You see, we really do care about you.  You’re our brothers and sisters, and while we may fight sometimes, we’re all Americans and we’re all in this together.  And frankly, some of us over here are starting to get a little worried about you.

As a, uh – well, “liberal” isn’t the first term I’d use to describe myself, but from your perspective that’s probably the easiest label to apply – as a liberal who has spent many years sparring with you and your friends in the marketplace of ideas, I must admit no small amount of pleasure at seeing your team lose a little ground in the last year or two.  It’s nothing personal, I just don’t agree with some of your intentions.  But that hardly means I want to see you go away.

This includes all the sudden and alarming calls for secession and revolution, which really need to stop before some dangerous idiot starts to take the rhetoric to heart.  You do not get to overthrow the republic after 230 years just because you lost a couple of elections, and America must never again go to war against itself.  The terrible stain on our history known to some as the Civil War and others as the War of Northern Aggression was a savage and brutal testament to what happens when our political debates lead to dehumanization and denial of our essential brotherhood.

But it’s not just about that.  The one paranoid talking point that might actually have some basis in reality is the risk of America drifting towards “one party rule.”  In fairness, I don’t mean the kind of one party rule that Karl Rove masterminded from 2001-2007; the kind that bed-wetters like Glenn Beck weep and blubber about when they imagine the Obama administration could or would attempt to replicate such lock-step control.

I mean the very real eventuality of the GOP going the way of the Whig.

Now, I understand the difference between the establishment conservatism of the Republican Party and the movement conservatism of the self-proclaimed independents who vote largely Republican with the occasional political statement of a vote for a Libertarian, Reform or Constitution Party candidate, or some other “third” party I’ve never heard of, or perhaps even a few quiet Democratic votes.

Believe me, I really do understand.  I am not a fan of the de facto two-party system in this country.  I suppose I generally view the Democratic Party as the “lesser of two evils,” but I’ve long been a supporter of the Libertarian Party – not because I agree with their platform any more than I do the Democratic one, but because I believe they represent a healthy counterbalance to the current elephant-and-donkey-show.

I would like to see the two parties split up into more recognizable and targeted coalitions, 5 or 6 total would probably be ideal… but that’s another discussion.  Within our current system, we need 2 parties to be healthy.  It’s either going to be the GOP, or perhaps the Libertarians… maybe the Greens.

I’ve already stipulated you can call me a liberal for sake of argument, so I’ll stipulate as well that you can say I’m a Democrat – I’ll trust you can understand why, for now, I’m assuming for sake of argument you’re a Republican.

The most recent Post/ABC poll has 21% of Americans identifying as Republicans, the lowest in that poll since 1983.  It’s no secret the party is shrinking, and so far the time in the wilderness has not been well spent.  Michael Steele has been a disaster as chairman of the RNC, and every attempt at a comeback has been a gimmick with no real substance.  The party leaders don’t understand the difference between soul-searching and rebranding, or grassroots and astroturf.

Newt Gingrich is on Twitter.  Need I say more?  I don’t think creating a video game called Todd Palin’s Extreme Snowmachine 2012 is the solution to finding the youth vote.

Arlen Specter’s recent defection to the Democratic Party, and Olympia Snowe’s response, should highlight the basic problem within the GOP.  I’m not just trying to rub your face in it, but this is going to continue if things don’t drastically change. Snowe and Collins have insisted they are staying in the Republican party, but only time will tell how that plays out.  The GOP is poised to lose even more seats in Congress in 2010 as McConnell and Boehner’s obstructionist act backfires on them.

The fact that conservatives didn’t speak out en masse against Rush Limbaugh for his treatment of Colin Powell (following his endorsement of Barack Obama for president) should shame anyone who calls themselves a conservative or is a fan of Limbaugh.  Christian conservatives speaking out against healing the sick and making excuses for torture in the name of party loyalty is nothing short of disgusting.  The answer to regaining political relevance is not to become more ideologically pure, to step up the anti-liberal rhetoric and rally the base, all while throwing any critics and dissenters under the bus.  This sort of thing only turns off moderates, and marginalizes your agenda.

Right now, my friend, we need to concentrate on you.  Did you get that beer I suggested earlier?  You really need to relax.

As someone who agrees with Justice David Souter that Bush v. Gore was an absolute travesty of justice and a failure of democracy, the years 2001 through 2009 were pretty rough for me.  I know how you feel right now.  It’s hard being in the minority, but I can share a few things with you that I have learned:

Patience is a virtue.
The world of politics moves at a snail’s pace.  You still have 18 months until the next mid-term election, and 3 and a half years until the next presidential election.  You should pace yourself a bit, and relax… you’ll have your chances at the polls again.

History is your ally, and education is key.
If you don’t know your facts, we aren’t going to take you seriously.  When you fall back on teabag gimmicks and calling people a “socialist” without really understanding what it means, you do your cause a great disservice.  They called FDR a socialist, well before he got elected… I hope you already know this, but he got elected 4 times.

Turn off your TV.
Edward R. Murrow said it best:

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.”

Murrow could just as easily have been talking about the Internet… both offer access to volumes of information unprecedented in human history – they also offer a lot of stupid, pointless crap and factually incorrect nonsense.  Consider the fact that television media is the single greatest financial benefactor of political campaigns.  Choose your media intake wisely.  Read more books.

The wilderness is for soul-searching.
Now is the time for an agonizing reappraisal, a reevaluation, and a reassessment of your values and priorities.  Don’t be so concerned with towing the party line.  Distance yourself from the bigoted and the corrupted.   Spend time finding the root of your beliefs – why are you for or against something?  For example, if you are against abortion, I’d be willing to say you believe in the sanctity of life and believe all children should be loved.  Focus on those values, not the hot-button issue.

Perhaps most importantly…

Moderate, moderate, moderate.
Decide what you are willing to compromise on – recognizing that fact that compromise is the best you are going to get, for at least the next 4 years.  Probably the next 8.  With your goals and values clearly in mind, decide how to approach the situation with a clear understanding that you are in a minority that must convince the majority you have ideas worth listening to.  You will accomplish a lot more by working to create programs that reduce unwanted pregnancy and teach responsible family planning than you will worrying about Roe v. Wade over the next several years.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, but if nothing else I hope I have expressed that we need an open dialogue in the coming years.  If you draw inward and move further to the right, you will do everyone a great disservice – not least of which, yourself.

I hope it has been clear that I say these things in earnest while extending a hand in good faith.  I will by no means stop fighting for my cause, and I expect no less of you – but I pray we can fight as sparring brothers, not warring enemies.

First, there was Michelle Obama touching the Queen!!  Oh dear heavens!

Then there was President Obama’s “servile, scraping” handshake/bow with the Saudi King.

If you’re sympathetic to Newt Gingrich, you were no doubt outraged and terrified to see Barack Obama shaking hands with Hugo Chavez earlier this week.

And who can forget Barack and Michelle’s infamous “terrorist fist-jab,” or as another Fox News reporter put it, “fisting with one another.”

At the risk of appearing to make the common mistake of assuming the echo chambers of the media in any way truly resemble popular culture; are we really this hypersensitive about touching? And if so, when the hell did the memo get sent out?

The  practice of shaking hands dates back to at least the 2nd century BC, and has been common in the western world since the 16th century.  Many believe the ritual of shaking hands finds origin in the act of checking one another for concealed weapons, or as a symbolic disarmament and embrace in the spirit of peace.

Across the world, the etiquette for shaking hands often differs in many small ways, but one thing is virtually universal – to refuse an offered hand without good reason is seen as inappropriate, if not outright insulting.

It is a well-known fact that babies will die if deprived of a human touch.  Humans need contact with one another, particularly as a basis for right relations.

Shaking hands, in all its many forms, serves as both a gesture of good faith and an opportunity to evaluate the other person’s character – they say you can learn a lot about a person from their handshake.

It’s no secret that Obama likes to communicate with his touch.  Apparently, this is a cause of great concern for some.  I understand that one of the best terms for belittling liberals is “touchy-feely” but I’m starting to think this has gone a little too far.

These kneejerk reactions to human contact reinforce a dangerous sense of alienation.  As a society we have become so concerned about appearances, terrified of being inadvertently sexual, and mistrusting of one another’s motives that the basic act of touching another human being is becoming taboo.

But maybe I’m being too touchy-feely, and Newt Gingrich is right… like he said, “we didn’t rush over, smile, and greet Russian dictators,” right?

Oh, right… well, it’s unbecoming to the American president or his administration to be too chummy with known dictators from South America, or the Middle East!

Um… Saudi Kings?

Well, apparently world politics is just one big game of grab-ass. Perhaps we should keep that in mind next time some pundit starts hyperventilating over the president’s latest sign of basic human decency.

[Full Disclosure: I probably could have found more images to share, and I wanted to further address the "terrorist fist-jab," but I simply couldn't bring myself to Google for "Bush fisting"]

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is currently running this ad eight times a day in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and California on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN:

But they’re going back to a well that appears to have dried up.  The response to the NOM “Gathering Storm” ad has been largely negative, and with the influence of Christianity on American politics waning in the face of a new generation of more tolerant voters, the old “god, guns and gays” routine isn’t gaining much traction.

Advocates of same-sex marriage have pointed out that besides using bald-faced lies and fear-mongering, the people in this ad aren’t even who they claim to be.  Clever researchers managed to get a copy of NOM’s audition tapes and posted them online.  NOM has forced YouTube to pull down the videos based on copyright claims, but you just can’t delete things once they’re on the Internet.

With Iowa now joining the short list of states that have legalized gay marriages, the culture warriors are getting nervous – and they’re desperate to keep this issue on the forefront for fear that we’ll head down the slippery slope of equal rights.

Newt Gingrich is doing his part to fan the flames, calling the Obama administration “anti-religious.”  Fox News has been up in arms over the president’s assertion that we are not a Christian nation.  The president also said in that same sentence that we are not a Jewish or Muslim nation, but they conveniently overlook that fact in their search for new wedges with which to divide Americans against one another.

There’s unfortunately still a large number of Americans who continue to insist that the United States is a nation whose Constitution was based on Christian values.  They believe that passing and enforcing laws which protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority are a sign of an erosion of America’s founding principles.

I’ll let our nation’s third president and the author of the Declaration of Independence respond to this ignorance:

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Since the “traditional marriage” folks appear to be about as familiar with the Bible as they are with American history, perhaps we can provide some assistance with their campaign to redefine marriage in a way that is based on biblical principles;

• Marriage consists of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
• Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
• Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
• Since marriage is for life, divorce is prohibited. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

Now those are some traditional American values!

In the face of such absurdity and ignorance, most polls indicate that Americans are gravitating towards granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.  Once again, the cultural conservatives are picking a fight that they cannot possibly hope to win – but there are always “dead-enders” in every movement that seeks to impose theocratic rule by way of coercion and terror.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, apparently unaware the bill passed, applauded what he called a “bipartisan rejection of a partisan bill,” echoing the GOP line from when they last failed to matter with zero votes, after passage of the stimulus bill in February.

McConnell conveniently overlooks the fact that 38 Republican representatives voted against Congressman Paul Ryan’s over-hyped and under-delivered alternative GOP budget, compared to the 20 Democrats who voted against the Obama plan.  He also overlooks the fact that no budget in the last decade has received as many “yes” votes in the House as this one did on Thursday night.

But the reality of the matter has long since stopped being an issue to McConnell and his ilk.  Their strategic decision was made months ago, and it’s a very tough one to back out of – the GOP is betting on failure, or at least a slower than anticipated recovery.  The one and only hope of the Republican party right now is that things do not improve, or – even better – that things get worse!

This is not a simple matter of wanting policies to fail because of ideological differences, and it’s not just a political Hail Mary pass.  These Senators and Representatives who have unanimously said “no” every step of the way have created a profound conflict of interest.  When giving people what they voted for is ridiculed as buying off voters, the Republicans in Congress have no choice but to ignore their constituents’ needs if this plan is to work out.

We still have over a year and a half until the midterm elections, and during that time the GOP’s elected officials have no incentive – in fact, have a strong disincentive – to allow any legislation to pass that will improve the lives of the voters.  If things get better, they won’t be able to run their “I told you so” ads in 2010.

In this light, the attempts of several Republican governors to refuse stimulus money for their states could appear sinister.  Starve and abuse your people, and blame their suffering on the evil American government… it’s a time-tested method of tin-pot tyrants for staying in power while providing no actual benefits to your people.

As if betting on the failure of the nation wasn’t bad enough, some in the GOP appear to be betting on the failure of the party itself.  Newt Gingrich, in the latest in a string of great “new ideas,” is predicting the formation of a new, more conservative, third party.

“We’re going to wander around there for a little while before coming back stronger than ever,” Ayres continues.

For my part, I’m not so sure about that “stronger than ever” bit.  Apparently, neither is anyone else.  A reader poll attached to the article concludes that 55% believe the Republicans will lose more Senate seats in the 2010 election, with 38% believing they will gain seats and 7% predicting no change.

In the wake of a damning failure on the part of the new RNC Chairman Michael Steele to apply the party’s principles to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings” with an “off the hook” public relations campaign, several have moved to become the face of the Republican party.  Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal’s response to President Obama’s joint address to Congress was widely panned as reminiscent of 30 Rock’s Kenneth the Page, and despite their best efforts John Boehner and Eric Cantor have not succeeded in positioning themselves as anything besides obstructionists in the public eye.

Filling the abysmal leadership void, radio host Rush Limbaugh has been elevated by many on both the right and the left as the de facto head of the conservative movement, if not the Republican party.  Michael Steele is just the latest in a string of Republican party members who have rapidly issued public apologies and retractions after make statements critical of Limbaugh.  Democratic strategists have seized the opportunity to call out Mr. Limbaugh publicly, drawing public attention to repeated statements that he hopes President Obama will fail and painting Rush as the party’s intellectual leader.

Cue Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House who was removed from power 15 years ago in the wake of a widely unpopular attempt to remove President Clinton from office.  Not having served in public office for over a decade hasn’t stopped Gingrich from trying to position himself as the intellectual head of the party, and speculating about a run for the presidency in 2012.  Gingrich’s Republican Revolution and Contract with America are seen by some as the framework on which to build an opposition to Obama.  It remains to be seen if the same ideas and strategies used by the face of the Republican opposition in the 1990’s will gain any traction in 2010 or 2012, but early indicators are not good.

While both parties in Congress have seen substantial improvements in their approval numbers since late February, the Republicans in the House and Senate find themselves opposing a president whose numbers continue to rise.  Newsweek’s latest poll shows Obama’s approval rating at 72%, while 58% of all respondents say they do not have the “impression that Republicans who have opposed Barack Obama’s economic proposals have a plan of their own for turning the economy around”, with even 42% of the Republican respondents saying the opposition has no plan of its own.

As the GOP fights to regain intellectual legitimacy and groom a strong 2012 contender, Sarah Palin is rearing her head and coming into the air space over the lower 48, attracting what remains of the GOP’s base.

I hope these guys brought knapsacks, because it looks like they’re going to be wandering the wilderness for a long, long time to come.