Clinical Depression

I've been trying to figure out why liberal writers and true-blue-staters are so down in the dumps.

It's not just losing a close election (especially when the exit polls had you believing your guy was headed for victory). Democrats have lost five of the last seven White House races, except for Clinton's two runs, going back to 1980.

It's not just that so many of them can't stand Bush and can't believe that a president with his record won a second term.

It's not just that their nominee was a Vietnam war hero up against a guy who never saw combat and they still found themselves playing defense on national security and whether Kerry deserved his medals.

It's not just that the Democrats had plenty of money to spend (unlike the Gore campaign) and shattered their own turnout record (unlike Gore) and still lost.

It's not just that they control nothing in Washington at the moment, except for the mayor's office, and even he is having trouble getting his baseball-stadium plan through.

It's more visceral, a sense that the red states are now running the country and they are totally left out. A sense that their values (or lack thereof) are under fire. A sense that believing in abortion rights and gay rights is now seen as out of the mainstream. A sense that America is not the country they thought it was.

The LAT's Michael Kinsley got at this the other day:

"So yes, OK, fine. I'm a terrible person -- barely a person at all, really, and certainly not a real American -- because I voted for the losing candidate on Tuesday. If you insist -- and you do -- I will rethink my fundamental beliefs from scratch because they are shared by only 47% of the electorate.

"And please let me, or any other liberal, know if there is anything else we can do to abase ourselves. Abandon our core values? Pander to yours? Not a problem. Happy to do it. Anything, anything at all, to stop this shower of helpful advice. "There's just one little request I have. If it's not too much trouble, of course. Call me profoundly misguided if you want. Call me immoral if you must. But could you please stop calling me arrogant and elitist?"

Not that there aren't some arrogant and elitist people on the left (and the right, for that matter). But what about the 51 million people who voted for Kerry? They don't all live in New York and California, you know. Some of them even live in Texas. Liberals complain that there has almost been an attempt to marginalize them, to portray them as out-of-touch buffoons. Their guy lost the election, but the media should resist the urge to paint the losing side in any election as cultural losers.

Looks like we've left one name off the list of possible '08 contenders:

"While Senator John F. Kerry is 'profoundly disappointed' with losing his presidential race last week, it is 'conceivable' he will run again in four years, his brother and political confidant, Cameron F. Kerry, said yesterday," reports the Boston Globe.

"In the meantime, the former Democratic nominee will work through the Senate and perhaps a newly formed political action committee to ensure that Democrats have a superior ground organization in 2008, his younger brother said."

Since Adlai Stevenson, though, the Dems have not nominated losers a second time.

Another 2008 contender could be seeking a new job, notes the New York Post:

"Former presidential candidate Howard Dean -- the one-time front-runner for the Democratic nomination whose campaign went down in flames following his screaming concession speech in Iowa -- is considering a new job as party chairman.

"'He told me he was thinking about it,' said Steve Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Grossman said he 'strongly urged' Dean to go for the job."

National Review Editor Rich Lowry sees the Dems in denial:

"It is extraordinary that liberals constantly forget about these voters, since their entire political strategy is based on them -- getting around them, that is. The liberal reliance on the courts to effect social change is entirely driven by the fact that most of the country is not keen on social liberalism. Indeed, last Tuesday's biggest loser was the Massachusetts supreme court. In its eagerness to slam gay marriage down the throats of Massachusetts -- and, by extension, the rest of the country -- it prompted a populist backlash that benefited President Bush.

"All eleven state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed last week. All but two passed with more than 60 percent of the vote. In the crucial swing state of Ohio, support for the anti-gay-marriage amendment juiced up turnout in the GOP south and west of the state, and nudged swing voters in the Appalachian southeast Bush's way. According to one estimate, one-fourth of Ohio voters identified themselves as born-again Christians, and they voted for Bush by a 3-1 margin.

"Liberals will try to dodge the import of these results. Already there are complaints about the supposed stupidity of voters concentrating on moral issues when there are so many more urgent concerns. What about global warming? The minimum wage? But for many people, faith is an existential commitment. Expecting them to put their religious convictions aside in the voting booth -- especially when they consider those convictions under assault by unelected judges -- is simply to misunderstand faith's power."

Lots of buzz about this NYT column by Bob Herbert on uninformed voters:

"I think a case could be made that ignorance played at least as big a role in the election's outcome as values. A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S. has come up with 'clear evidence' that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion supported the U.S.-led invasion.

"This is scary. How do you make a rational political pitch to people who have put that part of their brain on hold? No wonder Bush won.

"The survey, and an accompanying report, showed that there's a fair amount of cluelessness in the ranks of the values crowd."

Novelist Jane Smiley, writing in Slate, also blames dummies:

"I grew up in Missouri and most of my family voted for Bush, so I am going to be the one to say it: The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry. I suppose the good news is that 55 million Americans have evaded the ignorance-inducing machine. But 58 million have not."

And then there's this radical solution, according to the Washington Times:

"Secession, which didn't work very well when it was tried once before, is suddenly red hot in the blue states. In certain precincts, anyway.

"One popular map circulating on the Internet shows the 19 blue states won by Sen. John Kerry -- Washington, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland and the Northeastern states -- conjoined with Canada to form the 'United States of Canada.' The 31 red states carried by Mr. Bush are depicted as a separate nation dubbed 'Jesusland.'"

Citing MSNBC commentator and former Moynihan aide Lawrence O'Donnell, the paper says: "The idea isn't just a joke; one top Democrat says, 'The segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don't pay for the federal government.'"

A new civil war! Now there's a decent plot for the media to start hyping.

American Prospect's Michael Tomasky plumbs the meaning of "values":

"The great values debate has commenced.

"Four camps have emerged thus far. There's the camp that says, essentially, change the subject -- Democrats have to win back values voters by fighting the morals argument with economic populism. Second, there's the triangulation camp, which says Democrats have to win them back by closing the 'culture gap,' which would presumably entail taking a sterner line against, for example, gay marriage. Third, there's a hybrid camp, arguing that Democrats have to reach values voters by finding a way to couch populist messages in moral rhetoric. Finally, there's the values-were-overblown-by-the-media camp. All have a point, in their own way, but all have made the same mistake of assuming that values voters are monolithic.

"Before Democrats even start having this argument in earnest, they need to define its terms and be clear on a very important point. Values voters are not monolithic. They are, to coin a word, duolithic. There's the religious right, and then there are voters who are religious. They are not the same thing. The former are not persuadable; they want to extinguish modernity, they privilege mystical belief over physical evidence, and they will never vote Democratic. They are about a quarter of the population, and there's a similar quarter of the population who will never vote Republican, so they can at least be fought (and fighting is the proper concept with respect to this cohort) to a draw.

"But somewhere in the remaining 50 percent are voters who are deeply religious but not in any way members of the religious right. They can have qualms about gay marriage without wanting to go back to Victorian morality. They can find themselves disturbed by the way Democratic politicians talk about abortion without wanting all women to be housewives. (Indeed, they can be disturbed by the rhetoric while still supporting the notion that abortion should remain an option.) These voters are the ones Democrats must try to reach."

Can Bush afford to be generous? The New Republic's Gregg Easterbrook poses the question:

"It is in the moment of victory when acting magnanimous makes the best impression. Bush needs to go on a magnanimousness offensive, to earn good feelings and good relations that may prevent the knives-in-the-back that plagued the last two reelected incumbents. Bush needs to reach out to Democrats, and not just have a few to the White House for sandwiches--he needs to praise the people he defeated, and do so warmly. Because America's standing in the world is so low, Bush needs to go on a charm offensive with world leaders, praising them and praising other nations. I'd love to see Bush make a tour of European capitals, plus Moscow and Tokyo, giving speeches lauding other nations--including France!--and saying how much America respects and admires them.

"Bush will never run for office again, but the next few months may be the most important of his political life: They will determine whether his second term will be constructive and successful, or unravel as did the second terms of the last two reelected incumbents. Right now, when Bush is strong and basking in victory, is the best possible moment for him to be magnanimous to Democrats, to the 56 million Americans who voted for someone else, and to the larger world. Second terms are not easy: They are fraught with peril, and recently have all but consumed two master politicians, Reagan and Clinton. If Bush wishes to avoid being the third straight president to be consumed by a second term, he must do what the previous two did not--reach out with kindness, and mean it."

Josh Marshall examines the flap over Arlen Specter saying (whether as a warning or a recognition of reality) that anti-abortion judges are not going to be confirmed for the high court:

"Evidently, in the interim, Specter got a call letting him know that if he wanted the Judiciary Committee Chairmanship, he'd better recant. And quickly. And so he did.

"At this point, to use judicial jargon, the White House had already forced Specter to enter into a non-custodial relationship with his testicles. But now the ante is being upped.

"James Dobson, one of the most powerful leaders of the religious right, now says he doesn't want Specter as Chairman no matter what. 'He is a problem,' said Dobson, 'and he must be derailed.'

"I have a hard time believing that Specter will actually be turned aside while he is so loudly protesting his willingness to toe the party line. But it puts even more pressure on Specter to be a down-the-line supporter of every judicial nominee the president sends up to the Hill.

"This raises two issues. First, how much room will remain for the moderate GOP senators and how much freedom will they have to deviate from the White House line which, predictably, is now moving even more decisively to the right. Second, how much de facto control will the White House and the president have over the internal governance of the Senate under Bill Frist?"

Andrew Sullivan counsels restraint:

"We have all learned that this president's biggest mistakes have occurred when he was convinced he was invincible. Success in Afghanistan led him to construct a war-plan for Iraq that was far too optimistic. Success in the initial phases of the Iraq war led him to the 'Mission Accomplished' embarrassment. A clear victory in this election - but no landslide - has now apparently led him to contemplate Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court [chief] justice." This according to Drudge, at least.

"And we're also told by Karl Rove that 'if we want to have a hopeful and decent society, we ought to aim for the ideal, and the ideal is that marriage ought to be, and should be, a union of a man and a woman.' By inference, the hopes of gay couples to belong to their own family and society are somehow non-existent; and the commitment of one gay person to another is somehow 'indecent.' On 'Meet The Press,' Rove also argued that even civil unions backed by 'a few local elected officials' should be banned. Bill Bennett must be thrilled. I had hoped that this president might use his victory to unite. But he is dividing more aggressively than ever."

Ron Brownstein does the math and says the Dems need to widen the battlefield:

"The lesson seems unavoidable. Democrats need a nominee who can effectively compete for more of the country than Kerry did -- especially socially conservative regions such as the South and rural Midwest. That would give the Democrats more paths to an electoral college majority. A nominee with more appeal in the red states might also create a climate that enables the party to seriously contest more House and Senate seats.

"The red and blue map of electoral results vividly captures the point. If Bush, as is likely, holds his lead in New Mexico, Kerry would have been reduced to three enclaves: the Northeast and New England, the upper Midwest (where he held Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota) and the West Coast. . . .

"That imperative seems certain to raise the 2008 profile of Democrats who have won elections in regions the party needs to put back into play -- such as governors Tom Vilsack of Iowa (the rural Midwest), Bill Richardson of New Mexico (the desert Southwest) and especially Mark R. Warner of Virginia (the South)."

Sign of the times: An ad for ConservativeMatch.com orders: "Stop Dating Liberals!"