We’ve lost our ability to reason in this country. It’s official.

I blame the two-party system for this. So much time has been spent trying to convince Americans there can be only two views on any issue that we have forgotten how to compromise.

We have forgotten that it is only in compromise that everything works, including the Constitution, which was only made possible through the Great Compromise to create a bicameral legislature.

On top of that, Americans are now simply taking the easy way out and trying to put everybody into a little box.

I am an example of this. My columns since my return to The Courier-Herald have generated quite a few angry letters – from both sides – and mainly from people who are trying to fit me into one of their little boxes.

And guess what? I don’t fit. But it doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

For example, I am not a liberal. Seriously. By most definitions, I am not a liberal, politically.

Now, I don’t particularly mind being associated with a word that literally means “open to new ideas” or the side of the political spectrum that not only gave us civil rights legislation, the minimum wage, weekends and, when you think about it, America (a democratic republic whose power is based on the consent of the governed was a tremendously progressive and radical idea for 1776).

But I hate it when people accuse me of things that I am not or try to paint me into some sort of corner because I happen to agree with a principle that is generally favored by the liberal left in this country – that health care should be something everyone has access to, not just those with money, for example.

But even in that column (go back and read it if you’d like), I came out FOR Attorney General Rob McKenna’s lawsuit because I believe the individual mandate is a vast overreach of federal authority.

But the letters we got did nothing but call me a liberal and attack me. Several even attacked me on the individual mandate, which, again, I do not support.

My next column was the immigration one and whoo dog, from the majority of responses you’d think I am personally making trips across the border with coked-up, gun-toting Mexican gang members in my trunk.

Again, re-read that column – for real this time – and you’ll see that the reasons I oppose the law are conservative reasons: protecting individual liberty and because the Constitution does not give the power over immigration law to the states.

Meanwhile, the people who attacked me for being a liberal completely ignored the fact that they are not only conceding their rights to the government by giving them this power, but also generally ignored the text of what I said and simply used my column to attack “liberals” on this issue.

Did I ever say we shouldn’t prosecute criminals? No. I said we shouldn’t use race as probable cause. Did I say we didn’t need to do something to help protect the people of Arizona? No. I said we can do better than this piece of junk law.

Now, I also said we should have completely open borders, but again, that’s rooted in the idea that EVERY MAN has the same individual rights and freedoms we are supposed to cherish in this country, another “conservative” value.

As a final, amazing example, last week we re-published an old column of mine in which I called the new cell phone law stupid because it is an unnecessary law that doesn’t solve the problem of distracted driving. It really does nothing except force us all to go out and buy shiny new earpieces.

But there, in the comments section of our Web site, is a comment that says “as a liberal, he should be applauding the cell phone law. After all, doesn’t Big Brother, the Nanny State, i.e., liberals, know what is best for all of us? Don’t they enjoy micromanaging our lives to conform with their ideology?”

Really? Um, then maybe the reason I don’t support it is that I AM NOT A LIBERAL. Duh.

I try to judge each issue on its own, which is why my ballots in November are all over the place. I vote for the best candidate to do the job and/or the person who best represents me, no matter what their party.

Again, I blame the two-party system for this sort of lunacy. The parties are so concerned about protecting their own interests and power that they don’t care about what is best for the country.

It’s why Republicans who spent the last 30 years demanding deregulation of the oil industry now say with a straight face that the president should be the one to blame for the leak in the gulf because the government isn’t doing enough.

It’s why Democrats simply kowtow to unions instead of taking a step back and realizing that maybe part of the problem in government spending is created by the contracts they signed.

Political power may be a zero-sum game, but when the parties fight over stupid ideologic issues, the real loser is the American people.

Which brings me to one of my favorite whipping boys: The “Tea Party.” Generally speaking, Tea Partiers are a bunch of angry, ill-informed loudmouths whose inconsistency on their own positions and total ignorance of government, history and the Constitution makes them impossible to take seriously.

But back before Sarah Palin and Glen Beck – who in Forbes magazine admitted he is an entertainer and doesn’t really care about the principles – got ahold of the Tea Party, they were a legitimate grass-roots effort trying to fight what they saw (wrongly, if facts mean anything to you) as unfair tax increases coming down the pike.

But since then, it has become a catch-all for every crazy and wackadoo who hates the president, with no leadership, no agenda and no ideas.

That being said, the Tea Party has had one excellent effect: We are seeing a rash of challenges to the status quo. People who would two years ago never have been interested in politics are now involved and some are even running for office, which I love.

The more choices at the ballot box, the better. Four years ago, I wanted to run for the U.S. Senate against Cantwell and McGavick because neither represented my interests. I wrote a column about it, in fact, encouraging everybody to run for office, because, as I said then, our government was set up so that any idiot can run for office and hey, I am any idiot.

In fact, we are all “any idiot” and if there is one thing the Tea Party has done, it has convinced people all across this nation they too can make a difference in politics. I am excited about the groundswell. I wish they would stay focused on facts instead of just trying to throw around their increasingly dangerous rhetoric, but hey, it’s a start.

There are presently 15 candidates in the field for the Aug. 17 U.S. Senate primary. Now that’s choice. Several of these candidates, most notably Clint Didier (whose own hypocrisy on farm subsidies immediately disqualifies him in my mind), are riding Tea Party waves, even challenging Dino Rossi, the party’s favorite son, and winning at the state convention last weekend.

And while I don’t necessarily think Patty Murray is doing a bad job, I will certainly review every candidate’s position and make my decision based on who I think can best do the job.

And I guess if you think that makes me a liberal, then so be it, because as near as I can tell by the usage against me, “liberal” only means a refusal to let a party do my thinking for me.