We as progressives love to proclaim that we inhabit the "reality-based world". Yet reading the analyses and post-mortems as to why the elections found our side with the short end of the stick, I have to seriously wonder if that assertion is completely true for a portion of our community. The fact is that for a large portion of the American population the issue of values and the challenge progressivism is perceived to bring to traditionally held beliefs regarding the nature of society are vital, raw questions and will be the predominant force to determine why they vote. Just as we are not going anywhere, neither are these Americans, and as long as cultural questions remain open in the national political debate it will remain very difficult for progressives to shift the debate to the economic issues that we should be discussing in presidential campaigns because the solution to these economic problems can only be found at the national level. The question is, how do Progressives defuse the culture wars so that we can move the national debate to questions of economic improvement?
The first answer to this question is a negative. Progressives should not simply frame the values question as one simply of bigotry and ignorance on the part of those who believe the way they do. This is what many progressives have tried to do in the past and it has only stiffened resistance among reactionary ultraconservatives to defend their way and outlook towards life at all cost. No, Progressives must accept the reality that a majority of the voting population in much of this nation truly does believe the message of reactionary conservativism and are more than willing to vote against their perceived economic interest in order to preserve what they see as the basis of their identity.
So what is the solution if we are unwilling to renounce our beliefs on key social issuse and they remain steadfastly opposed to renouncing their beliefs. We could decide upon the maximalist solution - continue to fight at the national level to have our viewpoints on social issues accepted by a majortiy of the population and force those who maintain the reactionary values to the margins of society. The problem with this is that it creates highly polarizing elections that tend to harden the views of those who disagree with our viewpoint, and vicce versa. Increasingly, this vitriolic struggle between the Progressive and Reactionary viewpoints could very well polarize American society to the point of actual widespread physical violence across the nation. Frankly that is an outcome that scares me beyond belief.
The alternative solution, and one that I think has a greater chance of preserving and expanding the influence of progressive values across all areas of America, is the federalist approach to cultural questions as notes in the recent posting by Andrew Sullivan. Leave it to the states to decide their own local position on these contentious social questions. We gravely fear that the cultural values of the red states are about to be imposed upon our blue communities. This is exactly the same fear that many in red states have felt over our positions on issues of gay rights, abortion access and many others. In the short term if Progressives wish to preserve the gains that have been made in the blue states (and in blue communities in the red states) shifting from national policies on cultural issues to policies based at the state level may be the only viable solution.
Now some will argue that this will be tantamount to abandoning our blue brothers and sisters who live in the red states. My argument is that this is not the abandonment but the basis for carrying on the struggle for Progressive values in the red states. The twentieth century would witness the triumph of the most important progressive goal there could be in a democracy - the establihment in practice as well as on paper that all citizens, irregardless of their ethno-racial, religious or gender identification, have the right to exercise the right to vote and participate in the political debate. While there are still problems of voter intimidation and electoral fraud, the debate over the basic right to vote in elections has been settled in favor of full participation by all ciitizens. Perhaps I am being naive, but I believe that America has developed a sufficient democratic ethos to ensure that the right to suffrage will be retained for all citizens of legal age in the future. It thus falls upon the progressive forces in the red states, with the support of progressives in the blue states, to move public opinion in the red states in the progressive direction. While undobutedly a struggle that in some places may require decades of progressive activisim to succeed, I believe this will be much easier to achieve if the debate is based upon the creation of a majority opinion in favor of progressive ideas within red states one by one rather than the perception that outsiders from the blue states are imposing their values upon the people of the red states (just as we fear that the reelection of Bush implies that the social values of the red states will be imposed on the blue states against their will.)
In no sense should the idea of the "devolution" of cultural questions imply, to borrow a phrase from the history of the Protestant Reformation, that the doctrine of cuius regio, euius religio would be created. After several decades of bloody conflict within the German states between Protestants and Catholics, in 1555 a compromise was arranged that allowed the prince of each German state to choose the form of Christianity they would require their subjects to practice - whoever rules determines your religion. This could be accomplished only because the German states in the sixteenth century were feudal monarchies in which most of the population had no say in political decisions. Even the reddest American state is still a democratic regime based on the full extension of suffrage to all citizens above age 18. Sure there will be some red states who will pass very restrictive laws on abortion, gay marriage and other cultural issues, even in the form of amendments. But what can be amended once by popular vote can in the future be amended again should public opinon be changed in regards to the issue. Thus it will become incumbent upon progressives to become even more activist in their work in states that pass such reactionary legislation. And that activism, carried on at the local level, will help to create the progressive majority across the nation that will be needed to implement progressive policies in terms of ecnomic issues that can only be dealt with at the federal level.
In the end I think one of the lessons of the 2004 elections is that America is defnitely composed two broad cultural groups of relatively equal strength in political conflicts over question of cultural values and the role of religion in society. If we are going to avoid the potential of a destructive civil war over these cultural issues that neither side is willing to abandon, we must I think shift the debate over these cultural questons to the states. Shifting the debate to the states will ensure that slow, evolutionary progress to more progressive societies can continue. Keeping the debate over cultural issues based at the national level could very well lead to a complete repression of the progressive ideals in wake of a reactionary dictatorship, or a terrifying civil war that would split America into two or more separate nations.