Originally, I intended to write the subject line
sans question mark. You see, when I first read about Teresa Heinz-Kerry's godawful gaffe (you know, the bit about Laura Bush never having a "real job") I said aloud to my wife, "If Kerry loses close, it's her fault." And when you see the narrow margin in Ohio (but not narrow enough--we need to give up the ghost here, people), and in light of Laura Bush's popularity, it's easy to argue that her comment may have pushed enough wavering swing voters over to the dark side to make the difference.
But that's an issue of tactics. As I thought about it more, I realized that had she not made the gaffe, we would not have a different country. We would still have the same set of voters, of which roughly half were willing to authorise another Bush term, even after seeing what a nightmare was his first. (In 2000, you could at least somewhat forgive people for buying into the "compassionate conservative" routine, before that was exposed as an utter fraud.) The same set of voters that, by much wider margins, routinely tell pollsters...
(whose polls still appear to be surprisingly accurate when tested at the, uh, polls) that Bush is a "stronger leader" than Kerry, that gay marriage is some kind of grave threat to the nation, that incarcerating nonviolent pot smokers makes sense...etc.
To be sure, there are sets of issues that favour Democrats in polls. But these tend to be of the "Here's a government program that will give you something for free" variety. How well do swing voters respond to proposals that don't benefit them directly? Fighting poverty in the Third World, say, or protecting the civil liberties of prisoners? The very idea of contesting a national election on such grounds is, sadly, almost laughable--this is why Dennis Kucinich or Jesse Jackson Jr. have no chance to become president, and everyone knows it. (Well, almost everyone.)
Due to these poll-tested political realities, Democratic presidential candidates have to shrink from the "liberal" label, while Republicans can proudly label themselves "conservative". True, the GOP's power derives from relatively slight margins of electoral victory (though it results in control of all branches of government). But I would argue that these narrow margins arise only because, in addition to their general feckless incompetence in governing (they haven't managed to pass a budget this year, but when they do, it will no doubt be wildly in the red as usual), they are absolutely uncompromising in their right wing extremism. They barely try to hide their blatant giveaways to the corporations and billionaires that line their pockets with political luchre. If they made any concession to the middle, or even tried to tone down the blatant corruption, I think they'd consistently dominate elections.
Our real problem is that we progressives are a distinct minority. To win national elections, we essentially have to cajole millions of non-likeminded voters to momentarily take our side. That's a tough row to hoe, and even when we are successful the results are too ephemeral to be considered any kind of lasting political coalition. Thus we have to constantly play on the other team's home turf, cycle after cycle. But most of us on the left have internalised this exhausting handicap so much, we don't even consciously question it--hence, we "Blame it on Teresa" (or whatever other tactical mistake you prefer) rather than face the difficult reality of living in a country that is generally hostile to our most cherished ideals. (Though there are others who have taken the opposite tack, and have deluded themselves into believing that if we only nominated a true fire-breathing liberal for president, we would somehow win. Um, okayyy....)
I'm still hoping that the "Emerging Democratic Majority" Judis and Texeira wrote about is on the horizon--and I think that the continuing growth of ideopolises and the steady influx of immigrants gives good reason to so hope. But it's not here yet, and it looks to be a while before it is. In the meantime, I've had enough of partisan politics for a while. I intend to finish the postmortems, and then this political junkie is going to quit cold turkey. If I don't read any articles about Bush, don't watch any news programs that discuss Bush, I can pretend he's not there. I was really looking forward to seeing all those right wing pundits on cable news--especially FOX--have to suck on a Kerry victory. And for a brief while, when they were getting heartburn over the exit polls, I got to sample some of that sweetness. But the flip side is that I can't bear to see them gloat.
Oh, I'll still send in a donation to the House and Senate campaign committees in '06, and maybe in late '07 I'll take a look at the Democratic primary field. But for right now, it's just too dispiriting to try to work with (or even contemplate) an ignorant, provincial electorate that, by even a slim majority, can stand to have this jackass around for another four years.