Still Trying to Make Up My Mind

Charley Reese is probably one of the only political columnists I still read on a regular basis. Not so much because I rabidly endorse everything he says (I don't), but more because I really can't make up my mind whether I like his work or not.
He would, I think, be mostly likely to bill himself as a 'conservative,' which is not what I'm all about. He is also a fan of Ronald Reagan, another thing I'm not so much into. So, you ask, why would I be so driven to read his column every day?
Well, it's like this. Almost every political writer I've ever read pretty much sums up their opinion in every column, at least in the broad strokes. If they're liberal/democrat/independent, then they make pretty sure you know it's all the republicans' fault -- especially the Republicans in the current administration, who want to make war with everyone, cram their values down every American throat, and generally rule you people like a king. Conversely, if they're conservative/republican/pro- family values, then everything is the fault of Democrats who want to raise your taxes, lower your moral standards, and sink our culture into a cesspool. Oh, yes, and spit on God. Can't forget the religious angle to the Right, can we.
But this Charley Reese guy, he's different. He starts out from right where I'm at: 'this is the situation,' he says, 'and here's why it's wrong.' I'm usually totally in agreement with him, too; the war in Iraq is wrong, not because it accomplished the wrong goals, but because it was fought for the wrong reasons. There will never be absolute equality for everyone, because everyone is not the same. All that sort of stuff. He gets me to go along with him, especially when he's listing the things that are wrong with George W. Bush (but he tactfully leaves out the whole Bush/Chimp resemblance thing, very classy). He gets me to believe that he's got his head on straight, that he's in it for the truth, and that he's not like the rest of those, those.... Republicans. (boo, hiss.) And then, just when I'm teetering on that brink, he says something else. Kind of like he does in the article linked to above: he goes on about how government is an ongoing act of coercion (true, very true), how redistribution of wealth is a trick and a plot (I'm a bit more dubious, but I'm willing to try to reason it out for myself), and then he comes up to the kicker. He says that, and I quote: "rather than try to achieve phony equal results with double standards, we should try to construct a society in which everyone, regardless of his or her abilities, can find a niche in which to live with dignity and respect. A good janitor should be no less admirable than a good CEO. If we put more emphasis on character and less on income and position, we might realize that." And that's where I get off the merry-go-round, kids.
Oh, it's not that I disagree. Far from it. Rather, it's exactly what I might have said fifteen years ago. If anything, I would say that I'm closer now to agreeing with the whole "redistribution of wealth" thing specifically because I'm too disillusioned by the world in general to still think that people are suddenly going to start recognizing the existence of character, much less judging individuals on the merits (or lack of merits) of their individual character. I loved idealism, but I can't stand to see what happens to people who try to apply it to reality.
And that's what worries me about Charlie Reese: has he really managed to hang on to his starry-eyed dreams of a better country and future, or is he selling his own agenda just wrapped in starry-eyed dream paper?
It's a poser.