Let me begin by noting that I have no problem working with people of all stripes to improve our nation’s fiscal health. I have absolutely no problem working beside gays, pro-choicers, gay marriage advocates, and the rest of the spectrum in pursuit of restoring fiscal sanity to Washington. Strategic relationships are important now and will only become so over the next few years.

That said, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) is living in a fantasy world with his talk of a truce on social issues. You’ll recall he originally proposed such an agreement last week (I think), and now he has once again proposed the truce.

And indeed, Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.” He’s emphasized the need to focus like a laser beam on the existential threats facing the country — the two big issues he’s previously identified being the war on terror and the country’s precarious fiscal position. “We’re going to need a lot more than 50.1 percent of the country to come together to keep from becoming Greece,” he said.

He did, however, want to clarify that he’s not just singling out controversial social issues. “I’m talking about all divisive issues,” he said. Clear and unified priorities are the only way he sees the country rallying around common purposes.

That sounds very lovely and not at all viable.

First of all, Obama has made values-based moves that need to be reversed. Take the Mexico city policy, for example. He repealed the ban on tax dollars going to overseas organizations that promote or perform abortions. An overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the repeal. The ban needs to be implemented once again by the next Republican president. That would break Daniels’ truce.

Second, let’s assume Daniels is elected in 2012. It’s entirely likely that a Supreme Court justice will retire or pass away during his first term, leaving him in the position to appoint a replacement. Will he choose a pro-life or a pro-choice judge? And where will the nominee stand on gay marriage? There goes the truce.

Finally, why do we need a truce to begin with? A gay fiscal conservative isn’t going to work with an anti-gay marriage fiscal conservative on a budgetary or deficit issue? Why can’t we simply agree on some issues and disagree on others, without declaring that we won’t handle tough issues?

I get why Daniels wants to leave social issues behind for the time being, but that can be achieved through prioritization rather than a moratorium. Simply declaring that we won’t argue over issues like abortion or gay marriage for four years is ludicrous and makes Daniels look naive.