It’s been a depressing few days, to say the least. I still don’t understand what happened, frankly, and I don’t think I ever will. Peter Lee penned a cogent piece on his website that has gotten a lot of attention in the blogosphere and that summarizes my feelings about the value divide quite well.

The pundits are buzzing about those mysterious “values” that somehow compelled 59,000,000 Americans to vote against what you and I consider their own interests, common sense, and decency.

I think “values” is a code word, like “Dred Scott decision” for a collection of more selfish and less admirable attributes.

“Values” can be a principled flag of resistance against the transformative, redistributive impulses of 20th century American liberalism.

“Values” is also a cynical flag of convenience, meant to occupy the political high ground and dignify and legitimize the practice of an otherwise mean-spirited, polarizing discourse that ill befits the world?s only superpower and the richest nation on earth.

It?s a mindset founded on self-interest and self-serving laissez faire ideology leavened with poor-little-rich-guy-victimization,and garnished with Fox News opinions and pious self-righteousness.

Republicans want to believe that responsibility, pain, costs, and consequences can and should always be outsourced, at least beyond the red heart of the homeland.

And it?s George Bush?s job to keep the wolf from the door, or at least busy devouring somebody else?s sheep for the time being.

An insurmountable percentage of the electorate will only accept national unity on these terms.

If that’s the case, then I don’t want national unity.

I want new progressive leaders.

Howard Dean. Barack Obama. Dennis Kucinich. Al Sharpton.

They have the energy we need. They have a hope for a better America. They have real “values.”

And they have my support.