I've finally find some time to collect my thoughts on this whole economic populism vs. the culture wars vs. moderation vs. whatever debate that Mr. Siddique has been going on about. It's been sitting in my mind for a while, but it became a bit clearer while watching Rick Santorum on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other day.

I don't agree with Santorum on much of anything, but there are two bits of common gound I've found with him. The first is that "ice cream is a delicious treat. But too much, sir, will spoil the appetite."

The second is there needs to be discussion about where our culture is heading--what is the role of family? What does it mean to be an American? What is the relationship between the individual and the community? Or communities?

Unfortunately, progressives usually respond to this in one of several ways:

Silly rabbit, social values are for preachers!

The first approach is to not give an answer, usually favored by policy wonks, economic populists, and bemused comedians. After all, aren't there real issues out there for you politicos to be dealing with? National security? Health care? The economy? Compelling state interests? Surely, those are more important issues than the latest wardrobe malfunction?

However, what these folks fail to realize is that first, for many people, social issues trump politics. There's no shortage of religions that emphasize the spiritual over the material. God will forgive me if I die of hunger, but He's sure going to be pissed if I condoned the murder of an unborn child!

Second, political leaders are more than policy makers. They're social leaders as well. How often have we heard that so-and-so politician is supposed to be a role model? Why do we have these concerns over ethics? If issues were all that mattered, then why do we have campaign ads trumpeting faith, compassion, and cojones?

I can't talk about that; there's an ongoing investigation

Yet even when progressives do address social issues, many do so in an oddly detached manner. At an abortion debate recently held at my school, the pro-lifers went on about the immorality of abortion and the tragedy of the fetus. Meanwhile, our side steadfastly avoided any discussion of the moral issue. "We're not here to discuss whether abortion itself is right or wrong," they said, "Only what will make good policy."

Again, that's fine if you're only a policy maker, but a lot more people think in terms of right vs. wrong rather than good policy vs. bad policy. You don't have to take a strong moral stance, but you at least have to address it. For example, say that "abortion is a moral tragedy BUT ... "

Or you can just go ahead and question their beliefs! When it comes to stem cell research, I think you'll win the debate that a single cell is not equivalent to my dear Aunt Sally. Sure, an embryo could eventually become a human being, but if you believe that God created us from dust, that means we shouldn't sweep the floor.

You're violating my bubble

In another college moment, we recently a row over whether to allow ROTC back on campus. Now there are perfectly legitimate reasons to keep ROTC off-campus. For starters, in this particular case, they didn't want to be there in the first place. But the argument that bugged me the most was that if we allowed ROTC back on campus, the BGLT community would feel insecure. That is, the campus is a coherent community with these values (namely tolerance) and we can't allow ROTC, an organization that doesn't embrace those values, into it, because it would shatter this value consensus, this "safe zone."

I find that this both cowardly and unsustainable. It's cowardly because you shouldn't be afraid to defend your beliefs and your identity. If someone wants to make a homophobic, sexist, or racist argument, let them. It's better to work out your differences than pretend those sentiments aren't there. Boot them out or shut them up, and you'll only create martyrs. If, at the end of the day, they're truly wrong, they'll only make a fool of themselves.

It's unsustainable because it divides the community. A lot of progressives take the view that we shouldn't force our values on each other. They say, oh well, we have different values. We obviously will never agree so let's just live in our separate little worlds.

Well guess what? We all force our values on each other. That's what being a community means. When Joe American objects to Bob and Bill getting a marriage license, the answer isn't "go mind your own business." Marriage is a state-sanctioned activity, and it's Joe's state as much as it is Bob and Bill's. And as a taxpayer and recipient of state services, Joe certainly has a say since the tax status of gay couples change when they get married. Ultimately, what progressives should be pushing for is not for one community in which Joe can maintain his homophobia and for another in which Bob and Bill can do whatever they want, but ultimately, to convince both sides to accept each other.

Fuck you, your values, and your dog

That's not to say that you should be uncivil when questioning another's beliefs however. Too often, progressives just end up mocking Christianity. They go off on long rants about how religion is the root of all evil, and how being a free thinker means rejecting all previous social norms.

That's great. It's also a sure-fire way to concede the race to your opponent. Social conservatives are serious in their beliefs. I've had the chance to talk to quite a few, and they're not all Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwells. They're not all rascist sexist homophobes, at least consciously. They can be reasoned with and convinced. For example, if you could prove that children raised by same-sex couples don't end up worse than children raised by heterosexuals, I'm sure you'd win a lot more acceptance for gay marriage.

But the only way to do that is to take them seriously. Try your best not to prejudge their views and see where they're coming from. Don't be afraid to have your mind convinced. Dismiss them with the back of your hand and they'll do the same.

But that's not all folks!

The culture wars aren't the only thing at stake here. Progressives need to talk about "real" issues as well, just not exclusively about them. Often, these cultural issues are connected to the "real" issues. For example, you can't talk seriously about immigration and globalization without running into questions of racism and national identity.

And then there are times when it may not make sense to talk about values, namely in the company of libertarians from the Northwest. But nevertheless, there are times when people will ask about cultural issues, and progressives should not be afraid to answer.

I don't expect that we'll always have all the answers to these complex cultural issues. There will undoubtably be some people with whose values we may never see eye to eye, and in fact, it's probably a good thing our value system isn't homogenous. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. For many folks, values are as "real" an issue as how much they pay in taxes, and even if you don't agree with them, talking about those values assures them that you at least take them seriously, that you're thinking about the same things they are, and despite the best efforts of the right-wing spin machine, that you really aren't a baby-killing hedonistic latte-sipping liberal wieny.