One under-remarked aspect of the Sen. Allen controversy strikes me as being somehow telling about much of the national GOP. Just before his notorious remarks, Allen said, "My friends, we're gonna run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas." The contradiction between those high-minded words and the subsequent remarks boggles the mind. So regardless of their motives, the Republicans need to be called out on these and other cynical tactics.

We know, for instance, that they will probably rely once again heavily on using irrelevancies and distorted generalizations to smear the Democrats as weak on national security (indeed, Allen went on to discuss this issue), rather than acknowledging that we actually have different ideas about what will best serve the cause of security and debating the issue in detail. It's not wrong for the Republicans to argue that they can do a better job keeping us safe. Obviously, many really believe that. The point is that they tend not to argue it, but to use slogans and non sequiturs to elide the need for argument. By contrast, we need to step up and argue that fighting random bad guys, especially elusive ones hidden among a population that hates us, is not real toughness but, especially once that pattern becomes clear, a sign of weakness.

In so doing we can inspire the voters by showing them what a campaign of real "constructive ideas" looks like. We should criticize the Republicans' record, not their motives, and will articulate different priorities, including better and better-distributed homeland security funding, deescalation from the nascent Iraqi civil war, and efforts toward improved diplomacy, intelligence, and law enforcement cooperation -- not to mention domestic policy, where people already trust us more. (Of course, they have started to trust us more on security, too.)

If we highlight conservatives' use of cynicism as an election-year tactic without retreating from the substance of the debate on security, we can remove some of their (largely unjustified) image of being "the party of adults." We would stand a good chance of not merely winning seats in both chambers and control of the House, but of changing public opinion even further from its traditional deference to super-hawkish views. Substance alone is not enough -- the GOP moves voters effectively with emotional appeals -- nor is aggressiveness by itself enough: the naive and angry left theme is a popular enough media stereotype already, thank you very much -- and improved security is urgently needed. But an optimistic, tough campaign of ideas can help us make the GOP's use of cynicism at least a little less respectable and raise the level of the discourse a bit. That, in turn, would make it a little harder for the next (defiantly defended) defiance of reality by the president to pass muster with the people. But this larger-scale change may well depend on recognizing specific examples of broken ruling-party promises to exhibit goodwill and honesty in both politics and policy and then bringing these examples to the media's and public's attention respectfully, and firmly, and repeatedly.

If the Republicans' line of attack for the upcoming campaign is so predictable, why do we get so flustered and silenced by it? That is, we all know it's going to be cut-and-run, what's-your-plan, take-the-fight-to-the-terrorists, don't-trust-those-liberals, 24-7. I think a big part of why this tack works is that invading Iraq is a big, tangible response to a terrifying and despicable threat. Its advocates can say, "We're for doing this. What are you for?" Suffice it to say, being confronted with that question is not the time to raise the important topic of healthcare. Therefore, we need to get conversant with the ways and instances in which the shadowy world of internationally coordinated law enforcement and intelligence actions rooted in a commitment to competence rather than ideology have helped keep us and others safe. Without examples at the ready, we will look like armchair warriors ourselves, dedicated only rhetorically to getting at the enemy, which many people will feel is insufficient, the policy merits of our views notwithstanding.

Matt argues against banning liquids on flights, making a number of valuable points. But my question would be, How many people are really going to be dissuaded from flying because of this restriction? Leave aside the enormous time-saving factor that flying often offers busy travelers (lines and delays notwithstanding). Instead, remember that they bring you beverages during the flight, and other most other liquids (cosmetics, for instance) probably aren't crucial during the flight itself (and you can pack them with your luggage).

This is the kind of inconvenience that pretty much only seems like such until you get used to it, which I think people will, and rather quickly. Not every inconvenience that improves security is worthwhile; convenience is an important value in itself, and one that affects people's choice of travel modalities. But there's something to be said for trying to make the terrorists' job a little bit harder on what we know has been one of their major target categories. Yes, this may motivate them to pursue softer targets, but that's likely to happen at some point anyway, and requires its own analysis. As both a policy and a political matter, security spending shouldn't devolve as quickly as Matt implies into a zero-sum game. So the dual-use security strategies Matt describes deserve increased support, but not necessarily at the expense of rigorous airline security, including an ongoing liquids ban.