Republicans love to look for the cloud in every silver lining. In stem cell research, with all the promise of finding cures and remedies to any number of disabling medical conditions (or at the very least, an important step in the right direction to those cures and remedies), it seems like they just discovered that science could be evil.
During the Clinton years, the budget surplus was spun as government-sponsored larceny in which the taxpayers were the victims. Luckily most of that was undone by W, as the scope (and the financial burden) of the federal government grew, so the new TSA could break into luggages of often-times innocent passengers at the airports, while the administration defends an indefensible argument that the people needn't pay through taxes for law enforcement's dismantling of civil rights. I suppose that's our silver lining: history won't hold the taxpayer accountable.
Democrats hold a different view to, you know, reality. And the future looks a little bit brighter to liberals than it does to conservatives and reactionaries.
Kerry voters believe a change is not too late, and a better life is within our reach. Bush voters, for the most part, hold the "we must have blind faith in our sovereign or we will all die" mentality. I don't know what's truly in the mind of a neo-conservative, and I imagine I would have to hang myself by my belt if I ever found out, but the possibilities can't look too good if the worst-case scenario is one where you trust no one, kill anything that moves and let God sort 'em out. You know, to protect freedom.
During the 2000 election, Bush, widely considered a complete moron (like that's changed over the years), had very little trouble defying perversely low expectations during the primary season and the debates. Whatever chances Kerry had to send him and his televangelist cohorts back south of the Mason-Dixon line, an ambiguous mandate delivered by five Supreme Court justices only fostered low expectations, before and after September 11th. And while my opinion of Michael Moore is very high, Fahrenheit 9/11 kept the bar low and encouraged conservatives to be more bloodthirsty.
What does all this mean? Bush won the electoral vote, and whatever way you want to spin it, Bush still got more votes than Kerry. The Congress tilted further to the right in both houses, and the administration now seemingly will have a turn in sending a Bible-thumping preacher-turned-judge-at-45 to the Supreme Court. This is a big cloud, folks.
But you know what? Despite all this, here's our silver lining, as the dust settles after the last election. With a mandate for what might be the most important four years of this generation, expectations ought to be very high for Republicans. The United States government is a de facto one-party system, certified by a national election. Everyone now assumes (or should assume in time) that Republicans will run a well-oiled machine, tempered by their almost-fatal mistakes during the last government shutdown and a quasi-aborted overthrow of President Clinton.
Certainly, if Democrats are unable to exploit the future failures of this administration in the next four years, then we need to get out of politics, and find a new interest. This one should be easy. This one will be easy. Bush's next mission is to find - and groom - the man that will ultimately replace him. Cheney can't do it (too old, too fragile, and too reviled), and no one in the religious right has found any real traction in the center.
Giuliani becomes an obvious choice. I even liked the guy a little down the home stretch (before 9/11). He is the toughest figure to fit into this mini-essay, because he is so hated, but also so loved by his home state, a Democratic state, one that has elected a Republican governor in the last three elections. But his health is also suspect, and he will be six years older since the last time he left office, an office that destroyed his marriage, and Republicans don't like politicians who were heads of broken homes.
It could very well be McCain, and he's the only Republican I may consider voting for at the national level. But it will be a whole eight years after his last run, and despite his military experience, I doubt very much he could sustain the level of ferocity found in the last debates for the next election cycle.
The Republican Party has no standard bearer after Bush, and Democrats have everything to look for in Edwards and Obama. Hell, we even got Hillary if the waters get rough. Even if we didn't have any of those three, Republicans are due for their downturn in the cyclical nature of politics. There is way too much for them to accomplish in just four years, and a cabinet without Ashcroft and Powell will face diminished authority in the wake of heightened responsibility.
Yes, we have a lot of work to do after a debilitating loss for the Democrats. And in order for Democrats to take back Congress and the White House, Republicans will need to virtually f*** up all conventional wisdom about the Bush mandate. Luckily for us, with all eyes now on Bush after a clear win, this is a very likely prospect.