OK, the election is almost a week old, and I've had a chance to digest the results a bit, and try and figure out where we're going next. My usual optimism is at war with my knowledge of history, so it's been difficult to discern the difference when making my predictions. In the end, I think I'm letting optimism win out over knowledge, but that's a mistake I'm willing to make. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, and all that.
While this may not have been the most bitter election in our history, it certainly ranks up there. In the course of the campaign, I learned something emotionally that I'd known intellectually; hatred and anger are contagious. Over the past couple of years, I've run into folks who hate me simply because I believe different things than they do. I ignored the hatred for quite some time, either ignoring the source, or responding thoughtfully and rationally. But as my exposure continued, I began to respond differently. Not in kind, I didn't return the hatred, but I began to get angry, and I came to believe that I had to answer every charge, every accusation that these folks laid at my feet. I was offended by the lies and slander, and charged in to refute them whenever possible.
It was a task worthy of Don Quixote, and I met with similar success. I very much doubt I changed a single mind, not because my facts were wrong, or my arguments flawed, but because their beliefs spring from something other than logic. These folks share a heartfelt belief that their point of view is the only valid one, so anyone who disagrees obviously must be stupid or corrupt. The intensity of their belief approaches religious zealotry, which explains their anger and bitterness over the election results.
As I said, as my attempts to defend my beliefs were met with anger, hatred, scorn, and ridicule, I began to get angry, and ever more eager to "bring the light of reason into the darkness." (Yeah. Pretty egotistical of me. No big surprise though. You have to have some kind of ego to think that your words are important enough that they should be cast out upon the bitstream of the internet for everyone to read.) I was headed towards becoming every bit as inflexible as my opponents, and would have gotten there eventually, except for a lucky break.
A few weeks before the election, I was lucky enough to meet a group of people who reminded me that there were people who could disagree with me without hating me. We watched the debate together, and while we disagreed on many points, I never felt the ugliness I'd grown accustomed to on the net. It was a wake-up call, a reminder that most folks are able to disagree with a person's politics without seeing them as less of a person.
And so I've left the haters behind. There's nothing more for me to learn from them anyway. Now, I'm looking to continue those contacts with real liberals, those who see the world through different eyes than mine, and are capable of letting me see it their way, even as I try to show them my way. That's what it will take to bridge the gap between us. I think we all see the same problems; where we disagree is on the causes and the solutions. The facts will lead us to the correct causes; surely then we can find solutions satisfactory to both sides.
On the National level, healing has been made possible not just because of President Bush's clear majority, but because of Senator John Kerry's ability to put the best interests of the nation ahead of his own. In so doing, he acted like a true patriot, and I respect him for that. In fact, I would say that John Kerry did more in service of his country on November 3 than he has in his entire career. His concession speech also insured that he will remain a major factor in American politics despite his loss. On the other hand, John Edwards is done.
The Republican victory, while overwhelming in breadth, with gains in the Senate and the House, is actually fairly shallow. Despite Republican spin that Bush got more votes than any Presidential candidate ever, (Duh. So did Kerry. Population inflation alone played a big part in that.) Democrats picked up seats in State legislatures, and increased the number of governors. Since President Bush was able to pick up 4 million voters even though
This is a good thing as it will force him to moderate his agenda to one that is acceptable to moderates. I expect the faith based initiatives to die quietly, along with the definition of marriage amendment, although the latter will be much noisier. We'll see some reform of Social Security, including a trial plan allowing some private investment, but not the sweeping changes he envisioned. The revamping of the tax code will be an interesting effort, since virtually any change will be opposed by one group or another. Building a coalition on this one will be the biggest domestic challenge of his administration. His appointments to the Supreme Court will be conservative, but they will have to be acceptible to moderates, since he will need 5 Democrats to break ranks to bust the filibuster certain to be mounted by the Democrats.
As I noted above, many on the left wing of the Democratic Party (read Democratic Underground or any of the usual suspects to see what I mean) see the election results and conclude that Americans are lazy, or corrupt. Here's one example from a commentor at Washington Monthly.
Kerry lost because more Americans indisputably like, trust, and feel more comfortable and safer with Bush than with Kerry.Why? The unavoidably obvious explanation is that Americans are by-and-large morons. Simpleminded, uninformed and undereducated, intellectually lazy and proud in their ignorance to boot, self-important and self-righteous, arrogant and benighted idiots.
That evaluation jibes with my experience far better than does the "America is Stupid" meme, and it is one that more moderate liberals can also agree with.
Since it is clear that President Bush will need the support of moderate liberals to move forward on his agenda, it makes sense that he will court them, and make some concessions in order to get that support. In my experience, the only folks the rabid left hate more than conservatives is moderates from their own party. If in exchange for concessions, they decide to support the President's plans, whther it be on taxation, SCOTUS nominations, or Social Security reform, the extremists in the party will turn on them. The division will be just as bitter as the left/right divide during the election, if not worse. The only real question is once the split occurs, whether the moderate majority will take control of the Democratic Party, forcing the radicals to splinter, or whether it will be the other way around. My guess is that the latter is more likely, since the radicals are the ones that are apt to be the most energized.
President Bush is a social conservative, but the country as a whole is not. His majority victory was due more to the war than to his domestic agenda, which means he will face an uphill battle when trying to pass the faith based initiative legislation and the marriage amendment, particularly since he'll need the support of the moderate left for other, more important agenda items, most notably the SCOTUS nominations and Social Security reformation.
These disappointments might lead to a schizm in the Republican party similar to that I predict in the Democratic Party, as conservative Christians feel abandoned, which leads to my riskiest prediction.
Moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans will either be abandoned by their party or abandon their party to form a moderate third party, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and committed to a strong defense. There are simply too many voters these days who don't fit comfortably into either party.
They don't fit within either party, and so the natural trend, accelerated by increasing stridency on both extremes, will drive them into a loose coalition that eventually will congeal into a new party.
The election in 2008 will highlight these changes, as the Republicans nominate Giuliani/Rice, running against Clinton/Nadar for the Dems, with McCain/Powell running as the third party candidates. I have no idea who would win in this matchup, but the campaign would be a lively one.
Our military is no longer organized to fight a meatgrinder war, nor would that tactic be sound in our current fight. We rely on superior firepower, weaponry, tactics, and training, rather than the WWII approach of throwing more men into the fight than our opponent. Thrusting reluctant, untrained soldiers into that battlefield would hurt more than help.
So there are my guesses about our political future over the next 4 years. Take them for what they're worth, which is exactly what you paid for them...
Posted by Rich at November 8, 2004 2:18 AM | TrackBack