Smerconish is very wrong in something that Obama-Ayers are right on. Polarization. Ayers, Alinsky, Obama and the Chicago school of politics (which I, myself, was taught in school by a Marxist) are proponents of polarization. Moderation does not win over political power. Radicalization, polarization -- the same thing. Alinsky noted the "freeze your opponent" aspect of it. In engineering it is like a dynamic system with poles and zeros -- the North and South of magnet. Everything orients along the politic field lines. The Alinsky freeze creates a politcal pole, you then drive the electorate into the field lines and orient them towards YOUR pole opposite. Also it is like cell mitosis.
When I learned the Chicago-style I also saw it was something I was opposed to. It is why Chicago is poor, and NYC is rich. NYC politics defies Alinky-a-zation. DC seems to have fallen to the Chicago model.
In Chicago-style you personalize ideas, assign them to people as examples, you freeze the idea onto the person. You are always working for polarization. That's like cancer -- the cells are always dividing, never performing, never growing, just dividing and dividing.
In NYC model, you argue the IDEAS, not the people. Not "Party" politics.
Ronald Reagan succeeded in enunciating conservative principles and getting people on board. Conservatives have a lot of work to do in educating the electorate and developing, not just blaming moderates. The Dems, especially under the Chicago thugs, are not going to stop polarization anytime soon.