Gosh, in the sense that a "turn" implies lobbing back a rebuttal, there's not much of a turn possible for me.

Of course there are details we disagree about. That's the core strength that distinguishes Americans from lemmings, and keeps us from marching smugly off the cliff. The traditional disagreements have always been over matters of degree rather than absolutes: The degree to which the government should be proactive, and consequential issues such as taxation (how big a safety net, and how to pay for it); issues of the degree of regulation of the economy (in calm moments even hardliners agree that pure laissez faire is impossible when everybody knows the rules and how to game the system); and the degree of agressiveness of foreign policy and military actions.

It's our job as citizens to argue about things like that, as well as to raise new issues that weren't on the table in the time of the Founders. I tend to think that the Constitution should at least have a pulse, if not be a completely "living document"; the Founders left us some work to do and never-ending responsibilities to discharge. We shouldn't elevate the Constitution to the status of an idol and worship it; it's a legal instrument that describes the operation of our system of government and is worthy of profound respect, and I think it's somewhat disrespectful to embalm it and declare it static and unchanging.

I try to balance my respect for the Founders with a recognition that they were human and that they lived in a certain time and made decisions most appropriate for that time. It's a dangerous mistake to be overawed by the Founders and thus lose the nerve to step up to the hard decisions required by the time we live in. They're dead; America is our responsibility now.

It's hard work being an informed citizen. It's not enough to just know the timeline of history. We also have to understand the forces that were at work and the environment that shaped the decisions of our ancestors, to learn how to make similar important judgments for ourselves. History's a guide, but it's not a script; we can't just coast through today by replaying earlier segments of history.

I'm clearly going off on a long-winded tangent. To get back to the point, you've illustrated the qualities that I have in mind with the inexact approximation "Classic Conservative". Be a curmudgeon, get cranky at bad service and bad manners and sloppy work...that's a respectable historical role for "Classic Conservatives". Apply the opposing vector to tendencies to grow government; we're more likely to get optimum government that way. When you think it's time to be a hawk, be a hawk; and the more pacifistic elements of the population will push back and, we can always hope, a more reasoned middle course will emerge. Through compromise we pursue the optimum; striving for perfection is a dangerous delusion.

America needs critics. What we don't need is for one side or the other to become enamored of the idea of winning, when winning is defined as depriving the other side of oxygen and smothering for all time the opposing points of view. A "permanent [name your political party] majority" is a terrible and distinctly unAmerican idea. Give up the notion of winning, and rediscover the idea of compromise.

(It's easy to slip into the first person during exhortations like this. I didn't take it personally when you did it, and I mean it in the same spirit. "You" in this context is really the "them" of extremists.)

There will always be a large portion of the population too apathetic or cynical to participate in politics. I've said before that refusing to vote is nevertheless a vote. It's a proxy vote, assigning to us political junkies the right to make decisions. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to fix the "problem" by too aggressive outreach and voter registration; maybe it's right and proper that those of us exercizing the proxies take it seriously and do the best job we can. Given the voter turnout stats, it's as if we're each exercizing a vote for 2-4 other people; we should look at that as one more responsibility we've accepted.

Just as "compromise" has become a dirty word to extremists, so too do they label as "flip-flopping" changing one's mind. But someone who examines new evidence and revises or reverses earlier judgments is simply exercizing more judgment. It's not as if judgment is an extraordinary event that happens only a few times in a person's lifetime. Anyone who's truly paying attention is constantly making judgments moment-by-moment. It's not an exercize in judgment to "stay the course" while reality changes; it's a refusal to exercize judgment. A copout. An abdication of responsibility.

You're to be respected for continuing to exercize your mind as the situation in Iraq, and our understanding of it, evolved. (And this time "you" is actually you, RNE.)

Many of the things that bug you (RNE again) seem to me to validate the belief that the real division is between us and the politicians. They've gotten so blatant about their pet projects and their earmarks and their willingness to cut ethical corner, it's a wonder to me that anyone can follow a Party line and defend "their guys" as somehow superior to the "other guys". Politicians are scumbags. Follow them blindly and we'll follow them off the cliff. Just as Congress failed in its duty to exercize oversight of the Executive, for too long we've failed in our duty to exercize oversight over the whole corrupt mob.

At the end of the day, the mess we're in isn't really the fault of the Democratic or Republican Parties. It's our fault for trusting them and forgetting our duty to be eternally skeptical of our leaders and wannabe leaders.