I think it's instructive to compare the map in this post from Matthew Yglesias with this map I was pointed to from Alan's op-ed on Command Post to which you linked.

Leaving aside for a moment that I don't see how any thinking or breathing human being who had been to Gettysburg could find anything in secession even remotely funny or anything but offensive, there's nothing to secede. It's not Red State/Blue State.

There is a lot of good stuff here. Michael Totten, Cicero, and Michele Catalano, et al, are great.

So I mean no criticism of them - they have to work with the clay that's given them - but why do we have to re-invent this wheel every two to four years, explaining to crazy people that we are not living in Nazi Germany, and that Karl Rove does not control the weather? What are these people doing staying up late with the grownups in the first place? Better yet - why the hell is any sane person encouraging these lunatics to vote?

Likewise, I have heard this "Boy, the Democrats really have to straighten up" business a couple of times before (he said sarcastically). Gazing back over the recent campaign season, I ask: How did Howard Dean and John Kerry represent progress towards this goal?

Now that John Kerry is no longer the bearer of anyone's hopes, let's be honest about the guy. John Kerry is no kind of leader at all. He sat in an utterly safe seat as a Massachusetts senator for years (a seat that absolutely begged to be used as an activist platform) and he did nothing worth writing home about. He acted exactly like what people accuse Bush of being - an idle rich kid with nothing upstairs, who's liable to blow off committee meetings in favor of cocktail parties. (The most poignantly pathetic moments of this campaign, to me, were Kerry's wistful references to Ronald Reagan.)

Kerry aside, who in the Democratic party is going to reform what? For the love of God - who is even going to stand up to Michael Moore?

There is a lot of talk about the Dems rebuilding like the GOP did after 1964. But here's what happened between 1964 and 1980: the GOP ditched the nativists, the anti-Semites, the Minutemen, and the John Birch Society. Meanwhile, the Democrats sucked up the SDS, the VVAW, and other people best left unmentioned. And they haven't stopped, and they show no signs of stopping.

Glen, you may well be right. But there are still a few of us who hope that it turns out differently.

I read somewhere a good one about how when the Republicans lose an election they treat it as an outrageous but temporary departure from the natural order of things, and they get really angry and righteously indignant. While when Democrats lose an election they treat it as a matter for existential loathing, self-doubt, and despair over the rejection of their entire worldview and value-system, causing much self-pity and musing about whether happiness is really possible at all in this horrific veil of tears.

I am a stubborn, stubborn person, and I remain convinced that Senator Kerry would have been a far superior President to . . .That Man, even though a (slight) majority of Americans disagreed with me. And I remain convinced that the right way to go about politics is to fight hard (but not fanatically) for what you believe, and try to bring people over to your side over time, rather than try to insincerely change what you believe in response to losing a couple of elections. Kinsley's (funny) essay "Democracy Can Goof" expresses what I believe on this score.

Obviously, when you don't get your way, there is the temptation, even subtley, to expect bad news or to dwell on bad news so you will be "vindicated". This is a grievous sin, and I hope my fellow Democrats don't fall prey to it (many of them have, but only temporarily. They'll get over it). In any case, it does not just afflict Democrats. Some Republicans or Clinton-haters obssess over and magnify any bad news from Kosovo, while at the same time dismissing any bad news in Iraq as insignificant - if you compare it World War II. Sen. Lugar said about Kosovo "This is Clinton's war, so when he falls flat on his face it's not our problem", or words to that effect. This is a shocking and indefensible statement from a senior Senator, and not merely a film-maker, but I believe it would be very wrong to permanently label Sen Lugar as a Very Bad Man Who Wants America To Fail, instead of treating it as an uncharacteristic lapse. I wish you were similarly charitable to Kos.

Obviously, I hope Bush does a good job, and I wish us all good fortune. But losing an election won't change my mind that Bush is currently following many policies that I believe are . . .suboptimal. And losing an election will not change my belief that we would probably be better off if the policies or the people I like had gotten their keys to the car, or if Bush changes towards my direction. Nor should it.

What Roublen sees is a 180 degree flip from earlier eras, when America was a VERY "blue" country. But the Democrats have fallen a long way from America's natural governing party, and that's an important part of this story (and reason for some of the gnashng of teeth).

And Roublen, there is nothing uncharacteristic about Kos' "lapses" - and his "apologies" tend to shine an even darker light on the statements he makes.

Finally, Lugar was condemned over Kosovo by the neoconservatives, who were notable and vocal in their support of intervention (and thereby aroused the curiosity of some guy named Hitchens in the process, a curiosity that would bear fruit in a very unexpected place and time). Unlike Kos, however, Lugar has a record that suggests constructive engagement and national security sanity as well (like, for instance, Nunn-Lugar). THAT, and not his party, is why he's treated differently than Kos.

The Democrats need to "get their crazy people off the front porch," as Dave puts it, and start building that record of constructive sanity. There are some adults (Biden, Bayh, others), so it's possible, but the crazies also have to be confronted. Terry McAuliffe hosting a big event for Fahrenheit 9/11 attended by many elected Demcoratic representatives, and praising the movie, ain't gonna do it. Especially once Osama starts quoting the video.

The Republicans, especially on social issues, need to be serious about principles while keeping their own crazies off the front porch, or they too could be headed for trouble.

Joe,

Thanks so much for bringing these things to our attention. Let me offer some comments on Noonan's article--I hope this fits with the kind of discussion you were hoping to spark.

(Sure [guns] should be registered, but registration should exist to allow the law abiding to have guns, and not be twisted into a way to keep guns out of everyone's hands.)

Secondly, she attempts to explain her urban colleagues' lack of understanding of gun ownership as influenced by their urban locations with their ample provision of speedy, competent police protection, in contrast to rural areas where law enforcement is far away. Surely the poor disarmed souls in DC, Chicago, or even her very own NYC would tell a different tale!

Let me be, admittedly, mean, but to make a point I can't figure out how to make any other way. Those who oppose the right to keep and bear arms are not as a rule the kind of people who would, or could, take down a nut waving his gun at the kids in a McDonalds. Those who oppose gun rights are more like the kind of people who when the incident was over would write a sensitive essay about how it felt to come face to face with one's existential powerlessness when faced with the sudden force of a sick man who alas shot two kids right in front of me. You may mean to be helpful in the abstract, but you are not helpful in the particular.

That seems to encapsulate the difference I percieve, at any rate, between the R's and D's on national security these days. It was not always thus, mind you: when can we clone Scoop Jackson? :-) He, much more so than Lieberman, was a Democrat I could have voted for president!

Intelligent post elections posts?

Yes I read many of them.

What a rarity to all the gloating and cursing thats going on.

I think the following should be added to the notable quotes. I only wish I had read this article a while back. I certainly would have passed it on. The final quote from Peggy Noonan really nails it for me.

From Peggy Noonan:

"If the purpose is just winning, you can do anything to win. And you can do anything to stay. You never give an inch. But people who never give an inch sometimes wind up occupying tired and barren terrain.”

“There is another problem. You have become the party of snobs. You have become the party of Americans who think they're better than other Americans.”

"But--again--the antiwar movement startled me. I knew America was imperfect, but I also loved it. I had no illusion that other countries were perfect, or superior.”

I have to laugh when I read Democrat defeat and Conservatives' being in power attributed to "narratives" or right wing propaganda via talk radio and Fox News. Where the hell were all these people in 1979? Liberal policies pursued by both parties had resulted in double-digit inflation, double-digit umemployment, 20% prime rate, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (attributable in part, I believe to American weakness and hesitancy after Viet Nam), capture of some of our people and humiliation of our country for over a year by a bunch of medieval savages in Iran. Drug use and addiction reached their highest levels in our history (or at least in the 20th century). Divorce and illegitamacy rates spiralled out of control. The sexual revolution resulted in epidemics of venereal disease and unwanted pregnancy, hence abortions. The crime rate was the highest it has been in the 20th century. Could fear of a return to that be more of a motivator for voting Republican than the idiocy of red state residents or the right-wing propaganda machine?

I have to laugh when I read Conservative victories attributed to "narratives" or right-wing propaganda via Fox News or talk radio. Where the hell were all these people in 1979? Liberal policies pursued by both parties had resulted in 14% inflation and 8% unemployment, 20% prime interest rate, the capture of American citizens and humiliation of our country for over a year by a bunch of medieval savages in Iran, out of control divorce and illegitimacy rates, the highest levels of drug use and addiction since the 19th century, the highest crime rates in over a century, degeneration of our education system to a dangerous level, an affirmative action policy at least easily perceivable as unfair and detrimental to productivity, and forced busing. The sexual revolution had resulted in epidemics of venereal disease (and ultimately the AIDS epidemic) and unwanted pregnancy hence abortion. Just a thought, but could fear of a return to all that motivate Republican voters more than sheer idiocy, a good story, or the right-wing propaganda machine?

I think another map to look at is this one: http://www.presidentelect.org/e1896.html

Its the electoral map for the 1896 election (McKinley/Bryan). It shows much the same red state/ blue state divide as today. In 1896, however, the Democrats were the party of the rural West and the South and the center of population had not yet moved South and West.

Regionalism is a natural part of our federalist system, but one can easily make too much of it. I live in one of those "red" counties and 41% of the voters here voted for Kerry and 64% of them voted for the democratic senator. Heck, I live in a 50/50 house where the occupants share the same cultural, educational, economic and religious background, but not the same politcal imperatives.

Perhaps Kerry was too much of a blue-state patrician, but I would blame the patrician part more than the blue-state part. I think Howard Dean might have beat Bush because he was plain-spoken, authoritative (gubenatorial rather than senatorial), visionary and not as liberal as his detractors would lead us to believe.

In four years, the Democrats will make a strong run for the White House. Unfortunately, they may face a stronger Republican opponent than Bush.

The problems I have with all the posts here is that they don't seem to understand that our economy is undergoing a massive changes. These changes are creating the same uncertainities that change always has. The problem is that they are occuring faster than just about anyone has imagined but there are always people thinking about these changes and how to exploit them. As a result you blog about the tree your interested in(left right security healthcare) within the forest rather than in examing the ground upon which the forest and trees grow. I want to look at the ground(the economy) and examine how it effects the forest.

I think everyone would agree that the bigger the ecomic pie is the easier it is to enact policies that benefit most of us. The problem is that the pie is now shrinking. It has not however left the country as a whole poor. Our system has created a great deal of WEALTH. The problem is what to do with it. Do we have some sort of governmental spending to ameloriate problems in order to regrow the pie for all of us or split it for the benefit of oligarchical corporate capitalism?

I have thought from the begining of the Republican ascendacy under Nixon that it's whole long term gain was to deprieve the government at all levels the funds to carry out almost any goal that would elevate the average American. It began withNixon's Southern Strategy and its most noxious product the Christian Academies of the South. The purpose of these were not because Blacks and whites didn't get along but were to starve the public school systems of funds for anyone. At many academies Catholics were not welcome for example.

The next phase began with the takeovers of corporations in the 80's. The takeovers were not consolidations along the classical economic model towards monopolies but rather to decapitalize the American wage earner. Most were funded not by T Boone Pickens capital and Drexel Burnhams'
understanding of the junk bond market, those were mere adjuncts to the looting of pension funds for workers in these industries. Corporate America across the board had invested wisely in their own selfs. The excess capital in these funds were used to pay for the acquistion of the company in "play". The events in 87 were a classic response to any inflationary event eventually enough product is produce devaluing that that already exists.

The strategy and agenda of the extreme evangelical church continued. Attacks were made on all social programs that benefitted the individual. Reagan had the classic "Cadillac Queen," never found or identified. In the mean time Penn Square S&L lead to the collapse of the Federal S&L Depositors Insurance Corporation. Finding the returns in the housing market miniscule given rates were now floated they began financing a huge expansion in the energy markets that collapsed. Each pair was a transfer of wealth from the individual to a corporate entity. And with its collapse the great mass of taxpayers Average America paid the bill.

The same thing occured with the winning of the Cold War. We outspent the USSR because our economy could produce guns if we stripped away the safety net of our own people. This is what we did.

The end of the Cold war presented new problems for the evangelical right. The greatest force in modern history was turned loose. Capitalism and its life affirming market. The freeing of the world from political blocs tied to whether you were with us or against let allowed ideas, laws and capital spread to where it could best be used.

In America like in many parts of the Islamic world it was a two edge sword. It allowed those with capital put it to more efficient use i.e., a consumer consumption based economy but its use gave way to freedoms unheard of in fundamentalist communities here and abroad. It challenged male dominated societies to recognize woman as legitimate leaders in their own right. It questioned socieatal restrictions based on religious belief. It challenged notions of how a family was to work as agarian societies were no longer protected from market forces. How much differenet are the beliefs of fundamentalist churches and extreme religion as practised by the Taliban?

Here this expansion meant that closed societies with educated populations could take the knowledge denied to them both as individuals and a society and using market based economic systems revive their own stagnant economy and begin pressuring ours as well. This has occured at all levels of our society; our manufacturing base, our raw resource base and our knowledge base.

This assault has rocked our stability to its foundations. As our economic security(that is an ability to earn wages and benefits commensurate w/ our post WWII model) declined it became easier and easier to place blame on racial minorities unfairly taking our jobs, expansion of non traditioanl households (single parents) and lifestyles (homosexuals) and a fragmentation of shared moral values (the market over sexualizing everything to sell a product- the only thing agree with in their world view and strictly in the context of children). When coupled w/ a suicide attack on the American mainland by Jihadists(those wishing to re-establish Islam as practiced in the 600 AD's on everybody) it becomes extremely easy to convince people to ignore the underlying economic realities , its attendant anxieties and how to deal with them if people are scared out of their wits.

This is exactly the place we find ourselves now. We have policies based on fear of the changing economy instead of how to reinvigorate our economy for the individual. We have policies that strip the opportunity for all by picking winners through government fiat(think no bid contracts). We base our educational system on our individual wealth instead of the benefit of all.

Until this becomes the intial discussion that America is constantly changing and we need to better prepare ourselves for it through education about the real state of our economy, discussions about gay marriage, security, morals, what color your local voting area is won't matter. the internal decline of the economy will rip the country apart as every interest declares for itself. If we do not act for the benefit of us all a house divided will fall.

I think Robert's analysis is badly flawed in a number of places, but his main point (the structure of the economy is changing, and how do we deal with it?) is a sound question for both parties.

Not the only question by any means (if the Dems continue to hang themselves on security and values issues, their problems will persist - and if the GOP overreaches on values issues, it will gain a problem of its own), but an important one.

I wrote a similar piece, especially in response to calls by some (Kos et al) that the Democrats should (have) moved further left.

Dragging the Democrats Back From the Precipice On the Left

I don't think the country is deeply divided, I think each party is deeply divided - between radicals and moderates. The party that can control its radicals better is the one that wins.

Of course, it is damned hard to figure out who is radical and who is moderate if you are a radical yourself.