The trouble with liberals is an overfondness of explaining every division that splits our nation or our world in terms of "miscommunication." The theory is that if we all just communicated a little better, all of the disagreements that separate us would simply sublimate into the ether and leave us all united together in one big hugging and snuggling peace-orgy.

The theory is simply jackass. What separates us is chiefly real differences and disagreements, not "misperceptions" or "misunderstandings." There is no amount of additional "outreach" and "exchange of viewpoints" that will erase the fundamental difference between a pro-choice voter and a pro-life voter.

Actually, in fact, it is not clear communication which helps bridge such differences, but artfully (i.e., dishonestly) unclear communication. Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" forumulation helped unite passionately-pro-abortion-rights liberals and more skeptical can't-there-be-some-restrictions? moderates, but the union was at its heart dishonest. They were politically united, but ideologically still opposed. And there was, in fact, an actual winner (abortion-rights absolutists) and an actual loser (moderates favoring some, but not absolute, abortion-rights).

Had Bill Clinton endeavored to more clearly "communicate" his actual position, he would have divided the nation more than his artful dodging did.

John Kerry similarly seems to think that the differences between the US and the Islamist murderers can be papered over with townhall-meetings and "outreach:"

''I think we can do a better job,'' Kerry said, ''of cutting off financing, of exposing groups, of working cooperatively across the globe, of improving our intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, of training our military and deploying them differently, of specializing in special forces and special ops, of working with allies, and most importantly -- and I mean most importantly -- of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.''

Most importantly, Senator? I'd've put that quite a bit down further on the to-do list myself.

What separates America from the Islamist killers and their supporters (both active and soft) is not the famous Cool Hand Luke "failure to communicate." Indeed, the communication is fairly clear:

* Islamists want to destroy Israel, and possibly kill every Jew living there, if it can be accomplished.

* Islamists want to repeal the Enlightenment, and they want to use mega-terrorism to limit the American projection of Enlightenment values until it can be repealed.

* Islamists support using terrorist violence against civilians whenever they believe, usually insanely, that they have a grievance with the west (or other Muslims, or Hindus, etc.).

These are not differences born of some "miscommunication" or lack of outreach or understanding. We understand each other all too well.

Or, rather, the Islamists understand that we are a subhuman enemy which God Himself has decreed must be eradicated from the face of the earth, and Americans, with the exception of John Kerry and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, understand that we must fight against them in order to convince them their demonic agenda will not be permitted to succeed.

Our "differences" with the Islamists are neither nuanced nor trumped up. They want to kill us, and we don't want to die. That's simply not the sort of "gap in understanding" that can bridged with happy-talk and summits, Senator.