Today's Los Angeles Times ran an editorial under the headline "The real issues of election 2008" calling for economic and security issues to take precedence in the presidential campaign:

Last year, Sen. John McCain finished last in a Republican presidential poll held in conjunction with the [Values Voter] summit. This year's summiteers were newly enthusiastic about McCain because of his selection of their kindred spirit, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, as his running mate. Some of the faithful hope that the 2008 election will be a referendum on "values" -- as defined by them.

We hope they're wrong. A raft of issues will confront the next president: the faltering economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, a resurgent Russia, gaps in health insurance, energy policy and climate change. Especially after this week's turmoil in the financial markets, it's bizarre to suggest that this election should turn on abortion, same-sex marriage or the relationship between church and state. Though these remain important issues, the electorate would be the loser if they play as significant a role this year as they have in recent presidential races.

I guess I'd half agree with this. The more we focus on issues outside the culture wars, the better off we'll be, but we can't just wish wedge issues away. We need an alternative framework. Long wars typically don't end until one or both sides more or less run out of bullets, and as much as I've enjoyed watching the Religious Right's influence wane, their munitions factories are still humming along. I don't have the solution, but I think a good starting point is deciding whether we're trying to end the war or trying to win it. It is an important distinction, and one that each of us who care about politics owe ourselves to ask. I for one don't think this war can end in victory -- for either side.