Over here in the alternate universe where we’re grateful for the service of former-president Clinton, there’s one thing I find troubling about his legacy. (No, not that.)

It is the conclusion that, to win, we have to “go for the middle.” There has been a lot of griping about this from the party faithful, even during Clinton’s term. As we keep tacking right, the middle becomes the “center right.” I’m not so sure about that claim, but I have a different problem with going for the middle: it is an utter failure.

As even his bitterest enemies would concur, Clinton was a genius at it. He could argue a position that made no sense at all, and sell two thirds of his listeners on it. He pulled off “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” for goodness sake. He is without equal.

But if you aren’t a genius at it—correction, if your name is not Bill Clinton—this strategy will never work for you. It doesn’t even matter if your last name is Clinton, it does not work Hillary. It’s not just that you disappoint people who want you to take more liberal positions. It’s that your pathetic attempts at snagging “family” voters are so entirely opposite to liberal values that you’re turning a generation of smart kids into conservatives that hate you.

Unfortunately, mushy middle thinking hasn’t just taken over top Democratic politicians. Many liberals claim to believe in (and perhaps they actually do) compromised positions that have no fundamental logic to them, no heart, nothing to hold on to.

This is where we stall out on a question that’s important to many of us, “Is it okay to be gay?” We’re all good with the answer (“yes,” right?) but when it comes to explaining why, we head straight for mush-land. It’s okay because God made me/I was born that way.

The problem is that, no, there is no scientific proof yet that you were predetermined to be gay upon the moment of conception. (And if you would hasten science toward finding that proof, then you either didn’t see Gattaca, or came away with nothing more than “I would totally do Jude Law, even in a wheelchair.”)

So without any hard proof we’re left only with the heartfelt testimony of gays and behavioral scientists. Clutching at straws, political groups have tried to solve the problem by asserting that some dogs are born mooing. This is embarrassing, and I hate to be in any category with these idiots. Smarter liberals, fleeing the scene, can’t seem to come up with a better answer. What a mess!

So allow me to think one-step beyond the current impasse: even if we could prove the existence of mooing dogs or the gay gene, the value of that morsel is neatly cancelled by the rape gene. Wherever science eventually lands on these questions, you can be sure that many undesirable traits are genetically influenced. Establishing that you were born one way or another says nothing about the morality of your actions.

Cynical conservatives have known this along, which is why they’re happy to bait liberals into claiming that gayness is biologically determined. It’s a series of silent victories:

1. Gays are making excuses for being gay.
2. Gays are blaming someone (God, the universe) for their predicament.
3. Conservatives are upholding an unwavering standard.
4. Conservatives offer the possibility of personal growth, change, and defiance of circumstances (a damn popular movie narrative!).

Conservatives don’t have to make these points because everyone sees them instinctively. They win the argument as soon as the positions are defined.

Which is not to say that our lame argument won’t work on any religious person. There is a certain class of believers, mushy-believers, who believe in everything and nothing at the same time. They “accept” the existence of multiple monotheistic Gods. They “believe” in Jesus but aren’t quite sure about that whole resurrection thing. These people will yield to the born = okay argument, and there are a lot of them. We call these people… liberals!

So the practical value of this carefully calculated, near-universal liberal position is nil. No, it’s negative. We’re burying ourselves in rose-scented slush to avoid the awful truth that, as far as the law is concerned, religion is irrelevant. If the law is going to give greater protection to heterosexual couples than homosexual couples, it needs a reason to do so other than, “It’s frowned upon by many mutually incompatible religious credes.”

This is the argument we need to make—this is the one that makes sense.

After all that compromise-bashing, it’s worth mentioning that compromise can be a good thing, as a solution to an immediate problem. I advocate trading ANWR drilling for increased fuel economy standards or a higher gas tax, not because the position has any self-contained logic (other than lowered dependence on foreign oil), but because it’s worth damaging that wilderness to reduce emissions and save the world.

Now, please excuse me as I go to lecture teenagers about abstinence while handing out condoms to them.