A Month Past Hope: One Last Long Rant and Let's Get Going
By Phineas Dash

It's been a month now since election day. As I turned over the calendar page on the first of December, I remembered turning the page to November with hope and excitement. Tonight I want to put together my current conclusions derived from the campaign and what we've learned in the past month about what may have happened. My purpose is to clear my own mental and emotional air, and maybe help you clear yours, with the main object being the next steps towards the future.

The future may well see the 2004 election, and because GW Bush was returned to office, even more the 2000 election, as the nation's last opportunities to avoid the disasters to come, or at least to mitigate the pain of them. When all is said and done, those disasters could be greater than any of the horrors of the 20th century.

The U.S. may never recover, nor western civilization, nor perhaps, by the end of this century, humanity itself, and life on this planet as we know it. By then, the most notable failures will likely be the failure to confront global heating in time, or to adapt energy and natural resources policy in a timely and intelligent way. But there could be plenty of suffering before then, from the falling dominoes of wars, to economic hardship, the spread of poverty, unnecessary pain and death from untreated diseases and injuries, to growing political oppression and ignorance. And of course, this election ensures that the U.S. will continue to deal out these fates in other nations this very year, this very moment.

But if historians exist in 50 years, they will probably judge 2000 as the more significant, and the failure of the Democratic candidacy as the greater. Al Gore was the vice-president to a popular two-term president who left the country at peace, in prosperity, with huge federal budget surpluses projected into the future. The odds were in Gore's favor. History will probably also know that Gore won the election, but not by much. Not by enough. GW Bush took office, which was the fatal moment.

Now for 2004.

By one point of view, John Kerry had everything going for him, so it's hard to imagine how he would lose. The left was united and energized against Bush in 04, as it had not been in 2000. Bush had approval ratings hovering near 50%, which in the past correlated with an incumbent's defeat. He had started a war that was increasingly unpopular, created massive federal deficits, and was subjected to months of attacks by highly placed renegades from within his administration, as well as from the opposition. In the midst of the campaign, the Iraqi prison abuse scandal broke. He was a draft avoider running against a war hero. The leaders of most American allies, and most of the world's people, loathed him. His vice-president was a polarizing figure, as were several members of his administration. The economy was sluggishly lurching away from a recession, with spots of high unemployment in battleground states. Nearly every important newspaper in the nation, in the world for that matter, was against his re-election.

But from another point of view, it is hard to imagine how anyone could defeat Bush. Bush was president during time of war---in a palpable way, of two wars: the war on terror, begun with the first successful attack on mainland America since the War of 1812; and the war in Iraq, where American soldiers were dying daily. Fear and patriotism don't encourage change. Though the economy wasn't strong, consumers were still spending. He had the support of the wealthiest corporations, and had proven to them that their support would yield direct benefits. He was the incumbent, with an administration set up from its first days to win the next election. His opponent would have to invent a campaign structure in a few weeks. He controlled the leadership of his party, the governments of key states, and his minions were virulent extremists who would stop at nothing to win.

Analyzed from outside, it seems the Kerry campaign developed a set of strategies designed to win a close election. Since Bush's greatest apparent strength in issues terms was on the war on terror, and as Commander in Chief, the first task was to convince Americans to see Kerry as a Commander in Chief and protector of America. That was the imagery through the Democratic convention. Then the argument could be made on Kerry's stronger issues, including Iraq but mostly on the economy, jobs, and especially on health care. Along the way, the environment and energy could be woven into the economic and social justice themes. And of course it all had to be adapted to events and circumstances.

The campaign was hurt by the flip-flop charge, and then again by the Swift Boat liars, both aided and abetted by poor media reporting. But such attacks were expected, and the strategy was to finish strong. Kerry did, winning all three of the debates with Bush (which Gore managed to lose). The polls indicated that he had neutralized the flip-flop and Swift Boat charges, he drew even in the horserace and got his numbers up on leadership and the other essentials. By election day Kerry seemed to have momentum, despite the Osama tape. The strategy almost worked, or perhaps it did work and the election was stolen.

All this is important to remember because even a month later, the distortions have started that will become the official history. Bush may go around saying that it was at some pancake breakfast in September that he knew he was going to win, but there was also a reports that, as of 3 in the afternoon of election day, he was told he was going to lose in a landslide. Nobody knew anything for certain, and arguments on the roads not taken are all theoretical. Karl Rove is now a genius, but a switch of seventy thousand votes in Ohio would have made him a has-been. And if the election is actually investigated, he may yet wind up in a suit with stripes wider than pins. G. Gordon Liddy didn't think it could happen to him, either.

The campaign didn't always work smoothly, but it was a work in progress, as are all campaigns by challengers. The arguments about strategy will probably center on the response to the Swift Boat attacks in August, and that's a legitimate question. Others argued at the time, and will argue again, that liberating the antiwar sentiment at the convention could have galvanized support. I personally believe that much more could have been made of the Iraqi prison scandals: their revelation coincided with the first bumps Kerry got and the beginning of Bush's slide in the poll questions. There will be tactical arguments, and debate over moments in which Kerry screwed up. Had he won, there would be many more moments highlighted in which he performed very well, including moments when he was inspirational, funny and trenchant.

But all that is hindsight. Choices had to be made at the time, and they were made honorably. They could have worked, and either they almost did or they did work, and we were cheated. The strategy wasn't dishonorable, and the goal was worth it. Getting rid of the Bush administration was worth it. Even beyond that, John Kerry could well have been a great president. There was a stealth revolutionary quality to some of his proposals. What he said about an alternative energy economy is revolutionary. And unfortunately, health care as a right is still a revolutionary position in this country. Whether any president could undo or quickly recover from what Bush has done is an open question. And four years from now may not be too late for the change in direction that America needs, and the world needs America to make. But I will not let my disappointment, even my moments of despair, force me into self-indulgent blame, especially in personal terms. John Kerry fought bravely and well. So did the rest of us.

from now to 2008

While sound analysis is helpful, I make no recriminations whatever. (I'm not really dissing Al Gore, either. He would have made a fine president, and we wouldn't be in Iraq or so hopelessly in debt now.) That doesn't imply that the 2004 campaign, meant to end an incumbent's ruinous rule, should be replicated for 2008, when there will be no incumbent running. We can learn lessons from this campaign for the future, but let's keep our eye on that future, not on blame and attacks just because they might distract us from our pain and fear.

Four years is a very long time now, and so much is likely to happen that meaningful talk about the next presidential election is impossible, and handicapping a candidate is just a game. I believe we need to be doing two things: first, act now. Second, think anew for future elections.

These can be done more or less simultaneously, and they will nourish and form each other. Act now means: a relentless peace and protest movement. Continual focus on this immoral war, as a moral issue as well as a political issue. And committed action on investigating the 04 election and reforming the election system. It means an environmental movement that gets some focus and some intent.

At least according to one report I heard, that famous 40% that voted on moral issues was largely made up of Democrats who voted for Kerry because they saw the war in Iraq as a moral issue. Whether or not that statistic is credible at all, if the other side wants to talk about morality, I say bring it on.

Let's ask what kind of a country do we really want to be. Does Guantanamo really represent us? Is trading American children exposed to Afghani heroin so a few Taliban are chased into Pakistan---is that our American values at work? If this election showed that Americans are much more afraid of change because of terrorism than we believed possible, then let's deal with that fear. Let's not pretend we all understand it, because once it's really exposed, it's not very credible.

We also need to do what many on the political blogs advocate, which is to rethink and re-feel what the Democratic party and the progressive movement should make their main concerns. Let's take a different look at our common dreams and our principles, and see how one applies to the other. Let's open the borders of our political thought. Let's look at not just typical issues, but at different scales that relate to how people live their lives. Instead of talking first about jobs, let's talk about work. What do Americans want from their work? What does work mean to them, and to their lives?

We have the tools to do this as never before, and this is one of them. The Internet links us, inside the Beltway to the outer limits. We'd better use it while we can, because it's something else we dare not take for granted with this administration in power.

The discussion can include those who know strategy, those who ask good questions, and those who begin to explore and form ideas. It doesn't seem especially helpful to spend time figuring out which political tradition or ideological label the party or movement should follow. Let's look at the needs, the realities of now, for people and the planet, with the core assumptions traditionally associated with Democratic Party through leaders like JFK and RFK: that there are appropriate roles for a private and a public sector; that the public sector promotes the general welfare, regulates the private sector to the ultimate benefit of all, protects the rights of all but especially the less powerful, and helps those in need that the private sector cannot or will not help, for the ultimate benefit of all.

And perhaps it is time for Democrats and progressives to recognize again that Americans look to the president for leadership that goes beyond the political. Our leaders can help state the common dreams, the barriers and the solutions, without necessarily offering a solution totally dependent on government. Fairness and compassion aren't just political slogans; they are basic elements of human society, and as inbred as any other, because they help us survive. They don't always dominate, but they are always present. The kind of society that survives is a decent society, that shares the wealth, rewards innovation and artistry, nurtures and educates the young, takes care of the sick and the old, protects the whole, considers the future in every major action, and believes in a mystery larger than humankind. The societies that have survived the longest lived this way, to a greater or lesser degree. And even they needed renewal from time to time.

There are deep differences in this country, perhaps deeper than we thought. The most extreme, those lost in their shadows, or captives of the rush of their illusory power, those with vested economic and psychological interests in the Rabid Right, those whose souls are bought, may be beyond persuasion. But some of those who will never agree on the name of God or the origin of species, and some of those who find shelter in denial, may find enough common ground to actually have a political life again, rather than phantom wars that one side wins, while a smaller number of the losers become paid insurgents, and the rest of us go off bewildered to hide as long as we can.