Holy cow. I didn't think there was any slack left, but somehow the usual suspects managed to crank the volume on the scream machine way past 11. If you haven't yet read Krauthammer in the WaPo or Henninger in the WSJ or John "Khmer Rouge" Gibson or Malkin on "Dearbornistan" then...  Allah has shown mercy on you. 

There's been some discussion here this week on developments in the GWOT and electoral fronts and the political ramifications thereof. But here's the broader question for the KnoxViews braintrust:  Is it possible for a political party to communicate a nuanced foreign policy?

Some think the GOP's overcaffenated response to the Lieberman loss and the foiled plot reeks of desperation, evidenced by yet another dip in the polls. But others think the GOP still has a direct line to the country's lizard brain. Literally:

An interesting branch of psychological research explores how people's decisions and opinions shift when they are reminded of their own mortality. It turns out that when mortality is made salient, significant changes can occur. For example, judges who are reminded of their own mortality are likely to give stiffer sentences to even nonviolent offenders, and once so reminded, ordinary people are more likely to engage in racial stereotyping.

[A]cross the political spectrum, many people believe, on reflection, that President Bush is simply likely to be better in protecting national security, and hence in protecting people against the threat of dying from a terrorist attack. The second is that a reminder of mortality or of the 9/11 attacks triggers a kind of visceral fear and outrage, and that visceral fear and outrage lead people to support the leader who seems more aggressive. The authors do not test these two possibilities, but their analysis strongly suggests that their view is closer to the second.

Of course the situation is different now from what it was in 2004; but it is doubtful that it is relevantly different. The upshot is that any reminder of the terrorist threat is likely to help President Bush, and probably to help Republicans generally, even (and here is the important fact) to the extent of causing a shift in their direction among moderates and some liberals. It remains to be seen if Democratic leaders can cause a change in the underlying dynamics.

Perfesser Dan Nexon wrote up what appears to me to be a pretty good outline of a "progressive" approach to the War on Whatever it is We're Fighting. Is this saleable? Does it reek of Kerryism?

Or should we recognize that human nature makes such an approach impossible, and adjust accordingly? Look at what some ancient Greek geezer wrote 2,500 years ago. Granted, he's talking about civil war, but doesn't this sound quite familiar?

When troubles had once begun in the cities, those who followed carried the revolutionary spirit further and further, and determined to outdo the report of all who had preceded them by the ingenuity of their enterprises and the atrocity of their revenges.

The meaning of words had no longer the same relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of a coward; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing. Frantic energy was the true quality of a man. A conspirator who wanted to be safe was a recreant in disguise. The lover of violence was always trusted, and his opponent suspected...

In a word, he who could outstrip another in a bad action was applauded, and so was he who encouraged to evil one who had no idea of it. The tie of party was stronger than the tie of blood, because a partisan was more ready to dare without asking why. (For party associations are not based upon any established law, nor do they seek the public good; they are formed in defiance of the laws and from self-interest.) The seal of good faith was not divine law, but fellowship in crime.

Steven Colbert provides the shorter, funnier version: