I was in Asheville, N.C., a couple weeks ago working an event for Pop the Cap, a group that is trying to change the beer laws in our fine state. Basically, we want to be able to purchase beers that are stronger than 6% alcohol by volume (most "macrobrews" are somewhere between 4.5% and 5.5%, while more than a third of the world's most popular beer styles--and more than half the beers made by craft brewers in the U.S.--are above 6%). As often happens while drinking beer, people talk. I talked to one man who started our conversation railing against liberals and their ilk. I listened for a moment and offered a riposte.

"Well, I live in the People's Republic of Durham," I said, which is the easiest way I know to lighten a potentially acrimonious political discussion. He laughed. We got along. A common love of fine beer can be helpful in these situations.

Anyway, we got to talking, and this man espoused an awful lot of "liberal" ideas. He's pro-choice, doesn't think Social Security needs to be changed, is in favor of affirmative action, etc., but he voted--without hesitation--for the Prez in the last election.

"The way I see it, this country can't survive without oil. And if we have to go take over the Middle East, well, goddamn it, that's what we have to do." He went on to explain that his position was grounded in the fact that he loved his kids, and his kids would need oil to keep America great--or something like that.

I didn't agree with that or with much else of what he said. He didn't agree with a whole lot of what I said. But we agreed that what has to happen is that people who don't agree need to work together to make the country work. And so we parted (sipping our fine brews) agreeing that the folks running our country aren't doing their jobs correctly.

All this talk of "red" and "blue" (and "purple," for that matter) states is absurd. There are very few red and blue people, much less large groups of such people. Yes, most folks vote predominantly Democratic or Republican, but most folks also split with their party's leader now and again. While it is true that during my lifetime I have voted for more Communist Workers Party candidates than Republicans, in last November's election I voted for a Republican and a Libertarian (both lost). My personal belief is that there are things a government should take care of, and on those issues I am Socialist. There are other things that the government has little or no business handling, and on those issues I am Libertarian. It's all in where I draw the line, of course, but I think that's the way most people are. The vaunted neo-conservatives are in the middle of a civil war amongst themselves. Even this supposedly narrowly-focused movement is roiling with disparate opinions. Hey, man, that's the way of the world.

The reason I liked Howard Dean was a candidate last year was that he approached his job as Vermont governor as one of fixing problems in a way which helped the most people. His record is not one of far-left loony or retrenched reactionary. He's a pragmatic liberal, his pragmatism being the most important thing. Visionary leaders are nice, but they're rarely wildly popular among the masses. The reason Bill Clinton would still smoke the Prez in any contest is not that he is all that much more liberal, but that he views the job pragmatically rather than ideologically.

In a homogenous society, it is often useful to have divisive political leaders, if for no other reason than to stir up new ideas. In a society as heterogeneous as ours (I think it's safe to say that America is the most mixed-up country in the world--for better and worse), good leaders ought to strive for consensus. Yeah, I'd like to see single-payer health care, but I'm willing to listen to any ideas which improve our current system.

The coming fracture within the Republican party (wait and see how the Yankee senators vote on Supreme Court justices and other important things) will be interesting to watch. At some point, Republicans will have to decide whether they're in favor of limited government or an all-powerful, highly-interventionist America. The two ideas are, of course, mutually exclusive. If the Prez wants to have any sort of significant legacy past the worst fiscal performance of any president in history, he'll have to do what he claims he never will: compromise.

And if he does, I'll be one of the first to give him props. He'll finally--after years of trying--actually be doing his job.

Jon Worley sees millions of shades of gray.