Whether it's sports or business, for reasons that are as compelling as they are obvious, Americans agree that competition improves performance.  Although we may experience butterflies as we approach the starting gate, be it an interview for a highly competitive job or a presentation to a prospective client, in the end we know that the higher the competition the better we perform.

But if that axiom has achieved an unassailable universality in our nation, it has mysteriously been lost on many liberals.  Last evening's Democratic debate demonstrated that protectionism is genetically coded into the liberal psyche as Sens. Obama and Clinton fought to claim the mantle of the unions best friend.  As though the $38 billion that General Motors lost last quarter was a fiction, many on the left seem to ignore that ours is a global economy and that the best guarantor of success is to fight for deregulated markets, while inhibiting unions from creating uncompetitive advantages for foreign corporations.

Although NAFTA has its flaws and was not the unequivocal success the Clintons believed it would be, it has right-sized certain sectors of American businesses by leveraging efficiencies and forcing corporations to face the unpleasant realities of the global market place.  And, although it's obvious that America's worker safety regulations, workers compensation laws, pension, and other costs, create unfair advantages for countries like Mexico and China, the least effective response is to create barriers to free trade.

In that regard, unions have long outlived their useful lives as organizations that provide industry advocacy and worker safety.  Indeed, they now provide little more than strong-arm tactics to extract more robust salaries and benefits, making corporations even less competitive than their non-union cousins.  On the international front, the emerging markets in Asia are leaving American manufacturers in their dust because they allow markets to set wages, a lesson that seems to elude the unions.

In the area of public education, it's well known that there is no correlation between cost per student and graduation or scholastic aptitude rates in testing.  But we do know that parochial schools, magnet schools, and vouchers are mechanisms that abet competition and produce superior results across the board.  But the teachers unions and the Democratic Party have an iron clad agreement that keeps the dollars flowing to politicians and our children fettered to failing schools.

Although competition is championed as the most effective mechanism for ensuring the best possible results, the liberal establishment continues to tout the anachronistic protectionist practices that have perpetuated mediocrity.  It's the economic equivalent of singing the praises of cigarettes despite the fact that they have long ago been demonstrated to be deleterious to our health.

And, of course, the media is complicit by its instinctive inability to challenge these political pieties.  We trust that the McCain campaign will comb the debates and stump speeches for pithy clips from Obama's lexicon of liberalism, so that voters will see his anti-competitive and protectionism bent--and, then vote for McCain.

A hallmark of modern liberalism is its abiding indifference to historical facts.  Writing in today's Washington Post, former Clinton White House chief-of-staff, John Podesta and two others of the same political pedigree, argue that a Democratic president must immediately end the war in Iraq. 

Reanimating the dark history of Vietnam has almost become a standing rhetorical prop for liberals who are convinced our efforts in Iraq have been for naught.  Impugning Republicans for failure in South-East Asia rather than placing the blame where it belongs--with Lyndon Johnson--is yet another favorite academic exercise for liberals.  For those with an even cursory knowledge of that war, juxtaposing it with Iraq reaffirms Shakespeare's contention that "Comparisons are odious."

But the history of Iraq, the left's revisionist instincts notwithstanding, is unequivocal.  For seven decades that nation never experienced even a taste of the freedoms we enjoy in America, living as they did under the steel boot of one dictator or another.  It takes a rare mix of civic arrogance and cultural disdain to conclude that a nation of 25 million isn't capable of achieving a rough facsimile of American self-governance.  Yet, in the view of Podesta, the implication is clear:  The political goal of withdrawal from Iraq supersedes the strategic goal of a free and stable Iraq, a beta site for democracy in the inhospitable landscape of the Middle East.

Indeed, it's disturbingly obvious that progress, when viewed through the prism of liberalism, is yet another tactic to be abused for political advantage.  That the 'surge' has been successful is abundantly evident to everyone save the Podestas of the world.  Knowing that these are otherwise intelligent people, their staggeringly naive view of the immense civic and military complexities of advancing the cause of freedom in Iraq ultimately betrays a craven political motivation:  Since we can stipulate that 'time tables' and 'war' are mutually exclusive, the left either has a negative capacity to fight or an agenda that's best served by a precipitous withdrawal--or, perhaps both.

At the heart of their cynical demand for surrender is a steadfast ignorance of the enemy we face.  Downgrading threats seems to be an intellectual parlor game for liberals, from accusing President Bush of hyping the danger of radical Islam to retain electronic surveillance capabilities to conveniently ignoring the dozens of attacks on Western interests in the past three decades.

That leads us to the left's pet playground, the world of diplomacy.  For it's there that the silver-tongued Obama's skills would be on display, which, if his speeches and rallies are a reliable prologue, would make Bill Clinton look like a tongue-twisted reject from a high school debating team.  The left's notoriety in this arena is staggering, from former president Clinton's hopelessly naive bilateral 'Agreed Framework' with North Korea to Obama's proposed coffee klatch with Raul Castro.

It's a view predicated on an obtuse rendering of human nature, one in dangerous concert with the contemporary notion that the 'win-win' of corporate board rooms can be easily imposed on negotiations with such singularly evil regimes as Iran. 

Time will tell how the American people feel about an Obama presidency, but only a blinkered reading of our international scene would lead one to conclude that he, not Senator McCain, is better prepared to protect America.

Before returning to the world of political blogging, I wanted to add a post-script to the loss of our dear dog, Jack, one week ago today.  Among the many remarkable results of this otherwise awful experience is the outpouring of support from family, friends, and colleagues (current and former), each offering insights and sympathy, and relating their stories about the loss of their own pets.

It began on Sunday, the day after we lost Jack, when we took our traditional walk in the woods where he played in the dappled sunlight and shadows numberless.  After half an hour we approached a clearing and saw another couple approaching, walking a beautiful Great Dane and two other dogs.  We petted them and in passing mentioned the loss of our dog.  It turns out the woman volunteers a the local humane society and all their dogs were taken in because no one else would do so.  In particular, they take in older Great Danes, and, she reported with obvious grief, that she had to put four of those gentle giants down in the past five years.

Suddenly, our loss was put in perspective and her special love of our four-footed friends swelled in our hearts.  There were many similar  experiences such as when I left an hour late for work on Monday and ran into a neighbor, Chuck, I hadn't spoken with in years.  He related how he lost his German Shepherd some years ago and how it still hurt so much.  After twenty minutes of exchanging stories, his sympathy and kindness shored up my flagging spirit.

My wife Nancy took the picture of Jack above on one of our walks in the mountains just outside our back door, and you can see in his energetic face that bright personality and love of life he brought to every moment.  We do believe he's in a better place, free of pain, and playing with our other dogs, Max and Oscar, as well as those of other grieving owners. 

It's that sense of his continued existence which, not unlike that of relatives who have died, gives us hope and spiritual sustenance to make sense of such manifestly hurtful experiences.  It's the stark absence of him in our daily lives after eight years of fun and laughter that is difficult to accept.  We recall with heartfelt fondness the moments we had, all the time naively convinced it would be different with this dog, that it would go on forever.

That is, indeed, the universal impulse that leads us to invest in a kind of canine immortality that makes it possible for people to own dogs, because otherwise that awful inevitability hangs menacingly over every moment. But by our active suspension of that reality we can return to the dogs we love such as Jack the same version of unqualified love they so selflessly shower on us, asking so little in return.

Below is the last picture we took of Jack, just an hour or so before we brought him to the vet.  Although it was fortuitous, you'll notice the crucifix in the background, yet another of the many apparently coincidental incidents of the past week, all of which have conspired to convince us that God's presence was evident in every moment of our grieving, in particular in the kindness of family and friends.

In a rare breach of our practice of editorial anonymity, and because there is catharsis in giving expression to impending sorrow, I inform my readers of an appointment today I would sacrifice almost anything to avoid.  Our beloved German Shepherd, Jack, with us through innumerable moments since June of 2000, must be put to sleep. 

For those who have found themselves in this position, you know the gnawing anticipation of acute grief that accompanies the days leading up to that fateful moment.  Having suffered this on two prior occasions, once in 1998 when our Rottweiler, Max, died suddenly, and in 2005 when I drove our little Border Terrier, Oscar, to the vet for the same final visit, this is the one part of pet ownership that at once brings us to tears and makes us question how a beneficent God could be so cruel as to have dogs live but a handful of years while some birds live to be ninety.

Many others have written more eloquently than me about the unique bond between a dog and his master, their unqualified love and devotion, their unfailing willingness protect you without any consideration for their own well-being, and the numerous moments of joy seeing them at play.  Over the years Jack, not unlike any affectionate dog, has worked his way into the very fabric of our lives, in hikes in the mountains, in junkets to Colorado Springs, playing in parks, and curled up in front of the fireplace after dinner.

Perhaps the most vexing aspect of the moments we've enjoyed with him as well as our previous dogs, is that despite the manifest happiness they bring and their bright personalities that convince us they can, in fact, speak, is the latent understanding that it can't last.  And, although we are enjoined to focus on the moment, since that's all we truly have, unlike our four-footed friends, our unique gift of self-consciousness includes an understanding of the reality of our own demise.

It's the sharp and beguiling contrast between our dogs, who blissfully live fully absorbed in each moment and the world of humans with our attendant sea of troubles, which dogs seem to bridge for us, so intimate and meaningful is their communication, albeit in a language we struggle to apprehend.

And, as they age and become debilitated, and the date and time when our stewardship obliges us to subvert our awful fear of being the agent of their demise, we feel utterly incapable of helping them, of telling them what they've meant to us.  We run the tape in our minds of the myriad moments and highlights with them and are suffused with pain and tears, while they lie there, about to die, but with complete trust in you, expressing in their uniquely canine way, their love for you.

It's that burden of stewardship, of knowing that his current suffering will only become worse, that there are truly no alternatives, but wanting, just once, to have him fully understand your deep and heartfelt love for him, that cuts to the core of your being.

You may have read the piece below, circulated among pet lovers for many years, but it captures the hope we all have that their death is not, in fact, final, that we will be joined together in a time and way we can never understand, so long as we live.

    The Rainbow Bridge

There is a bridge connecting Heaven and Earth. It’s called the Rainbow Bridge because of its many colors. Just this side of the bridge there is a land of meadows and hills and valleys with lush green grass.

When a pet dies, it goes to this place. There is always food and water and warm spring weather. The old and frail animals are made young again. The crippled and maimed become whole. They play with each other all day long. The only thing missing is the special person who loved them on Earth.

So the animals run and play for days on end until, suddenly, one stops and looks! The nose twitches! The ears are up! The eyes are bright and expectant! Quickly, this one runs from the group.

You have been spotted, and when you and your friend meet, you take him into your arms with unrestrained joy. Your face is kissed again and again, and you look into the eyes of your trusted friend who has been waiting for you.

Then you cross the Rainbow Bridge together, never again to be separated.

So, early this afternoon, my wife, Nancy, and I will have to fulfill our stewardship obligation and take our dear Jack to the vet, on this, his last day on earth.  We can only pray that we'll see him one day on that bridge, along with our other cherished pets.

And, we pray you do as well.

As history will attest, political generosity among competitors is only selectively invoked, in particular at unique moments when adverse risks are low and when there is a clear front-runner.  That is clearly not the case in the Democratic presidential primary race, which is why we can expect to see a kind of attenuation of civility.

The Mt. Rushmore egos that are endemic to national elections demonstrate that subverting ambition for the sake of party unity is something of an oxymoron.  When we add the unprecedented nature of Senators Obama and Clinton--an African-American male and a female--along with the former's charm and charisma and the latter's claim as an agent of change, you have a recipe for a political battle royale.

If it's not resolved until their convention it may lead to an internal debate that effectively undermines the ability of one candidate to credibly enter McCain's ring, which blurs the issues and inevitably brings out the least attractive aspects of the candidates' personalities.  Indeed, when it comes to political survival in presidential politics, civility is a prop to be trotted out only when it serves a specific, time-limited purpose.

We've all seen how the Clintons behave during campaigns, not to mention the extremes they'll go to do defend themselves against charges, political or legal.  The political graveyards are full of their adversaries, from Vince Foster to the long string of Bill's mistresses.  For a remarkably detailed and well organized encyclopedia of their scandal ridden past, check out this link, which is a trove of information the RNC would love to mine.

While the Democrats are eating their own, McCain will have the distinct advantage of making the argument that he's the candidate best equipped to deal with both foreign and domestic issues.  He can credibly make that argument while also reminding voters that a Clinton presidency would not only feature a permanent cameo appearance by Bill, but it would dredge up all those awful memories of the 90s. 

And, although Obama is a new face and a bright personality full of optimism, his reticence on the specifics of his platform means he's a tabula rasa, the proverbial "blank slate."  That will lead to his senate record as well as his work in the Illinois legislature and as a neighborhood activist.  The result should be a wealth of oppositional research that puts him far to the left of Clinton and unequivocally out of step with mainstream America.

So, despite the fact that the polls all point to a Democrat victory in November, there remain many opportunities for them to mismanage their electoral gift.  And, if the Republicans can unite around McCain, focusing on his strength in foreign affairs and pledge to right our economic ship, there's a chance he could win.

Political elections in any year are notoriously difficult to predict, largely because calibrating human nature, which is the essence of political chemistry, is kind of like playing chess with God--you're going to lose.  Indeed, who would have predicted in late December that two days after super Tuesday Mitt Romney would suspend his campaign?  Or, who could have predicted last summer, when he was political road kill, that John McCain would be catapulted into the nomination?

For conservatives who yearn for that genus of conservatism so exquisitely manifest in Ronald Reagan, this has been and will doubtless continue to be a painful year.  There are two obvious paths for conservatives, but their respective outcomes are by no means clear:  The first is to take McCain at his word--which is to say, he's found religion on taxes, free speech, and judges--and support him, knowing that an Obama or Clinton would mean higher taxes, a thicket of new regulation, government health care, price controls, a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, and a host of other equally ignoble policies; second, is to wait out the next four years, hoping, as many on the right believe, that either of the Democrat candidates would divide the country and tarnish our honor in Iraq, leading to a freshly minted conservative to take the helm.

However, not unlike this election cycle, which has been one surprise after another, there's no predicting what an Obama or Clinton presidency might truly be like, or, critically, how the nation might respond to it.  Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger makes the case that, on balance, a McCain presidency is not only far preferable to either of the Democrats, but to believe that the ensuing four years under a liberal would be cathartic for conservatives, is something of a pipe dream.

Further, if, as is likely the case, the Democrats pick up seats in the House and Senate, winning an electoral trifecta might make their dream of a Europe in America all the more real.  And, if you listen to them, that's precisely what they want:  It's a Euro-esque, cradle-to-grave vision of America where we turn over fifty or sixty cents of every dollar we make and let the government make all the decisions for us, from health care at birth to the disposal of our ashes after death.  And, where America is merely another fief governed by international law, under the boot of the United Nations.  Where partial birth abortion flourishes and guns are confiscated. 

It won't happen overnight, but the cultural anarchy we are now suffering--where we're actually arguing about whether a 15 year old girl should be able to have an abortion without parental notification--didn't either.

Each of us will have to wrestle with this decision, but in doing so we would be wise to neither inflate nor magnify McCain's admittedly ignoble voting record, a record with which we, like most conservatives, have profound and fundamental disagreements.  Rather, reflect on the fact that if you think the plight of conservatives couldn't get any worse, recall that seven years ago, just after 9/11, no one could have predicted how masterfully the Republican Party establishment and its political leaders in Washington would mismanage the power with which they were entrusted by the people.

Then, support McCain.

The latent, which is to say, longer-term analysis of yesterday's political contests, confirms our electoral diagnosis that a significant number of voters are beginning to inhabit that broad swath of ground known unaffectionately among conservatives as the land of moderates.

On Laura Ingraham's radio program this morning, Fred Barnes, the Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard, was asked whether he felt the nation was becoming liberal.  He responded that although he's been reluctant to accept it, he believes that's the case.  He then wove an historical argument, one echoed in many of our posts, that there are broad cyclical changes in the political make-up of our nation, and that this may well be yet another tectonic shift. 

We have taken that argument further by observing that the early edge of those movements are all but invisible until after their impacts have been more fully realized.  The 2006 elections were the precursor, not unlike the early stages of a disease not yet widely expressed in the body politic.  Although, as Mr. Barnes predicted, either Obama or Clinton will likely win in November, McCain is the Republicans' best chance of defeating the Democrats' choice, which yesterday's results also make so glaringly apparent.

These are not conclusions we come to lightly or with even a trace of happiness, because we're thoroughly convinced that modern liberalism is a political relic of a past best left interred.  However, for reasons we've explored at length in previous posts, unalloyed conservatism, that is, the stuff of Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, et al, is starting to lose its electoral resonance.  It's the equivalent of teaching people about string theory or Etruscan art--it seems remote, impenetrable, and not applicable to their lives.

That's a manifest tragedy because the truth is that everything from our economic vibrancy to our civic freedoms are the product of the values and principles derived from the beliefs enshrined in the thinking of our Founding Fathers, who, it's axiomatic to note, wouldn't recognize our Republic in its current state.

When there's so much political dust in the air, reality becomes too difficult to parse.  That's the case now as we witness the editorial din emanating from pundits and the talk radio world.  The rapid ascension of John McCain and the continued infighting in the Democratic Party has created a froth of confused thinking that at once asserts that a McCain presidency will herald the end of the Republican Party and ignores the true horror of an Obama or Clinton presidency.

Indeed, the blogosphere, radio waves, print and television media are so thoroughly overheated that a kind of information meltdown might actually be a political balm for the nation.  Political races are all about prognosticating what's possible, a crude version of political calculus that defines the intersection between principle and electability, an act that each us performs differently.  But how can that account for the high-voltage hysteria about the prospect of McCain winning the nomination?

It's actually fairly obvious, and it revolves around the nascent sense of despair among conservatives that the movement is losing electoral traction, a fear shared by this blog's author as well.  We correctly see McCain as an inconstant ally in the fight to acquit conservative principles, arguing that adherence to them demonstrates greater fidelity to our Founding Fathers, the Federalist Papers, and our Constitution.

So when we are forced to suffer McCain's litany of breaches with that code, which is only exacerbated by the media which indulges and abets his political recalcitrance, it should surprise no one that it incites the pugilist instinct.  Yet, conservatives who carry a pragmatic gene that forces a periodic realignment of ideals with reality, are obliged to confront the possibility of a McCain nomination, which, recalling the line about climbing the stairs of a gallows, tends to focus the mind.

Although we recognize that the conservative platform has many planks, from taxes and regulation to a tacit support of American exceptionalism and a robust military, a fundamental truth about the next eight years is that the inhabitant of the White House will nominate two, perhaps three Supreme Court justices.  If, as it appears likely, McCain is the nominee, conservatives must perform a collective act of soul-searching and ask who would be more likely to nominate constitutional constructionists, McCain or either member of the Obama-Clinton dyad?

Sitting out the election, or, as Rush Limbaugh has threatened, voting for the Democrat to pre-assign blame for the assumed post-election disaster of a McCain presidency, is hardly adult-like behavior.  This election is not a fait accompli, as the surprises we've seen to date may continue in ways as profound as they are  unpredictable.  The strategically sound way to approach it is to support the most conservative candidate in the primary--which is to say, Romney--but be prepared to throw your political weight behind McCain.

If you've surfed the conservative blogs and their incandescent comments, you've been inundated by Cassandras convinced that John McCain will be the ruin of the Republican Party.  Others blame conservatives for their late arrival to the Romney party. 

Although past posts on this blog have been severely critical of McCain and his checkered voting record, not to mention his sponsorship of legislation clearly out of the conservative mainstream, there's a fact that many critics fail to recognize:  That is, the reason McCain will probably win the nomination is less the fault of conservatives than it is of the electorate nationwide. 

Thanks to political correctness, which has transformed the act of judging others into a felony, our public education system that has successfully inculcated an entire generation with the alleged virtues of secular humanism, and the omnipresent efforts to feminize our culture, the very notion of 'convservatism' connotes callousness, Darwinian capitalism, and avarice.

That's why even an ostensible conservative like Romney fell prey to health insurance mandates while governor, why Huckabee is off the reservation on trade, and why McCain gleefully advanced his 'cap and trade' bill with Senator Lieberman, which is little more than conservative penance and a tax increase in the guise of caring.  And, therein is how the left adroitly--if cravenly--framed their policy agenda:  You see, if you care about people it doesn't matter whether or not you're adhering to constitutional principles, to fiscal austerity, to a strong defense, which is to say, short-term, emotionally charged messages trump the heavy slog of two-dimensional policies that bring out the best in people in the long-term.

So, when McCain vilifies corporations, as he did in last week's debate, he's betraying a liberal pedigree, but so thoroughly has the media, academia, and the entertainment industry tainted the business world that he can do so with complete impunity.  And, when he chastises President Bush for his position on climate change, he's in perfect lock step with the Democrats who are convinced that man is responsible for every ill facing our planet, with Americans at the top of the list.

However, despite all of this, we shouldn't succumb to the siren song of political resignation because that plays right into the Democrats' plan to win the White House.  In contrast, if McCain wins the nomination, we should exploit the obvious advantages he can leverage:  Independents, which constitute the fastest growing political cohort in America, will flock to him in disproportionate numbers, and Lieberman Democrats (the modern equivalent of Scoop Jackson) will be drawn to his urgent plea to defend American global interests.

In brief, let's recognize why McCain's candidacy has headed to the stratosphere and use it to beat our common enemy, the unequivocally liberal Clinton and Obama platform, which is even more liberal than Senator Kerry's in 2004. 

Despondency and a morose attitude aren't politically attractive, which is to say they don't win elections.  There's much about McCain we don't like, but if he's our fate, let's sharpen him to a razor's edge and prepare for November.

Although the field of presidential candidates may be reshuffled after Tuesday, on the Democratic side it may not be decisive, given the fact that so many states are in play.  However, it's clear that the candidacy of Senator Obama brings with it a political calculus that's been fundamentally lacking in recent presidential contests.  He recalls Jack Kennedy's charisma and inviting demeanor and Ronald Reagan's endearing love of the common man.  Writing in The Nation, Christopher Hayes provides some of the allure of the Illinois senator as well as a measure of concern.

To get there we have to wade through predictably skewed bits of received liberal wisdom that vilify all things conservative, but the result is a view into the fervently hopeful wing of the party that is enamored of Mr. Obama.  What we're seeing in pieces such as this is the reanimation of the P-word--as in 'progressive':

The ideological implosion of conservatism, the failures of the Bush Administration and, perhaps most important, the shifts in public opinion in a leftward direction on war, the economy, civil liberties and civil rights are all coming together at the same time, providing progressives with the rare and historic opportunity to elect a President with a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change.

If Hayes has misgivings about Obama it's that he "shies away from speaking in ideological terms" which, for a liberal with progressive genes is tantamount to an apostasy.  That leads to the conclusion that Obama

seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the "bickering" and "divisiveness" in Washington.

The implication, of course, is that the problem is at once ideological and the fault of Republicans for not conceding.  This is strong medicine and evidence either of a rare kind of political prescience or a fatal flaw because the electoral muscle required for the "progressive majority" Hayes is calling seems to be lacking.  As the editorial advances, Hayes provides us with the view into Obama's rarefied thinking, which is his quixotic notion that "although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are." 

Really?  For those who watched last night's debate between Obama and Clinton--which was more of a love-fest that belied their off-the-field steel-booted tactics--they seemed like virtual carbon copies of each other, and they both appeared eager to genuflect at the altar of the hard left.  So, where are the Republicans who would be willing to work with the likes of Obama on say, health care, or on how best to deal with Iran?  On the former issue, he advocates a single-payer, government managed system, and on the latter, he's just itching to have coffee with Iran's dictator Ahmadinejad--hardly in concert with mainstream Republicans.

Indeed, as reported by the National Journal, in 2007 Obama won the dubious distinction of being the most liberal senator.  Clinton rang in at number 16.  In 2006 those numbers were 10 and 32 respectively, which gives you an idea of the direction of their trajectory.

There's one intangible and unpredictable factor in all of this.  As we've argued, the electorate is an organism in a permanent state of flux and there is evidence that the fringe elements on both sides no longer have the clout they once enjoyed.  If there's any truth to that, a properly costumed Obama might just be able to capture the imagination of moderates and Independents, but he'll have vie for them with his senate colleague, John McCain, perhaps the most liberal man ever to call himself a conservative.