I think Saletan hits pretty close to the bull's eye with this. I only disagree strongly with him when he writes:

People are voting Republican because they think you're weak. And, let's face it, you are weak. You say you'll defend this country, but then you go on about consulting other governments, cultivating goodwill, and playing well with others.

I do think there's a weak, wimpy, silly peacenik wing of the Democratic party. Before you reflexively bash me for that, remember that I sometimes call myself a quasi-pacifist. (By which I mean: I think that violence is rarely warranted, and that its consequences are almost always far worse than people think they will be. I'm not a real pacifist because, as part of the reality-based community, I recognize that breaking things and hurting (bad) people is sometimes the only way to defend what's right.)

So, yes, there's a wimpy wing of the Democratic party. But it's absolutely absurd to say that "consulting with other governments, cultivating good will, and playing well with others" makes us weak. Rather, doing all those things as much as possible makes us stronger in two ways: first, we have more allies and fewer enemies. Second, when we DO have to go it alone, as we did in Kosovo, we have built up moral capital which can be used to encourage others to follow our lead. So Saletan is just being silly there.

But if you want to know what kind of Democrat (or quasi-Democrat) I am, it's the kind Saletan describes in this article. What Democrats need to do, IMO, is to adopt the counterpart of Bush's "compassionate conservative" paltform. We need to be...well, don't ask me to make up a snappy term for it, but...resolute, tough-love liberals. (But, unlike Bush, we should really mean it; it can't be a mere slogan.) We want to work with others and play nice so that war isn't necessary, but we make it clear that we'll use force if it is necessary. We want a strong social safety net, but we're not going to take money away from hard-working people to give to people who are unwilling to work or otherwise irresponsible. We know there are some things government does best, but we won't expand the reach of government unless we can't reasonably expect to achieve the relevant goal in any other way.

See, that's the way I've always seen the Democrats, and it's only of late that I've come to realize that, even if that's what they are really like, there are strong currents in the party that threaten to carry it in a bad direction, farther to the left, down what I think is the (or, rather, a) road to perdition. To some extent when people vote they are voting for the ideal that the party represents, voting with an eye to what the party would do for/to the country if it could completely implement its ideals. Elements of the Democratic party would, I think, enfold us all in the smothering arms of an all-pervasive nanny state if they got their political druthers. That element is not dominant in the party, but the stronger it is, and the more tolerance the rest of the party has for it, the less appealing the Democrats will be to many average voters. I myself become less sympathetic with the Democrats when they become more sympathetic with the nanny state ideal.