Moderate conservatives, and other forms of ordinary people, are a naive bunch when it comes to politics.

Consider the Iraq war.

I recently read a conservative pundit who remarked on the oddity of a Democratic convention where 90% of the delegates said they opposed the war with Iraq, but were cheering and supporting a man who now said he was for said war. (Not to elaborate the oddity of celebrating Vietnam in the same context.)

Kerry's most recent statement is that he would have voted exactly as George Bush had, only he would have prosecuted the war more effectively. Viewed in the spectrum of Democratic presidential contenders, this puts him squarely in the Lieberman camp. The unpalatable Lieberman camp, if you recall.

"Where will the anti-war voters go?" one observer asked.

To Kerry of course. That guy just doesn't get it. I'll explain why in a minute...

Consider also Kerry's stance on gay marriage.

In February of this year, Kerry announced support for an ammendment banning same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and recently said he also would have voted for the ammendment to prevent gay marriage in Missouri. (Thanks Hugh.)

So why on earth is this Washington Blade editorial so chummy towards Kerry, portraying him as a defender of gay rights?

Gay delegates said Kerry’s record of support on gay issues, a record-breaking contingent of gay delegates, and convention speeches by three lesbians and two gay men made the convention gay-friendly and gay supportive. They noted that a parade of Democratic senators, U.S. House members and governors that spoke at the caucus meetings of the gay delegates this week also highlighted the party’s treatment of gay citizens as full partners in party affairs.

Why aren't gays up in arms about Kerry's lack of support? Why isn't everyone on the left dismayed by Kerry's lack of character and constant shifts on these stances? Why do conservative and unaligned observers keep expressing dismay at such and puzzlement at his continued support?

The answer to the above is simple: Leftists believe Kerry is lying about these issues. And it doesn't shock or offend them -- indeed it is a comfort and a good thing -- because it is exactly what they would do to get into office.

If that sounds like a shocking charge to you, be patient with me and allow me to explain further.

I recently attended a small get-together with Claire McCaskill, Democratic contender for Missouri's governor. On paper and in public, Claire appears to be a moderate on social issues: She's a mom, a wife, an active member (or so it says) of a Catholic parish. And she's not been as vocal on gay marriage as the incumbent Democrat, Bob Holden, nor is she publicly backed by various pro-gay groups.

But during the meeting, a well-known local gay political activist stood up and said that, public face aside, Claire was waaay more "on their side" (my paraphrase) than Holden was. She would "do the right thing" after taking office, even if she wouldn't "say the right thing" during the election. She would promote the gay agenda, if in office.

In other words, she's subtly deceiving the public, and that's a good thing, because it's how you need to get into office. The public isn't smart enough to know what's right, but we do, and we'll do it anyway. We just won't tell them in advance.

This is the modern Democratic tactic: Overtly telling John and Linda Q. Public that they agree with them on big ticket items (gay marriage, national security, taxes) while subtly signaling to their radical supporters that secretly, they're really on their side, and that they'll do the "right thing" (e.g. the radical thing) once in office.

Look at Kerry's record regarding intelligence and war: He's consistently voted against most of what makes today's army (and CIA) function. He supported the Moscow-funded nuclear freeze movement. His short stint in Vietnam was immediately traded in on the chance to join the ant-war crowd. What makes us think he's suddenly a hawk? Hard-core conservatives aren't fooled.

Nor are radical liberals, which is why they support him: He'll do the "right thing" once elected, no matter what he says now. In other words, he's lying, and that's a good thing. It's not a problem. It's what I'd do to gain office, in this backwards country, and if it gets Bush out, that's well worth it.

But many people -- undecideds, independents, moderate Democrats and moderate conservatives -- don't realize this is going on. They seem puzzled by Kerry's contradictions, or, if really uninformed (like one fellow I met a week ago) are actually impressed by the content of Kerry's convention speech. And conservatives say: "Where will gay marriage proponents go now?" or "Where will war opponents go now?"

Why, to Kerry of course. At some level, they know or hope he's lying, and think it's a good thing: A moderate Democrat, who opposed the war but also opposes gay marriage will assume, regarding the war, that Kerry is just saying what he needs to do to take office and will also be assured by Kerry's stated opposition to gay marriage. The gay will know Kerry is lying on both points.

Kerry's lying. But that's okay. I'd do it too, in his place.

Stop being puzzled, conservatives. The hardcore left is dishonest. They don't realize it, of course, but it's what's going on deep down inside.

I used to be uncomfortable drawing such conclusions: I'm not big on pretending to be an expert on other people's feelings and motivations. But after struggling with this issues for a long time, I've concluded it's the only remaining explanation which matches the data, and it matches it precisely.

It's not really that Bush was wealthy. Kerry is richer. It's not really that Bush lied. Kerry lies more. It's not that Bush is overspending. Kerry promises to overspend even more. It's not that Bush favored the war. Kerry claimed to have been a more ardent supporter of it, and says he still does, as does Clinton. It's not that Bush was delict in his duty as a soldier and wouldn't release his records. Kerry still hides his. It's not about alleged "Republican racism": While Bush has appointed probably the best multi-cultural cabinet in history the left is now resuming it's former antisemitism. All these are side issues, temporary sticks to beat others with until they break and another bludgeon -- even the opposite one -- must be used.

It's all about needing to feel justified, and need to identify an "evil" opponent to oppose. It's about need to feel like a "righteous" person, involved in a monumental struggle. Liberalism is a team sport, based on group identity and self-justification, and the need to hate someone else in order to feel righteous.

In other words, it's all about sin.