Some decades from now, American citizens will look back on the beginning of the new millenium in History classes, around election time, and in pop culture.
And the geeks amongst us--and I expect to count myself in--will look back on these years as defining. Did the Democrats manage to take back the national narrative, or did the twin Bush victories represent a new beginning for American politics?
Did Bush's big-government conservativism, the ultimate in successful power-politicking, survive his presidency, or was it just a marriage of convenience, doomed to disintigrate as soon as a real conservative took up the mantle of Republican leadership (think John McCain)?
I believe that the answers to those questions ultimately lie in where the Democrats choose to place their political chips, and whether they can weave together a compelling, national story about who we are.
In the 1960's, the Democrats were the party of civil rights, started by Kennedy and continued through Johnson. Even Nixon, a conservative by 1970s standards, was an environmentalist and staunchly supported civil rights.
Things began to erode when the conservative movement, led by unsucessful candidate Barry Goldwater, started to weave together its own picture of America.
As liberals in the Democratic party began to overreach, assuming they had permanently won the battle, conservatives like Goldwater and his followers began subtly planting the idea that government was the bad guy.
In his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination, Goldwater said this: "Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom."
While Goldwater emerged from that election with less than 40 percent of the vote, conservativism had begun to take hold.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan, who supported Goldwater in his run against Lyndon Johnson, won the Presidency in a landslide. Four years later, he won every state but Minnesota.
The problem is, while the Republicans have successfully won elections on an anti-government narrative, they have never been able to make good on those promises. They have given in to temptation, and when in power, watch the government grow, not shrink. They help individual liberties erode, not expand.
That's why Bush Republicanism relies so heavily on the religious right to win elections. America has, by and large, rejected the small-government narrative weaved by Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush. While Americans respond positively to the rhetoric of small government, they trust Democrats overwhelmingly over Republicans on education, health care, social security, the environment, and even energy policy.
Republicans are successfully benefiting from an oddball coalition of those who still believe the Republican party stands for smaller government, despite burgeoning deficits and budgets, and the religious right, who fear Democrats as anti-religious, pro-abortion, pro-gay nuts.
The problem is that while most Americans don't hold the positions that the conservative movement currently does, it's easy to target the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-secular, anti-government (and so-on) movements individually, and successfully cobble together a majority.
So what do I stand for (and by extension, what do I want my fellow Democrats to stand for)?
I stand for an America that asks everyone to pitch in. I stand for an American that doesn't blame the poor for being poor, but expects the poor to work to better themselves. I stand for an America that will provide them with the resources to do so. Reducing poverty reduces crime and other detrimental effects of poverty that spill over to those in the middle class.
I stand for an America that supports, not harms, the middle class. I stand for an America that will see a growing, not shrinking, middle class in a decade. I stand for an America that will provide tax relief for those who need it.
And on the subject of tax relief, I stand for an America that will not ask our children to shoulder the burden of a growing national debt so that the very wealthy can receive tax refund checks in the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands.
I stand for quality, equal primary and secondary education for all citizens, and fair and affordable higher education for all who want it. I stand for an America where going to school is rewarded, not penalized.
I stand for an America where pulling onesself up by the bootstraps is a real possibility, not just an excuse for failing to provide for our children, and our disadvantaged populations.
I stand for an America free of racism and sexism, but where traditional families can exist free of derision.
And what do I stand against?
I stand against all forms of discrimination, as well as attempts to use the parlance of discrimination to polarize America.
I stand against those who refuse to admit that progress against racism, sexism and discrimination has been made, failing to recognize the hard work that many activists, as well as those in power, have done on their behalf.
I stand against inequality, but also against those who seek to claim inequality to better themselves at the detriment of others.
I stand against government corruption, an ever-growing deficit, infringements of personal liberties, and misappropriated government funds.
I stand against names of federal bills that mean the opposite of what they do, and that none of our legislators have actually read.
What about gay marriage, abortion, and `secualrism?'
I recognize that these issues are effectively used to divide America, and that there are often no simple answers.
While most liberals reflexively oppose restrictions in all forms, support the demands of gay activists in all forms, and oppose all forms of government and religion intermingling, there are complex issues.
Take the question of whether it should be a federal crime for a non-custodial parent to take a child across state lines to help her get an abortion. Take the question of whether leaders should be allowed to invoke God in their speeches, or whether students should be able to voluntarily pray in school. And what about whether civil unions, rather than marriage, should be enough to ensure gay rights.
On these issues I say: let individuals work them out in good faith, and let's keep an open mind.