I think we need to take a few deep breaths and collectively think for a moment about what politics really means, and what we can expect from our politicians. I know it sounds a bit stupid to say that, but honestly it seems far too many people have incredibly unrealistic views of politics and politicians, and it is leading to some terribly silly outbursts this election cycle.

The first silliness, and the most obvious, is, of course, the fawning over Obama. Not to put too fine a point on it, but he is just another politician. A Harvard educated lawyer, he did his liberal apprenticeship as a "neighborhood organizer", was tapped for a sinecure state senatorship, and, when the original holder wanted the seat back, engaged in cut throat politics to keep his seat. He has shown at every turn that he is just as superficial, just as unscrupulous, and just as opportunistic as any politician. Which means that all those caught up in a schoolgirl crush are going to be sorely disappointed if he is elected. Once in office I can guarantee their "new politician" will engage in horse trading and compromises just like any politician, and his promises will prove just as untrustworthy as any of his predecessors'.

But Obama supporters are not alone. The right wing of the Republicans are just as unrealistic. Caught up disappointment over McCain they have not only rejected McCain, and the Republican party, but establish ed a checklist of criteria that no human could possibly meet. The illegitimate offspring of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan would still be a bit too socialist for the current crop of McCain haters. They have not only convinced themselves of the absurdity that McCain is worse than Obama, but they very loudly proclaimed they will basically vote Democrat until the Republicans nominate a candidate who meets every one of their criteria and then some. Fortunately, most conservatives have relented and decided a tenth of a glass is better than nothing, but had the extremists had their way, their grand scheme to "save conservative values" would have effectively silences conservatism, as no party was going to risk losing the entire center to appease a few all-or-nothing extremists. (Ask the hard line socialists in the Democrat party how well all-or-nothing demands work.)

Actually, on a related note, the conservatives and liberals have collectively been rewriting history to add to the unrealistic impression of politics. The conservatives have been busy recasting the memory of Ronald Reagan into the image of their perfect candidate. Forgetting Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, the retreat from Beirut, amnesty for aliens, and all the many compromises, the conservatives have taken their anti-McCain checklist and ascribed it to their mythical Reagan. It is a useful delusion, as they can now argue all they want is "another Reagan", allowing them to pretend their delusional desires are reasonable after all.

Not to be outdone, the left has tried to capture Reagan as well. Forgetting all the mockery, the senility jokes, and their efforts to portray him as a cowboy who would bring nuclear war, the left now claims that "everyone was opposed to communism". It now appears fashionable to pretend that, despite ideological differences, everyone cheered the "tear down this wall" speech, probably because no one likes to admit to having been on the losing side of history. Unfortunately, a few of us are old enough to know it just wasn't so. (The right has likewise engaged in a strange hijacking of JFK, pretending that somehow he was a conservative. He may have been, by today's standards, but that doesn't mean I want to claim him. Please, let the left keep the Bay of Pigs and his half-hearted intervention in Vietnam. We have enough mediocrities of our own, do we really need to steal one from the other side?*)

Returning to current matters, we have another strange delusion, that all it takes to be a conservative is to claim one is a conservative. Which means we have protectionist, anti-free trade, near neo-Nazi Pat Buchanan and big government Mike Huckabee milling around comfortably in our big tent. Now, I admit we can't be too doctrinaire in our platform should we hope to win elections, so the Republican Party does have to cater to positions other than the strictly conservative, but does that mean we also have to dilute the meaning of conservative to the point where Buchanan saying "Christian" once a paragraph is enough to make him conservative? Can't we define conservative narrowly and Republican broadly? Otherwise we end up with absurd debates such as Huckabee supporters telling free market proponents or federalists they aren't conservative because they don't believe the federal government should protect school prayer**.

We also have the absurdity of nominal conservatives arguing in terms that would make a liberal cry with delight. We see conservatives arguing that ANWR and off shore drilling should be allowed, but only if the oil MUST go to the US. I other words, they are arguing for essentially nationalized industry. It is a sad day when we see the liberals actually arguing for a more free market position than the conservatives.

And finally, we have perhaps the most damaging of our political delusions. After saying for years we don't want any more power hungry politicians, men who just crave office for the sake of wielding power, we finally had a candidate, Fred Thompson, who reluctantly entered the race and tried to state clearly that he was running for the good of the country and to reduce the power of Washington. And what do we do? We reject him because, sad to say, he wasn't eager enough to run for office. (This alone makes me think we really do deserve the politicians we get. Well, this and our anger at Phil Gramm for telling the truth.)

I am sure this list could go on and on, but I am sure you get the picture. For all the time and energy we devote to thinking about politics, it appears that we really are no more realistic about politics than teenagers are about their latest crush. And for all the mockery of the Obama cult, it appears the right is no less deluded. They want a statist solution to oil, while claiming to be free market. They want a man who is reluctant to hold office, but reject him because he isn't eager enough. The right's delusions may not be as embarrassingly juvenile as the Obama love on the left, but it is still every bit as unrealistic.

------------------------------------------------

* I know the effort here is twofold. One, to show that Kennedy supported cutting taxes and ,two, to show Kennedy was anti-communist. I suppose the point is to show just how far left today's leftists are. But really, do we have to pretend Kennedy was a great president to do that? Had he not been shot, he may not have even won a second term. And deservedly so. Do we have to twist the past just to make a point?

** For the record, I don't believe the government should say anything about prayer in public schools because I don't believe there should be public schools. On the other hand, if an individual state wants to fund a school system, the rules are the concern of that state, not the federal government. I would argue against even states funding schools, but as a federalist I allow that states have the power to do so, even if it is a bad idea.