Marc Thiessen has written a splendid rejoinder to the conventional wisdom on Jesse Helms. As usual, well worth reading. He presents a pile of unadorned facts, not the emotional impressions supplied by those whose man lost a senate election due to an “unfair” ad.

The debate over Sen. Helms will continue, of course. But it should continue on the basis of facts. Do Helms’ critics have facts to go with their accusations? (Hint: Broder’s reprinted column is pretty sparse on facts and long on emotions and quotes from unidentified sources.)

Calling someone who beats them in a fair election a “racist” has become a favorite form of moral preening among liberals. It makes them feel superior, especially in defeat. It would be better for both liberals and the country to drop with form of moral vanity. In American politics, your opponents are usually people of good faith who see the world differently or rank the virtues in a different order.  Political opponents  may be wrong, but are usually not evil.  Once one accepts that, then a conversation becomes possible.  In our democratic republic, conversation and compromise are  how progress is made.

Regrding Helms, liberals might want to stop believing that millions of Americans are racists and wonder why a fair-minded person might find Helms appealing. I know plenty of conservatives who have gone through the same exercise with Sen. Kennedy. Now, they can understand him, but still not agree.

Both Marc Thiessen and I have made similar journeys by learning to understand and respect our opponents. When I first met Marc, in college, he was a liberal and I was a fire-breathing libertarian. One day, a political professor asked Marc, who was writing about divestment from South Africa in 1986,  to take the opposite point of view to the one his was comfortable with. He did. And an intellectual journey began.

Within a year Marc was leading the rebirth of the Vassar Spectator, “the journal of neglected ideas.”
It took me a while longer to come to my senses.