In his New Republic column, Jonathan Chaitexplains that, when it comes to health-care reform,the difference between Democrats and Republicansis notabout "how far to go, but in which direction":

The divide is simple. Democrats propose to shift resources from the rich and the healthy to the poor and the sick. Republicans want to do just the opposite. Republican health care plans reflect the partys increasingly widespread belief that good health, like other forms of prosperity, is a matter of personal responsibility. Democratic plans to help the sick at the expense of the healthy therefore amount to socialism.

Also in TNR, William Galston reminds us why democratic leadership is not always about obeying popular opinion:

With the passage of time, former Bush administration official Pete Wehner writes today, President Bushs decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. Wehner may turn out to be right. And his argument has broader implications that deserve our attention.

Wehner tacitly defines political courage as the willingness to go against public opinion in pursuit of what a leader believes to be the public interest. Fair enough. And unless one believesagainst all evidencethat democracies can do without courage, so defined, it follows that theres nothing necessarily undemocratic about defying public opinion when the stakes are high. After all, the people will soon have the opportunity to pass judgment on the leaders decision. And they will be able to judge that decision, not by the claims of its supporters or detractors, but by its results.

Republicans like Wehner acknowledge this truth very selectively, mainly in support of wars. Whathe callscourage in foreign policyis what the Republican leadershiphasmaligned as arrogance inPresident Obama's pursuit of comprehensive health-care reform.