Start with the key question: How did your Republicans become the bad guys, while the Democrats with all those racists in their ranks became the good guys?

Actually, it was easy. The Republicans had no profile solving the problem, while their fringe element was seen as part of the problem. Meanwhile, their leadership took politically calculated positions that many people saw as transparent and morally wrong. This combination continued throughout a major political crisis in the 1960s, and the deep stain it left cripples the party to this day.

Let's review:

The Republicans were not affiliated in any major way with the groups seen as fighting for the civil rights cause. Indeed, many were culturally and politically opposed to the "flower power" movement, which did have substantial cross-over into civil rights as it was rallied by the likes of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy et. al. I don't think many hippies were Republicans (yet). Bottom line: no profile in the solution column.

Meanwhile, the John Birch Society was vocal in its opposition, as were many local Republicans. Wallace may have been a racist, but were his Republican opponents attacking him on it? To ask the question is to answer it. Indeed, all too often they were seen instead as quietly tolerant of the racist elements in their own midst.

So what was the "official" Republican response? Attachment to formal bodies and empty legalities, mostly, even when the results one defends (like the oh so legal voter tests use to deny blacks the vote) were sickly farcical. The centerpiece was a defense of "states' rights," a position not limited to Republicans but one embraced by many.

In fairness, some did hold honest views re: division of powers, and the importance of solving this problem without tearing up comfortable frameworks that stood for important principles. Yet some of them, too many, used the words instead as code that meant not "later" but "never." It was a cover for a position that would let Alabama et. al. alone to deal with their Negro population any way they liked, while allowing "states' rights" proponents to wash their hands of the results.

The transparent dishonesty of such ploys in the face of a real problem were obvious to many, the damage incremental each time but deep and lasting. No doubt there were serious, committed Republicans fighting for civil rights... but they were lost in the noise.

The United States has paid twice for this failing. Once in the wounding of one of its great political parties, and once in the lack of a counterweight to the inevitable excesses of a political program with no credible opposition.

The result has been a yawning credibility chasm that still colours America's body politic. Raging against the unfairness of it al does nothing to change it. Indeed, it will only change when the root causes are openly debated, accepted, understood, and internalized. Until then, everything the Republicans do will look like an attempt to paper over an internal rot that many suspect still exists.

If you yourself are a Republican-leaning American, consider: this analysis is coming from someone who believes that the Republican policies on racial issues are objectively better than the Democrats' approach. Someone who would, in fact, place far more trust in the American right to respond strongly to real prejudice. Which may be heart warming, but doesn't change your situation.

The parallels today with the Democratic Party on national security issues are striking. Were I a liberal hawk, I'd be deeply concerned.

The Democrats currently have no credible role as people with solutions to the current political crisis of national security in an age of mega-terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The "trustworthiness" poll gaps approach 30%.

Meanwhile, the radical left is visibly part of the problem. Noam Chomsky, Ted Rall et. al. are part of it, and so are the "peace" protesters who daily demonstrate a cementheadedness that would do the worst southern bubba stereotype proud. Many, even among their compatriots in the Left, suspect that their real agenda is often more driven by hate than by anything they're fighting for. Worse, many outside the left see mainstream liberalism as uncritical or even tacitly tolerant of the haters and radicals who appropriate the "liberal" label.

And the "official" Democrat reponse? As weak as their Republican counterparts in the 1960s. Proceduralism and arcane legalities used to oppose substantive policy. Evasions and insincere criteria used to play down the need for action. Appeal to bodies and empty legalities even when the results one defends are sickly farcical (i.e refusing to sanction action in the face a real threat, because it conflicts with French oil interests and so cannot secure U.N. approval). "Condemnations" that ring hollow in the face of actions that contradict their words.

Some, perhaps many, are sincerely committed to the principles they defend: multilateralism, the United Nations, international law (translation: "the rights of states"). Yet some of them, too many, used the words instead as code that means not "later" but "never." It is a cover for a position that would leave Iraq et. al. alone to deal with their weapons programs and oppressed populations population any way they like, while creating comfortable illusions that allow "international law" proponents to wash their hands of the results.

The transparent dishonesty of such ploys in the face of a real problem are obvious to many, the damage incremental each time but deep and lasting. Serious liberals with serious plans? Largely lost in the noise at the moment, and invisible on the national stage. That may yet change, but time is running out.

The Party of Lincoln stills reaps the bitter harvest of its moral failure almost 40 years ago. Will the United States again pay twice for a movement's folly?