Iraq? The lefties debate only how fast to remove our forces. Conservatives debate what to do there, what constitutes winning, how to win.
Immigration? The lefties want amnesty, open borders, and no ID checks to vote, ostensibly to increase votes for Democrats. Conservatives have a genuine debate over amnesty (heck, even the President appears to support it), over how and how much to secure the borders, and over naturalization for those illegals already here.
Abortion? Every single Democrat presidential candidate is pro-abortion. Republican candidates occupy both sides of the debate.
Global warming? It's not the left who considers the possibility that it's a natural, cyclical occurrence.
Education? Liberal activists (outside of those in Congress) want NCLB ended. Conservatives have a diversity of views.
Just as an example, at last week's Concerned Educators Against Forced Unionism conference, I initiated some lively discussion with a speaker from the (conservative) Heritage Foundation, who, on the grounds of federalism, wanted to see NCLB gone. Additionally, he wanted to see federal education dollars go to states with few strings, for the states to do with as they see fit--again, under the banner of federalism.
I asked what was conservative about giving money to states with minimal accountability. While I understand the federalism argument, I say that if the feds have to be in the education business at all, there should be accountability a la NCLB. My view is a sort of Realpolitik, but I can justify on conservative grounds just as strongly as did the speaker from Heritage.
Townhall.com has an interesting piece on conservatives who are lining up to challenge the reauthorization of NCLB. The closing is brilliant:
Even the comments at the end of the article span a variety of positions.
But even one of NCLB’s most prominent supporters said the White House can no longer ignore the law’s critics. “I believe No Child Left Behind will eventually be reauthorized and should be, but I think that Senators DeMint and Cornyn’s proposal needs to be taken very seriously,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told me last week. “I would expect that their concerns will have to be accommodated somehow in the legislation.”
For all his stubbornness on immigration, President Bush would be wise to follow that advice. Extending his hand to critics now would present an opportunity to patch up the wounds inflicted during the immigration debate. It might also lead to a better bill.
The diversity of opinions is on the right; there's nothing "progressive" about the left.