After a couple of days of mourning and negativity, I sat down this morning and tried to find the reasons to keep trying. I've posted this on my livejournal, but I thought I'd also like to share it here. I'm sure all of it has been said somewhere or another, but here's my take on it.
So, it's bleak, but it wasn't an utter disaster.
The Democrats nearly defeated an incumbent war-time president who enjoyed 90 percent popularity at one point in his presidency. Almost every state mirrored the 2000 result. Things are still pretty much evenly divided, even in most of the red states there are a lot of blue votes. Bush received more presidential votes than anyone in history, it's true, but the person who received the second-highest number is John Kerry. Yes, Bush won many, many more counties, but I don't think we're likely to see "Votes for cows and prairie dogs" movements any time soon. The urban/rural split is as old as the country, and it gives a distinct land-mass advantage to the party aligned with rural voters. That's reality.
So, it's bleak, but it wasn't an utter disaster.
The Democrats nearly defeated an incumbent war-time president who enjoyed 90 percent popularity at one point in his presidency. Almost every state mirrored the 2000 result. Things are still pretty much evenly divided, even in most of the red states there are a lot of blue votes. Bush received more presidential votes than anyone in history, it's true, but the person who received the second-highest number is John Kerry. Yes, Bush won many, many more counties, but I don't think we're likely to see "Votes for cows and prairie dogs" movements any time soon. The urban/rural split is as old as the country, and it gives a distinct land-mass advantage to the party aligned with rural voters. That's reality.
Losing this one hurts to no end because of the real damage Bush is likely to do to our country over the next four years, but life does go on. And there's no use trying to spin a rather crushing defeat as a victory. On the other hand, there's absolutely no need to buy into the GOP rhetoric they own the country for all time. My sense of defeat rose as much from the gains in the House, but looking at those it's clear they all came from the Texas redistricting. Not horrendous when you're facing a team that can and will change the rules halfway through the game. It's politics, and perhaps some Democratic Legislatures can look into this between-Census redistricting. The GOP will call unfair, I'm sure, and the media will back them up, but I honestly don't care. Not a lot to lose at this point.
The Senate. OK. No real bright spots there except Obama, and that was entirely expected. They gained a huge advantage and knocked off the Senate Majority leader, but let's be honest: Tom Daschle sucked. He was always in danger and as such had to cave on big issues or get voted out. Unfortunately, we're apparently replacing him another senator from a red state. Nor is it realistic to expect much change there in 2006. It would be great if Dems held the 15 seats they have up next time and got rid of one of the worst in Santorum. Personally, that's where I hope the focus is. Then we need to look at 2008, of course. And no, I don't expect Hillary will be the nominee despite the dreams of the right-wing Internet types. Rank-and-file Democrats know she'd be a rotten candidate, but thanks for the advice, all. Really, Democrats are grateful for your concern about the future of our party. We'll be sure to nominate a charisma power-house like Lieberman next time around. He would have done great, possibly even carrying Connecticut by a wide margin.
It's discouraging. It looks like permanent one-party rule. Then again, in 1964, as Johnson was swept into office by a real mandate rather than what passes for a mandate these days, people said the same about the Democrats. (I won't deny that after the past few elections either side was going to consider any sort of win a landslide. If it was President Kerry with 51 percent of the vote there is no doubt I and other supporters would be shouting from the rooftops at the repudiation of Bush policies. It's a psychological tool the winners would be foolish not to use.) We can also see, though, that the Democrats today control not a single branch of the federal government, so things did not work out as expected. And to some extent, that's for the best. Democrats and liberals have their share of extraordinarily bone-headed ideas, and I wouldn't have wanted to see all of them instituted. We can learn from the Right here, though. In the face of crushing defeat sure to leave them powerless for all time, they got mad and they got even. They organized and worked for almost 20 years to elect Reagan and then they stayed angry and kept going. They have the same passion and hatred for liberals that they had when they were losing. I'm hopeful we can let some of the anger go once we're winning, but for now, it's a motivator. Don't listen to the GOP when they say people hate anger-motivated politics. Taking advice from the enemy is not a clever move. Listen to Rush Limbaugh (if you can stand it), read a Sean Hannity book (OK, most of us probably couldn't stand that) and look at the campaign Bush ran. These people have been angry for 40 years, and it's gotten them pretty damn far. They attack the patriotism of war veterans (even those in their own party when necessary); they mock the poor and disenfranchised and make them scapegoats for the problems of the country; they call dissent treason and Democrats terrorist sympathizers. (Never mind that NYC, which seems to have something at stake on the stopping terrorist front, fell firmly into the Kerry camp.)
As I look ahead, I have to acknowledge even to myself, depressed though I am, that it's not hopeless (unless Bush actually manages to trigger Armegeddon, which is not entirely out of the question but is entirely out of my personal control, so why worry about it).
First, I can't see how the GOP will hold its coalition together through this four years. It seems clear some part of his base is going to be deeply unhappy with the agenda he chooses to pursue. The religious right is going to expect payback, and they're going to expect it in judges who will overturn Roe and a more sincere push for a federal "marriage protection" amendment. They're not going to accept an O'Connor. I know conservative Christians. They tend toward a rather simplistic, black-and-white view of the world, but they're not stupid. Bush has got to deliver on something this time around, because there aren't any Democrats to blame. But it's unclear if Bush could get an Ashcroft through the Senate, and even if he did I'm not sure how that allows him to maintain any sort of moderate voting bloc. He also has issues on Israel, where the Christian Right could easily bolt over the slightest turn away from the Israeli position. Pat Robertson has said as much. Add to that, you can only play the gay marriage amendments in swings states trick once. There aren't that many evangelical issues broadly popular with people at large. A good chunk of your ordinary voters like porn, condoms and cussing. And a lot of prominent true conservatives don't like Bush and the neocons. That number is only like to grow as he pursues his agenda of more war funded by borrowing. Traditional conservatism is about isolation and lower spending. By those standards, Bush is about as conservative as he is compassionate.
Second, we have another bit of history on our side. Extremist nut-cases tend to overreach and turn off a good chunk of the American people. And here's the thing. Most people like a lot of the goodies that the progressives have brought them, and Bush's agenda is to damage a lot of that. People like Social Security. They like college loans for the kids. They like public parks and public forests. They like clean air and water. They like overtime pay. They like a five-day work week.They like the social-safety net that, of course, their friends and family use responsibly and only in the face of great need. (It's all those other people who abuse the system.) They like easy access to birth control. They like access to artificial means of conception like IVF, and when stem-cell research finds a cure for an ailment like childhood diabetes, they'll like that, too. (Thank you, California. I hate Schwarzeneggar less for backing that one.) And most Americans like the fact we have long been leaders in the areas of science and innovation.
Third, second terms, in general, suck for presidents. Bush can't blame the economy on 9/11 and the Democrats forever. His tax cuts didn't produce even half of the jobs he promised, and people can't buy Christmas gifts with GDP and productivity numbers. Out here in the reality-based community, people are struggling to get school supplies despite Wal-Mart's low, low prices. Besides, which, Bush has about a thousand scandals ready to break. True, there won't be any congressional investigations forthcoming, but a lot of people (even those who voted for him) don't trust the guy very much. One of the administration's many bouts into corruption could still bite them on the ass. And the Iraq war, not going to get any more popular unless God really is a Republican and as such gives them a big miracle.
Fourth, what the Democrats need to do is to crystallize their message. Here's one idea: We value work. Edwards said it very well. Americans value work over wealth. In addition, Americans want to help out their neighbors in times of need and recognize that even the lowliest contribute to our society in so far as they are able. Americans want to get rich and move ahead while playing by the rules and playing fair. Americans value jobs that pay enough to put the kids to bed with enough to eat and have something left for dinner at the Ponderosa once in a while. Democrats should own these issues, and they are values issues. I am, admittedly, still working on how to neutralize the abortion issue, though. Obviously, we can't just cave and return to the good old days of back alleys and coat hangers. I do think, though, that we could perhaps cease to embrace the rhetoric that this is a moral-neutral choice and admit that it's generally a bad, even tragic, sort of choice that can be best alleviated through better education and more access to birth control and quality pre-natal care. That doesn't help us, of course, with those who think sex should be a dirty issue that children won't notice if it's not brought to their attention, birth control is basically equivalent to partial-birth abortion and loose women deserve their shame, but they're not likely to come around to our side anyway. Gay marriage or civil unions is another issue that's tough to get around, but that may, unfortunately, be a lost battle for the time being. On the war, we face almost certain victory as even the fundiest of youth trend toward accepting (or at least tolerating) homosexuality. Of course, for those it affects it's like saying, "Don't you worry about Jim Crow, just give it a century," so it is a heart-breaking situation.
On a less optimistic note, though, things are likely to get worse before they have any potential to get better. Bush's policy of huge deficits leave us, financially, at the mercy of a world not universally fond of us. His policy of attacking first and asking questions later raises grave doubts about whether our military can stand the further overextension it's likely to face without a draft of some sort. (A special skills draft being more likely, I think, than the broad draft we think of from Vietnam.) Another terrorist attack is very likely, as Osama looked pretty much tan, rested and ready as he made fun of the president during his most recent communication. The elderly, veterans, the working poor, soldiers and their families and children are going to face a long four years of increased poverty and little help on the public front.
So, Democrats will have to step up to the plate and continue to be generous in money and time. People are going to be hurting, and no matter which way they voted, they're going to need our help. And for those that pray, pray diligently.