A lost art (in search of a label)

Last week, I took part in a debate between Republicans and Democrats. (And no prizes for guessing which side of the house I represented). Just before exiting, a self-described independent approached me. In a thick New England accent, he whispered that I struck him "as a good Democrat and as a fine Republican." \nI'm afraid many readers aren't quite able to digest that. Austere partisans might wonder if it is not an insult (and not only those conservatives who abjure labels like Democrats and Republicans -- as Reagan's secretary of the interior, James Watt, said, "It's liberals and Americans"). To be candid, I still don't know whether it was intended graciously. \nThat comment has come back to me as I've begun to notice a consensus rising that partisanship is more important than principle in politics. This is a problem because the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been so abused that they are hardly usable. I haven't found a satisfactory label for myself, and I am disappointed to say that under "political views" on Facebook, mine simply reads: "Other." \nBeing hard to weigh on the political scale is not to be a nihilist. I am a Republican, even if I am hardly part of the conservative movement. My fondness for energetic government and an activist foreign policy usually makes me an insurgent among conservatives. I might still be a minority in this and don't care if I am, but I applaud the "rebel in chief," as Mr. Bush has been aptly described, for alienating old conservatives. \nAs I understand it, the president's 'compassionate conservatism' closely resembles what was in the classic sense a liberal governing style. It was Ronald Reagan who said that "the classical liberal, during the Revolutionary time, was a man who wanted less power for the King and more power for the people." Mr. Bush has governed in the mold of great Republicans: Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan. "Not since Lincoln has the putative head of the Republican \nParty so actively sought to ground the party in a politics of natural right," wrote political specialists James Ceasar and Daniel DiSalvo in The Public Interest.\nFew have noticed, but the White House has adopted a so-called "neoconservative" outlook. I have been tagged with this same label, though there is nothing "new" or strictly "conservative" about my politics. Still, there is a sort of implicit compliment here that I find myself happy to accept: for neo-cons rallied behind President Clinton during war in the Balkans. The only way "conservative" can fit into this is if you regard us as conservative revolutionaries. Politics is, or should be, a point of principle, not party affiliation, but for striving to contain multitudes in their political persuasion, neocons, like their president, have found themselves out of favor. \nWhat's to be made of this suspicion toward those who have a contrarian view of politics? Even moderates might say that the comment I received after the debate is a non-sequitor. But not to me. I still believe that some put their politics where their principles are. And yet for the most part, principle in politics is a lost art. For shame.