Matthew E. Miller discusses the fundamental difference, in his view, between Democrats and Republicans:
I think modern day Democrats are deeply disconnected from the sort of patriotism that was universal in American politicians of the early 20th century, and continued until well past World War II (Johnson was the last Democrat to display hints of it); the sort of patriotism that says America is a uniquely good nation, capable of being a deep and abiding force for good in the world. The sort of patriotism which, ironically, unites the Fortress America types with the Wilsonian Idealists. And the sort of patriotism which has all but disappeared in Europe; persisting here merely as a byproduct of America's continued super-power status. It decries 'hyphenated Americans,' and insists on cultural integration. It vacilates between isolationism and robust globalism, both of which have their roots in a particular idea of the uniqueness of America; the former, with its interest in protecting her from a foreign world, and latter, with its sense of a sort of 21st century manifest destiny. It's in stark contrast to the neutered cosmopolitan/internationalism of the Democratic Party, and it instinctively rebels against an attitude towards illegal immigration which focuses on 'bringing people out of the shadows.' I'm convinced that the modern day Democratic Party can't understand this robust patriotism and couldn't begin to articulate it. And I'm convinced that a Republican Party that hopes to find a majority capable of propelling us through a bleak election cycle, has to take advantage of this. A few weeks ago, Mitt Romney was criticized for suggesting that we move 'in God We Trust' back to its rightful place on our coins. Despite the treacly nature of the suggestion, it hits upon a central vein Republicans must mine. We need to assert America's greatness, her uniqueness, and her preeminence in the world. We need to do so unapologetically, because I'm convinced the Democrats can't.
I wrote about the foreign policy divide between the two parties here. Presidential elections differ from congressional elections; your typical voter understands that his congressman doesn't have much of an impact on foreign policy. But the president does have an impact on foreign policy, and it's a considerable impact. When voters evaluate the two presidential candidates next November, a major consideration will be which candidate can best keep America safe. Matthew E. Miller is on to something.