sufficiently large numbers to tip states like California, Arizona, NM, and Colorado to this new party.

If this party can appeal to enough new economy types in other states that have lots of foreign trade such as the Pacific Northwest, Texas, Florida, maybe also some of the mountain states and New England, then you have a nationally competitive movement. Call it the Opportunity Party. Free Trade and Opportunity for All! Opportunidad Para Todos!