Catholic Sensibility

Maybe the Dems are dead The cat kept falling asleep on me as I watched the final election results about 2AM here in Kansas City. It was pretty much over the hour before, but I was curious to see where Iowa fell, immaterial as it became. Being neither a Kerry nor a Bush supporter, I found it interesting to sit back and take it all in last night. From what I heard, only three states changed hands since 2000, the candidates trading the relatively small prizes of New Hampshire, New Mexico, and maybe Iowa I think. The four million vote swing for Mr Bush looks impressive. But I think those who pick on one issue to account for it are probably overlooking several others. Non-factors, I think: both men are upper crust, vaguely religious, well-liked politically, and not particularly outstanding as leaders. By that last crack, I mean they seem fairly well monitored by their advisers. VP candidates a non-factor as well. While the Republicans eventually found their way out of their personal morass of the sixties, the D's have yet to do so. While they might have the skepticism of the country on the war, the Republicans certainly took full advantage of troubled times. I think the edge of a sitting president is stronger than a sitting vice president. I think the Republicans were smarter. I think the Democrats still have a harder time defining what they are about. Nader has the measure of them: going Big Money has hurt them, making them look like Junior Republicans. But my big point is that the Democrats have lost their perspective on many pet issues. The 60's counterculture was a product of the relatively comfortable 50's. Affluent America had time and stomach (more or less) to consider feminism, racism, and the other liberating issues of the day. I think there's a lasting sting from Vietnam, and a present uncertainty about the Muslim World. I don't think the US is comfortable enough to consider civil rights issues that will break solidly from the past. Gay marriage and widespread abortion are appealing issues, but also a significant break from where we have been (or might want to be). I can appreciate the fairness of the sense that people who are born gay should be able to live as other committed monogamous heterosexuals do. But now is not the time to consider the issue. The overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage tells me that people just aren't ready for a paradigm shift of that magnitude. I don't think it's a moral issue as much as it is a comfort issue. Maybe it would be like having a black or woman president in the US in the mid-20th century: not a wrong thing, but not something people were ready for. When your polling is running 70-30 against you on an issue, you give it up, unless you're a king. (In which case, if you insist, you might worry.) With the uncertainty of terrorism, overseas wars, the assault of the Culture of Death (partly due to Republican support) I can see that people would be very nervous about wholescale change that doiesn't appear to have obvious benefits to spread around. If their daughter or nephew commits to a gay relationship, that's one thing, and a handleable thing. But every tenth house on the block? Even if it were moral, we're just not ready as a society. That's not prejudice to admit it, just reality. It might be prejudice or more likely ignorance as it stands in most of our hearts, but not-ready is still not-ready. One commentator I heard said that Clinton was able to distance himself decently from abortion rights. The mantra "safe, legal, and rare" was just enough to convince people the economic good times were worth the moral dilemma. Kerry blundered badly, perhaps fatally, by waving the banner of Roe v Wade. So far as we can see, abortion on demand hasn't improved society. We still have unplanned pregnancies, abused and abandoned and neglected children, children and single mothers in poverty, women earning less than men, high rates of divorce from early marriages, etc.. I'm not sure the blue bleeding in Congress is entirely due to the loss of pro-life Dems, but numbers are undeniably close. The issue is worth putting on the table, but is there anybody left at the party willing to do that? Hard-core pro-choicers have to consider their own vehemence might have put the very things they sought to protect at risk. This time, they can't blame Nader. The Republicans have taken advantage of the politics of fear. And I don't mean that in a bad way. It's not a secret that Nixon was far safer for the US as a 1968 president. Ditto Reagan in 1980. And Bush yesterday. When the world is uncertain, battles must be picked and chosen carefully, and this is something many Democrats don't do. The Republicans did. When they decide to be progressive, they initiate voodoo economics: feels good, goes down smooth, and the nation's economy isn't in the trash can (yet). Okay, say the People, we can handle this. I'm convinced that instead of looking for new gains in liberalizing society, the alternative party to the Republicans must do these things: 1. Find a pragmatic and more practical approach in politics: what will work to improve life a little bit for a lot of people. What the Dems do now is try to improve things substantially for small portions of society. Sort of like the Republicans, actually. The R's' small portions, though, have money, so if your chemical industry wants to be able to pour toxins in the river, generally it can get done. The R-alternative must find a small and practical gain for a large swath of people. Bush's tax rebate a few years back was a token and probably not a bad example. I know I appreciated mine: I think it paid off a credit card one month. But the Democrats have tried and failed to get a lot of benefits for a relatively few people. They could try getting a little bit for a lot of people. 2. Radical abortion rights is killing the Dems. An alternative party to the Republicans must recognize a diversity of opinions exist on abortion and live with it. Just like the R's. Just like Catholics. True pro-life politicians must be able to demonstrate not only an ability to legislate reasonable restrictions (as a start) but they must address supply side dynamics, too. The R's Achilles heel is that they protect life till its born, then they milk it for every capitalistic advantage. That can be attacked more effectively. 3. Civility, civility, civility. Another commentator was talking about the anger of those who have now been twice defeated by Reagan, once by Gingrich, and three times by the Bush dynasty. By my count, in the big elections since 1980, the Dems are 2-6. (If not for Clinton, they might be like those dozens of NBA teams that lost to the Celtics in the 50' and 60's. Or the Bills.) Anger has worked for conservatives for many years, but I think its unbecoming to liberals. We just don't do anger as well as Limbaugh and the crew. Progressives need to go back to the drawing board and assess if Democratic Party leadership is taking the team anywhere. Personally, I think it's time for some bloodletting at the top. And if somebody is getting too angry about yesterday, I'd suggest joining a drumming group and hike out into the wilderness with it. Maybe take up yoga. The dialogue needs to get more civil, unilaterally, if nothing else. The high ground is worth it. I think the Democrats are a little closer to dying than the Republicans, but I wonder if both parties are hanging on a bit past their normal lifespans. It's been over 150 years since the last major shift in major parties. Maybe it's time for one or both to die off. Karl Rove seems to have his life-support unit operating pretty well. It will be interesting to see how the party handles internal squabbling over abortion and spending: a fight which has to be inevitable. Even the Super Bowl winners fight a little bit before the dynasty breaks down. I really think we'd be better off with about four or five parties. Let 'em align to get things accomplished; it would certainly cut down on bipartisan bickering and stubbornness. The radicals on the ends would be happy. The way the national elections have been heading the past twenty-five years, it couldn't be much worse for progressives if the Dem's died out--they pretty much function as a collective of alliances anyway. Something starting fresh from the ashes: I could get on board with that. My parents were Roosevelt Democrats, and I wish I could say I was one too. Though I voted D more than R yesterday, the blues lost me years ago. Andmy numbers are millions. Power to the people!