"The world Dean described is largely devoid of grand conflicts or moral, cultural and ideological divides. It is a world without passionate nationalism, a world in which Europe and the United States are not riven by any serious cultural differences, in which sensible people from around the globe would find common solutions, if only Bush weren't so unilateral.
At first, the Bush worldview seems far more airy-fairy and idealistic. The man talks about God, and good versus evil. But in reality, Dean is the more idealistic and naïve one. Bush at least recognizes the existence of intellectual and cultural conflict. He acknowledges that different value systems are incompatible."

That Dean is bad news . . . . I recommend a little George Weigel reading. He tries to squirm out a lot of stuff with Just War theory, but he tries to paint a picture of the two worldviews represented here. If I may quote

"The brave new world tells us that we ought to settle for a middling happiness in a life free of trouble. Catholicism tells us not only that we are capable of greatness, but that greatness is demanded of us.

The brave new world is a world of rationally organized self-indulgence. The world of saints is a world of radical, extravagant self-giving.

The brave new world is flat, painles, essentially care-free. The wrld of the saints is always craggy and sometimes painfu; it includes dark nights of the soul as well as moents of ecstatic love.

Which is the more humane world? Which is the more liberated world? Which is the world on which you would want to stake your life?"

I'll go with choice number two. Plutocracy aside, I'd rather let my mind acknowladge the obvious in the world, than pretend all problems will go away if we just talk about them. That's what they said after WWI. It lead quickly to WWII.