1 America 2 America 3 America 4

Remember Sen. John Edwards and his "Two Americas" speech? Someone said recently that the impression one could gather from the New Orleans tragedy was that there were indeed two Americas.

I suppose one America would be the rich one that left town before the floods. The other America was the one that government allegedly has left to fend for itself.

I don't disagree that there should be a social safety net. Only a libertarian would disagree with that, and I'm not a libertarian.

It is possible to argue, however, that there must be recognition of the existence of two Americas because there are two Americas, because that's the way that people desire to live. Some people want to live a life of dependency on relatively meager government checks. And if that's true, then why not recognize it?

Why demand that America increase that funding to bring them up to the "other" America -- the one consisting of people who can or want to work? To be sure, we don't live in Victorian days anymore. There are no Oliver Twists asking, "Please, sir, may I have more?" That's not the America I know and love. That's not a Republican's vision of America. But neither is America a land where everyone makes the same amount of money, or enjoys a really nice life without even trying. It's just not doable. And it's not fair to those who actually are working.

Sen. Edwards' heart is in the right place. I think he wants an America in which everyone who wants a job, can get one. Who can object to that ideal? But by the same token, even this will not guarantee that there will not be "two Americas". In fact, there are more than two Americas. There are hundreds or thousands of Americas. There is the America of Donald Trump; there is the America of the Appalachian. There is the America of rock stars; there is the America of skid row. There is the America of brave men and women; there is the America of Ken Lay. And this is part of what America great -- our diversity of diversities. Our differences, coming together in the belief of the country and ideals that make up our beautiful land.

I think that we need to understand what it means to be just in this society. I am troubled that conservatives are not compassionate enough, as I've written. I think that many conservatives are simply incomplete, and this does not exclude me. But by the same token, liberalism cannot be taken at its face value, without acknowledging its severe limitations. We need to return to a true consensus as to what it means to support one's country, to do what is good for America, and not just ourselves. We need to understand what is socially just, and to understand that the law must be tempered by mercy.

Years ago, I asked folks if they had read John Rawls' A Theory of Justice. No one responded that they had. Rawls is a liberal, but his book is reasonable and rigorous, and I think we all should give his ideas, and others like it, a listen. And that includes me, you, and just about anyone else I can think of at the moment.

The world of ideas is both a labyrinth and a treasure trove. But it's one that politicians may need to explore far more than they do now.