Remember this, in all the discussion over whether we got a good deal from the Senate situation (and, taking it of itself, I think kos' points are well-made: we did the best we could).
Theocons got what they wanted -- because they wanted to lose, as they always want to lose.
Huh? you ask. What are you talking about? Reid casts this as a win for us, and casting a draw as a win, especially for the minority, is shrewd politics, right? Frist is washed up, right? Dobson is issuing fatwas in outrage. How can we say this is what they wanted?
Because losing strengthens theocons.
Think about abortion and gay marriage. Think about the politics of it -- how does a politician inspire theocon voters?
By losing.
The abortion issue has remained where it has because a completely committed core group of theocons will not accept compromise. They are constantly promised that their side is "near" victory, always to have their victory snatched from them.
It has been widely suggested (at least I think it has) that this is deliberate on the part of the poliicians on the theocratic Right. If a 5-4 antiabortion majority ever appears on the Supreme Court, the Right loses abortion as an issue by which to get voters to the polls.
Hence the desire to fight very hard and lose, on these issues.
But if they're losing, does that mean we're winning?
If all we care about is whether abortion can be made out-and-out illegal, one can take comfort in this de jure constancy. But of course that's an irrelevant sideshow. Abortion rights are being de facto chipped away (even as the theocon voters remain convinced they're losing, because their politicians and ministers continue to tell them so), and meanwhile the far more damaging agenda of the aristocratic Right -- corporate power at the expense of governmental and individual power -- entrenches further.
And it all comes down to this: the theocon politicians wanted to lose. Or at least to cast the result as a loss -- because all the theocon voters will remember this in 2006.
And here they have it.