This morning, I wrote about a phone call I got from Mitch Daniels and his proposed ‘truce’ on social issues. He elaborated on his ideas and some people seem hung up on this portion of what he said:
He did, however, want to clarify that he’s not just singling out controversial social issues. “I’m talking about all divisive issues,” he said. Clear and unified priorities are the only way he sees the country rallying around common purposes.
Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit notes: “He wants one on every issue that’s unrelated to solving the fiscal crisis (and terrorism).” Ramesh Ponnuru wrote “Gov. Daniels tells Mark Hemingway that he thinks the next president should stay away from ‘all divisive issues,’ not just social issues.”
It’s not my impression that Daniels is saying the next president should avoid all divisive issues; he’s just saying that when looking for issues to cast aside in favor of dealing with more pressing threats, any issue that is time-consuming and doesn’t contribute to solving immediate problems might get put on the back burner — not exclusively social issues.
More broadly, let me explain the truce this way: If the roof is on fire, Daniels is saying don’t stand around bickering about what color to paint the storm shutters. Even bigger problems with the house might need to be put off — we can agree those cracks in the foundation will have to be fixed eventually, but it’s a moot point if the house burns to the ground.
However, solving America’s problems is obviously much more complex than that crude metaphor. Figuring out what aspects of our politics might be subject to Daniels’ truce is likely to be a point of contention.
