Bob Herbert writes for the NY Times. I’m copying this column in here because otherwise you need to register for the Times to see the piece. Frankly, you should do that anyway, but to save you time, here’s something you should read:

The so-called values issue, at least as it’s being popularly tossed around, is overrated.

Last week’s election was extremely close and a modest shift in any number of factors might have changed the outcome. If the weather had been better in Ohio. …If the wait to get into the voting booth hadn’t been so ungodly long in certain Democratic precincts. … Or maybe if those younger voters had actually voted. …

I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election’s outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush’s supporters believe the U.S. has come up with “clear evidence” that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president’s supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there’s a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd. The report said, “It is clear that supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions than those who oppose him.”

I haven’t heard any of the postelection commentators talk about ignorance and its effect on the outcome. It’s all values, all the time. Traumatized Democrats are wringing their hands and trying to figure out how to appeal to voters who have arrogantly claimed the moral high ground and can’t stop babbling about their self-proclaimed superiority. Potential candidates are boning up on new prayers and purchasing time-shares in front-row-center pews.

A more practical approach might be for Democrats to add teach-ins to their outreach efforts. Anything that shrinks the ranks of the clueless would be helpful.

If you don’t think this values thing has gotten out of control, consider the lead paragraph of an op-ed article that ran in The LA. Times on Friday. It was written by Frank Pastore, a former major league pitcher who is now a host on the Christian talk-radio station KKLA.

“Christians, in politics as in evangelism,” said Mr. Pastore, “are not against people or the world. But we are against false ideas that hold good people captive. On Tuesday, this nation rejected liberalism, primarily because liberalism has been taken captive by the left. Since 1968, the left has taken millions captive, and we must help those Democrats who truly want to be free to actually break free of this evil ideology.”

Mr. Pastore goes on to exhort Christian conservatives to reject any and all voices that might urge them “to compromise with the vanquished.” How’s that for values?

In The New York Times on Thursday, Richard Viguerie, the dean of conservative direct mail, declared, “Now comes the revolution.” He said, “Liberals, many in the media and inside the Republican Party, are urging the president to ‘unite’ the country by discarding the allies that earned him another four years.”

Mr. Viguerie, it is clear, will stand four-square against any such dangerous moves toward reconciliation.

You have to be careful when you toss the word values around. All values are not created equal. Some Democrats are casting covetous eyes on voters whose values, in many cases, are frankly repellent. Does it make sense for the progressive elements in our society to undermine their own deeply held beliefs in tolerance, fairness and justice in an effort to embrace those who deliberately seek to divide?

What the Democratic Party needs above all is a clear message and a bold and compelling candidate. The message has to convince Americans that they would be better off following a progressive Democratic vision of the future. The candidate has to be a person of integrity capable of earning the respect and the affection of the American people.

This is doable. Al Gore and John Kerry were less than sparkling candidates, and both came within a hair of defeating Mr. Bush.

What the Democrats don’t need is a candidate who is willing to shape his or her values to fit the pundits’ probably incorrect analysis of the last election. Values that pivot on a dime were not really values to begin with.

Americans take a lot of pride in our Revolutionary War success. Granted, it was over 2 centuries ago, but our school kids still learn about how the Redcoats were defeated because the colonists used unconventional war tactics. Bill Cosby has an old and wonderful routine likening the war to a football game. Before the game, the referee tosses the coin, which the colonists win. As a result the British have to wear bright colors and stand in straight lines while the colonists get to scatter in the woods and hide behind trees and rocks.

Now many historians have noted that the war was hardly that simple, and they are right. Nonetheless, this was a turning point in the history of warfare. It was an end to the old medieval European rules of engagement. It was the beginning of what we’ve called “modern warfare” which is far bloodier, has fewer rules, and results in more civilian casualties. It is focused more on winning that on playing the game.

Okay, so that’s a nice trip back to grade school. So what? Well, the “what” is that we seem to feel that this historical lesson cannot possibly apply to us now. But consider for a moment that the difficulty we are having getting our heads around terrorism and how to combat it is pretty darned similar to the trouble the British had trying to figure out how to cope with single soldiers hiding behind rocks. The colonists were as much “the terrorists” back then as the enemy we face now. We complain that the terrorists have no honor. They don’t fight openly, but rather from the shadows. They attack the innocent. They employ unconventional tactics. All claims that the British might have made of us back then. Hmmmm…

So why did the British lose the American colonies? Several reasons. Homefield advantage. People defending their own turf tend to be extra motivated. Arrogance. “We are the greatest army on the face of the Earth. Who shall stand against us? A bunch of disorganized farmers?” Uh-huh. They failed to adapt to the tactics of the enemy. They wanted the Americans to fight on their terms, and kept fighting the war the old way regardless of the outcome. They focused on their victories in battle and failed to realize that battle results do not necessarily add up to accomplished goals. And finally, the British lost interest at home. King George (hmmm…) was butt deep in domestic problems and other brewing threats to the empire and ultimately couldn’t afford to put enough attention and resources on the Americans to suppress the revolution.

Curiously, we find ourselves in Iraq in a situation disturbingly similar to the American Revolution, only now we’re playing the role of the British (ironically, so are the British). Are we smart enough to acknowledge this? Probably not. The self-righteous arrogance of the majority of the population (the ones who gave King George his “mandate”) will never willingly back away from the crusade.

So, we are saddled with the arrogance. We can’t change the homefield advantage. We can’t ignore all the other global and domestic problems which threaten us. That pretty much leaves the tactics vector as the one we can do something about.

So recognizing that, why do we drop leaflet bombs on Fallujah for two days warning them to get out before we attack. We steadily build up forces around the outskirts of the city, without attempting to seal it off. Then we roll in and are surprised to find all the insurgent leaders have left the city? Duh. We are proceeding from the apparent assumption that the insurgents want to battle our army. They don’t. They wish to blend in with the civilian population and pick us off a few at a time from behind rocks and sand dunes. We are playing the game like we are opposing someone who wants to win. We are not. We are opposing someone who wants to not lose. Strategically, that’s a very different thing.

Perhaps if we sent bright red tail coats to the infantry, then someone might get a clue. Hmmmm…