Aristotle said that man is a political animal. Plato records that Socrates showed that the politics of no man would scuttle his ship of thought, so he drank some hemlock and spent eternity considering if he made the correct choice. Later on, Augustine came around and changed the way the Christian church thought about politics, but to think that Augustine's influence was felt only within the church is show that one does not think at all.

Augustine said that man has no political goals because he is a citizen of two worlds, and this world, his city of man, was a sinful place because man's reason was corrupted by the fall of Adam. Think this is just ancient nonsense? Look at the laws on the books for a couple millenia; they all point to an Augustinian view of the world: man is sinful, his reason is corrupted, he must be held in check- and it's the government's job to do that. Hobbes agrees with this.

While Augustine's ideas have always been debated or partially understood, many religious communities have taken the Augustinian idea to a new level: Anabaptists, Quakers, some Menonites, and within recent years, "pacifists" within all traditions have sprung up not solely because of Augustine's writings, but their choices reflect a partial Augustinian understanding of man's relationship to the polis.

Instead of calling people Republicans and Democrats, we should be calling people Augustinians and Thomists, after Thomas Aquinas. Augustine said that virtue will never be achieved through the state, that the state will never save anyone, and that the church is the social instrument by which virtue is achieved and the polis redeemed. Aquinas largely thought the opposite, with a few caveats. Does this dichotomy exist today? You bet it does. Does anyone realize it? Most political scientists do. Do politicians themselves? Take my word for it: not likely.

But realize that when Republicans talk about limited government and empowering the church and the private sector, they are on very firm theological, political, historical ground. The problem is this: the Democrats aren't on too shaky of ground either. Are there major differences between practical outcomes of those differing interpretations? You bet. But it's not simple enough to say "I'm for limited government," or "I'm for the welfare state."

Further, when thinking about Republicans and Democrats, consider this: you could call Republicans, or some Democrats, Platonists. Why? Plato proposed the idea of the univeral law, the absolute truth. Christians, Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims all could be called Platonists. Don't write a cartoon about it in certain parts of the world. In the words of Austin Powers, that's not using one's head, being very headstrong, etc.

My point is simply that you can't demonize people for being Republicans or Democrats outright. It's fair to attack positions, but it's important to realize the deep theological underpinnings that undergird much current political debate. The more you know, the more you can effectively judge.

According to many commentators and Democrat friends of mine, the problem with John Kerry was not that he was a liberal Democrat; it was that you never knew where he stood. Couldn't the same be said of Hillary Clinton? One commentator recently said that she's a triangulationist: she sees where everyone stands and tries to accomodate that. Russ Feingold, a senator from Wisconsin, and Paul Wellstone, a former senator from Minnesota, are much more respected because they are/were honest liberals. They take liberal positions, champion liberal causes, and are not ashamed to say it. It's much easier to carry on a meaningful dialogue with and about these people because you know from where their thinking originates, you know where they might come out, and you know what the political and philosophical boundaries are going to be.

So what i'm saying is that I'm in favor of liberals being liberals, conservatives being conservatives, and no one being in favor of Hillary Clinton.