For reasons best left to future cultural anthropologists, many on the left are reticent to use the word 'victory.'  Whether it's achieving a victory in the form of energy independence or in Iraq, it just seems insurmountable to liberals.  Writing in today's Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg links the tandem terrors of Gitmo with Yucca Mountain, arguing that nuclear energy and keeping terrorists secured are in America's best interest.

Let's set aside that the much vaunted French currently use nuclear energy for eighty percent of their nation's energy needs.  And, of course, history is replete with examples of enemy combatants being detained until the cessation of hostilities.  The fact that these are stateless foes without uniforms makes the argument even more compelling, save for those who instinctively characterize criminals as victims.

And, therein might be the solution to this conundrum, although it would be apparent to all but Democrats.  We can stipulate that justice for all is a healthy motto, but we would also add the codicil that it's reserved for U.S. citizens, something the left's anti-nationalism positively fears.  But against the backdrop of our engagement with radical Islam, retaining those enemy combatants seems like a low intellectual hurtle.  Yet the left, and a growing number of moderate Republicans, have concluded that Gitmo is evil incarnate.

Whether it's due a short-term memory problem or the absence of historical precedent, many Americans seem to have a stunted sense of justice, one that holds the U.S. to a disparate set of standards.  That takes us back to the propensity of liberals to have sympathy for criminals, which they seem to hold as dearly as any virtue.  In part, that's because the left habitually forgives pathologies such as patterned criminals.  Why?  Well, you see, it's not really their fault--they were children of alcoholic parents, abused themselves, living in a nation with systemic racism--the list is as tiresome as it is endless.

It's the palaver you can be assured is being piped into our children's brains at every turn in our public school system, along with condom etiquette and the virtues of recycling.  Never mind about the Federalist Papers, or Adam Smith, or Edmund Burke, not to mention enough mathematics so they can balance a check book.

So, the world's criminals, whether the common variety or totalitarian despots such as Saddam Hussein, are given a pass, as the left only grudgingly admits the world is better off without Iraq's dictator.  It's as though their determined to make the world safe for despots while hobbling our nation with an ineffective energy policy, one which forces bio-fuels and wind on the masses, when nuclear power is clean, safe, and effective.

This chapter in our nation's history will be a joy to write, because it's rare that an entire party is so unmistakeably guilty of ignorance, intellectual myopia, and moral indifference.  Living in this age, we have some slight idea of what Churchill must have suffered as he watched Hitler walk all over Europe.

A hallmark of bias in all its unsavory forms is the irony that attends its authors:  They often don't recognize they have it.  Add to the list of extant prejudices that of the elitist, and for the analysis we turn to Stanley Crouch, who blindly confuses education as a method of economic advancement and the academic, intellectual elites that often issue from the likes of Harvard--that is, Senator Obama and his wife, Michelle.

Crouch writes:

It has become commonplace for the predictable millionaire puppets of Fox News and their conservative talk radio counterparts to present themselves as the voices of the working class in combat with an educated elite from places like Harvard.

But beneath those cliches fester ideas that are deeply anti-democratic.

They are anti-democratic because they scoff at this basic truth:  Education is the key to social mobility in our country.

We can stipulate that education, be it at a community college for a technical skill or a university to study business, is the most reliable guarantor of economic success.  No one, certainly not the "millionaire puppets of Fox News and their conservative talk radio counterparts," would argue otherwise.  But there's a glaring distinction between education for advancement and the arch elitism and condescension so manifest in Mr. Obama.

It's not just his profound misjudgment about the working class folks in Pennsylvania, it's the collateral condemnation of their values that his criticism reflects.  Indeed, for elitists such as Obama, religion and guns--his twin targets in his remarks to a moneyed crowd in San Francisco--are mysterious anachronisms.  For them, the former can only be parsed as a political cudgel, something to be exploited a la Reverend Wright, and the latter is a key factor in their jaundiced view of gun owners who are in the grip of a Neanderthal complex, which the left loves to vilify.

That stated, there are poor, uneducated elitists just as there are Harvard graduate elitists, the key ingredient is the craven, willful propensity see others as beneath yourself due to differences in values, paramount among them is religion, because it so thoroughly inform all others.

Honest political differences create the civic tension that keeps our Republic healthy and vibrant.  However, when the debate is infused with moral and cultural animosities based on a disdain of others, we've lost that vital thread of commonality that makes America great.  Obama might still be able to convince voters he's not an elitist, but given his recent behavior, it will be an uphill challenge.