I think that feels strange to some because both political parties are about “what’s in it for me.” Neither one has a sense of the common good that transcends the individual (which obviously reflects our Protestant heritage).

For instance, Pres. Bush based his embryonic stem cell speech not on transcendent values, but on utilitarianism, on whether or not the benefits are worth it. Europe, on the other hand, can be more restrictive on abortion, and Italy has imposed restrictions on in-vitro fertilization that are unthinkable here, because they can at least speak the language of the common good, they at least have some residual sense of metaphysics — what is the nature of reality? — left in their systems. We don’t.

Justice David Souter has triumphed: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

In the end, though, we still get a public philosophy that favors some and not others, but one that’s stitched together via Karl Rove-style constituent group pandering, not public debate. So let’s all come clean. If you agree with Souter, you’re a liberal. If not, you’re a conservative, and you agree we can talk about reconstructing a public philosophy, and base your arguments on the common good, not “leave me alone.” It may very well be that on a particular issue “leave me alone” is best for the common good. But can we at least agree to argue on conservative terms?