It's the Morals, Stupid
It' 8:15am PST, and Kerry has just conceded defeat to President Bush. Laura Rozen of War and Piece sums up my mood just about right:

We are going through the seven stages of mourning here pretty rapidly. Last night was anger and denial, disbelief, grief, today we may be moving to some sort of dawning acceptance: our country is far more conservative than me and my friends. But there's a lot of us moderates and liberals and progressives too, and we're ghettoized on the coasts and upper midwest. So what's the answer? Exile or fight it? How about some sort of loose federation, a la the Kurds? Can we have our own foreign policy?

But Bush has won, and as Jesse over at Pandagon says:

Congratulations to Bush. Hopefully the next four years aren't as fucked up as the last four, although I doubt it.

Indeed, I doubt it greatly (and gravely) as well. I was hoping that I'd be able to put this blog to bed today, to move on to a new blog theme, one that would focus on the positivity of the new administration and the repairs made to all the broken china scattered about the globe by this administration. But it looks like I'll be staying put in the blogosphere with this theme. I'll continue to look for try to expose the cracks in the facade of the Bush/Cheney empire so that, ultimately, reason can prevail. [That said, while I'll continue to fight the good fight, maybe after a few days of licking my wounds, note that this address will probably change by the end of the year--stay tuned for details.]

So, how in the hell did Kerry lose to this guy, the famously incurious CEO -style leader of a zealously incompetant goverment? Here's one take from Chris Sullentrop at Slate:

Nine percent of the electorate, according to the national exit poll, made up their minds within the past three days. As predicted by polling experts, a fairly small proportion, only 40 percent, decided to cast ballots for President Bush. But John Kerry didn't benefit from their decision not to support the president. Instead, Ralph Nader did.

That's right, the undecideds broke disproportionately for Nader, not Kerry. If the poll is correct, Nader will receive only 1 percent of the popular vote. But 4 percent of the voters who made up their minds in the past three days cast ballots for Nader. Among the voters who made their decision on Election Day, 5 percent went for Nader.

I'm watching CNN right now, and they've got Ron Brownstein of the LATimes on talking about exit polling numbers. Here are some of his comments (gawd, I love TiVo and the ability to pause and rewind):

I think first, clearly, is the continued movement of our politics toward one based more on cultural values than economic interests. The Republicans are consolidating all of culturally conservative America. If you look at the polls, and the results, by county, whether it's the panhandle in Florida or southern Ohio, George Bush significantly expanded on his margins in culturally conservative parts of the country. He did very well with people who attend church regularly. Gun owners, he won about 60 percent. He won married voters.

[...]

The war in Iraq has functioned as something like a social issue. Politically, it divides the coutry along the lines more, as I said, of values, more than class. George Bush lost voters who have a college degree or more according to the exit poll. Very unusual for a Republican. He did even better than he did last time among non-college voters, who tend to be a little more hawkish on national security issues.

More than anything, this election was determined by church folk. Commentator after commentator noted that voters who attend church regularly broke for Bush in large numbers. It's hard for me to grasp this, as I know a lot of people who attend church regularly (including my wife, the moderator of her UCC congregation, and my mom, an Episcopal priest) who feel that the Christian values espoused by this administration are cherry-picked and aren't telling the whole story of what Christian faith is. And I know that there are a lot more of this persuasion out there. I am not a Christian (I like to call myself a Secularist, but I'm really still searching for just the right label as well as still exploring what faith means to me), but my actions and ethics are largely defined by that radical thinker/activist, Jesus Christ. And what I've learned, and firmly believe, is that the Christian faith is not based on exclusion. Yet, by and large, that's where it's headed today. Just take a look at all the anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives that were winning by large margins yesterday. Here's some commentary from a diarist at Daily Kos that puts us on notice for what's coming in the next four years:

In the House and the Senate, the theocrats made dramatic advances, far beyond the number of seats that switched parties. On the GOP side, they have replaced moderates with zealots, and have significantly strengthened the support for the main theocrat bills that will be reintroduced in the new Congress.

You can hear it in the media's codewords: this election did NOT turn on Iraq or the economy or security, it turned on "moral values", the politically correct code-word for theocratic values, i.e., placing one's religion above the laws of man. Exit polls show that "moral values" were the most common #1 concern among voters, and that among those who marked "moral values" as their primary concern, 80% voted for Bush. Every state that had a same-sex marriage ban up for decision voted the theocrat way.

Political Juice (a progressive Mormon) has this to say:

I think it's evidence of a less-than-fully-informed electorate. Bush and Kerry are not far from identical on the issue of gay marriage, and Kerry's approach to abortion seems much more level-headed and nuanced than Bush's. But presumably most voters (mistakenly) decided that Kerry was pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Why would they decide this? Oh yeah, because Republicans were selling them this and they were buying it.

But, as my pal Creighton just asked via email, is there any good news? Here's what David Corn at The Nation has to say, trying his best to turn a frown upside down:

The good news: America is a divided nation. Despite the pundit hand-wringing over this fact, it is a positive thing. Nearly--nearly--half of the electorate rejected Bush's leadership, his agenda, his priorities, his falsehoods. From Eminem to the chairman of Bank of America to 48 Nobel laureates to gangbangers who joined anti-Bush get-out-the-vote efforts in swing states. Nearly half of the voting public concluded that Bush had caused the deaths of over 1,100 American GIs and literally countless Iraqis (maybe 100,000) for no compelling reason. Nearly half saw the emperor buck naked and butt ugly. Nearly half said no to his rash actions and dishonest justifications. Nearly half realized that Bush had misrepresented the war in Iraq as a crucial part of the effort against al Qaeda and Islamic jihadism. Nearly half desired better and more honest leadership. Nearly half knew that Bush has led the country astray.

Other good news: Second-term presidents often hit the skids. The last three second- terms were marked by scandal (Watergate, Iran-contra, Monicagate). And as top officials sprint through the revolving door to snag high-paying jobs (while their contacts are fresh), the job of running the government during the second administration often falls to the B Team. In the post-9/11 world, this is not all that reassuring. But the historical trend does suggest that Bush will have trouble enacting his various schemes. Yet--let's be realistic--the Senate results indicate that the GOP will expand its majority in the Senate, which means Bush will have more allies for his wrongheaded missions.

And here's some advice from Slate for what progressives need to do during this upcoming administration:

If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

Calling Barrack Obama...