Response to a Friend

A friend writes:

Well, the great experiment set in motion in the 1770's ended last night. Democracy as we know it in the United States is finished. There no longer is a two party system. The American people have willingly adopted a religious theocracy under the mantle of democracy. There is no point in trying to explain it; the powers of right wing demagoguery and religious fanaticism have persuaded the the electorate that they must give up their basic rights so that the nation may more effectively fight the ephemeral terrrorists who lurk in all corners of the world. The United States will now move on as a second rate power bankrupted by corruption and hypocrisy, and the American people will pay the cost by seeing our standard of living decline as the other nations prosper. We will be, as we deserve to be, shunned by the true democracies of the world. We are no longer the "shining beacon on the hill." When Bush reinstitutes the draft I will tell my son to leave the country. This is no longer a nation worth fighting for. As for me, I will probably never bother to vote again--it's a wasted effort in a meaningless cause.

I respond:

Grim tidings indeed!

Nevertheless, I'm not so pessimistic. I think Kerry made an excellent run, but 9/11 still clouds people's minds, and it's always very hard to unseat an incumbent. Our experiment with theocratic facism will not be as traumatic as Europe's experiment with national socialism, and there will be some good laughs along the way. There are lots of good opportunities. In Iraq, the Pottery Barn rule is still in effect, and Bush will make a hash of that for sure. The economy is in grave danger, and we will all suffer. I agree regarding your son's prospects, though. You can just feel the draft now.

And we've been here before - the 1920's. That decade ended badly, as will this decade, but it DID end. And please vote again - nothing would make Karl Rove happier than you tinkering in the garage while the world goes to hell. The trick is finding the right coalition, and the right leader, and things never looked so bleak for the Democrats than after Al Smith's defeat in 1928.

It's also important to quote Joshua Micah Marshall's reactions to today's results. They closely parallel my thoughts:

Finally, to Democrats and Kerry supporters.

Yesterday evening I heard various commentators say that Kerry's defeat would usher in a civil war among Democrats. Tucker Carlson said it would or should lead to a 'Goldwater moment' for the Democrats.

As I've noted above, I don't want to diminish the scope of what's happened. But a civil war over what exactly? Yes, some consultants will get a hard shake. And I'm certain there will be backbiting against Kerry (which I for one will very much disagree with.) But a civil war over what? The right and the left of the party were remarkably united in this cycle and managed to find points of compromise on key issues.

In some ways this would all be conceptually easier for Democrats to deal with if President Bush had managed a realignment of our politics in the post-9/11 world. But when I look at the results from last night what I see is that they are virtually identical to four years ago. Pretty much the same states going each way and a very close to even race -- though of course the president's 51% makes all the difference in the world.

As I said, if the Dems had been crushed, that would be one thing. If the American people were coalescing away from them, etc. But that's not what has happened here. In 2000 the country was divided into two (increasingly hostile) camps. And it's still exactly the same way. If anything it seems only more entrenched -- perhaps symbolically and geographically captured by the flip between New Hampshire and New Mexico from 2000.

The country is bitterly divided. And as much as anyone President Bush has divided it. But President Bush got 51% and if there's anything I've learned from watching him for the last four years-plus, it is that his team will take this as a popular mandate for an aggressive push for their agenda -- notwithstanding the profound division in the country or what has happened over the previous four years.

For the Democrats, what I fear most (and what I've privately worried about for months) is this: Energy cools after an election. That's inevitable. But organization and institutions can survive. And it is within institutions and organizational infrastructure that energy and power exist and persist.

Certainly it would have been more pleasant (and perhaps better) to nurture all the organization and infrastructure that has been built up over the last two years under a President Kerry. But my concern over the last few months has been that if Bush won, all of these groups and organizations and incipient infrastructure would simply be allowed to wither, as though it had been tried and found not to have worked.

That, as a factual judgment, I think is just plain wrong. And if that were allowed to happen it would truly be tragic. The truth is that what Democrats have begun to build over the last two years is tremendously important. It just wasn't enough, not yet.

I remember talking to Simon Rosenberg, the head of the New Dem Network, at the Democratic convention last summer. You'll remember, he and his group were profiled in the Times magazine around that time. The article, in brief, was about plans to create a Democratic-leaning counter-establishment along the lines of what Republicans did two generations ago -- with an alternative media, activist groups, organized political giving, in short a political infrastructure.

He told me he thought it would take ten years to accomplish. And I told him my one worry was that it could all be strangled in its crib if Kerry didn't win.

Well, here we are. And this is the test for people who care about this kind of politics and these sorts of values -- making sure that what has been started is not allowed to falter. This isn't 1964 or 1972 or 1980. This wans't a blow-out or a repudiation. It was close to a tie -- unfortunately, on the other guy's side. Let's not put our heads in the sand but let's also not get knocked of our game. Democrats need to think critically and seriously about why this didn't turn out 51% for Kerry or 55% for Kerry (and we'll get to those points in the future). But it would be a terrible mistake to stop thinking in terms of those ten years Simon described.

Take time to feel the desolation and disappointment. But I remain confident that time is not on the side of the kind of values and politics that President Bush represents. It took conservatives two decades to build up the institutional muscle they have today. Though I was always nervous about the result, I thought we could win this election. But it was always naive to believe that that sort of institutional heft could be put together in 24 or 36 months.

President Bush and the Republicans now control the entire national government, even more surely now than they have over the last four years. They do so on the basis of garnering the votes of 51% or 52% of the population. But they will use that power as though there were no opposition at all. That needs to be countered. Leave today for disappointment. Tomorrow, think over which of these various groups and organizations you think has made the best start toward what I've described above, go to their website, and give money or volunteer. After that, okay sure, take a few more days for disappointment, maybe a few more weeks. But this takes time. And you shouldn't lose heart. The same division in the country remains, the same stalemate. The other side just got the the ball a yard or two into our side of the field rather than the reverse. And we have to deal with the serious consequences of that. Tomorrow's the day to start.