We're talking about two different things when we talk about optimism.

You're probably talking about the reporting of bad news from Iraq and during events like Katrina, indictments of Administration officials and lobbyists like Abramoff, and criticism of the Administration's performance, etc. That may seem pessimistic because your politicians are the focus of the bad news and the target of the criticism, but pessimism has nothing to do with the quality of the news, i.e. whether it's good or bad. Optimism and pessimism are extrapolative reactions to what the news and events portend, and bad news and criticism of the Bush Administration portend bad things for Republicans. But for those of us who sincerely believe that the country will be better off when we're rid of the Republican Congress and the Bush White House, the prospect of an end to Republican rule is a cause for optimism.

This begs the question of whether I'm saying that the events themselves are cause for optimism, and of course that's not what I'm saying. That interpretation puts the cart before the horse: Bush and the Republicans have to go because they're responsible for those bad things, and what's cause for optimism is the prospect of relief. The optimism I'm talking about here is the optimism you feel as the needle slides into the gum and you feel the Novocaine flow, that the toothache will soon be gone. I look forward to relief from the pain of Republican politicians.

Another difference in our perspective on optimism is in how we look at dissent. As a dissenter, I'm motivated to make the effort by optimism that it can make a difference and that I can contribute to America. Dissent to me is an intrinisically optimistic act. You seem to have the reaction to dissent that I described as a generic feature of the conservative personality, a fear that it will bring down the nation, and so I wouldn't expect you to feel optimistic about it. But I don't think America is that fragile, and the existence of ongoing dissent simultaneous with America's ongoing survival is abundant testimony that we derive a lot of our strength from dissent itself. Our diversity of thought and culture is the source of our strength.

The question of "why Reagan beat Jimmy Carter" is germane to what I was saying about leadership. Jimmy's wimpy talk of "malaise" was the wrong thing to say to a bunch of people whose most vivid national character trait is insane optimism. Reagan understood the obligation of a President to say the things that uphold and support that optimism; Americans define leadership in a President largely as the ability to maintain optimism. In the distributed power structure of a democracy that's all that a President needs to do to start the ball rolling, and we take it from there.

Since I'm confident that Bush's tipping point is past, there's not much point in belaboring Bush's deficiencies in this vital aspect of leadership. Back in 2000 we weren't judging the Cowboy and the Cigar Store Indian so much on leadership ability as on ideology, because we weren't feeling threatened. In 2004, well, what can I say other than agreeing that Cigar Store Indian II was a truly awful candidate and should have lost miserably against even a mediocre incumbent.

What's interesting, if anything, is that I expect these less-tangible leadership traits to figure much more prominently in 2008 than in 2000. The archetypical matchup of McCain versus Clinton is between two types of strength: McCain's Timex takes-a-lickin-and-keeps-on-tickin imperturbability, versus the searing flame of Hillary's Gorgon-like wrath, wrapped in the velvet glove of National Mother Figure. (Yikes!) Don't get me started on the matchup between Hillary's flaming glare and Condi's somewhat constipated glower...in any event, the determining factor in 2008 will, I expect, be the ability to wield symbols and signals of leadership like optimism coupled with strength.