I think it is barely possible that in 2006 or 2008 the Democrats could overcome the effects of gerrymandering, vote fraud and public stupidity to regain one or both houses of Congress. And given the incredible screw-ups of this administration, it is even more likely that a Democrat will win the Presidency. (This is under the assumption that the Cheney administration will not stage an attack on the "homeland" that will necessitate the end of representative democracy as we know it.)

But I am afraid the country is well and truly lost, and I cannot envision a scenario with a more hopeful outcome. It would require a mass desire for change and a mass belief in the possibility of change and realistic options for change. And the one thing you will not get from the Democrats is change. Oh, you would see some improvements around the edges, but they would be cosmetic, not substantive.

Here's what the Democrats won't do—

• Bring the troops back from Iraq (they might even send more)
• Stop using military threat as the chief component of U.S. foreign policy
• Reduce the size of the military
• Renounce the doctrine of preemptive warfare and unilateral action
• Cut the arms trade that elevates the U.S. to Number One as purveyor of death and destruction
• Respect democratic socialist movements, or indeed respect any democratic movement whose aims don't accord with capitalist interests
• Renounce Guantánamo and the right of the President to declare anyone an "enemy combatant"
• Restore U.S. commitment to international law
• Restore civil liberties taken away by the Patriot Act
• Curb the police
• Usher in universal healthcare
• Break up the media conglomerates
• Resurrect the Fairness doctrine
• Protect the poor
• Abolish the death penalty
• Etc., etc.

I'm not saying that you won't be able to find individual Democratic Congressmen and Senators who would support these actions and policies, but they are a minority of a minority.

What a Democratic victory will bring is this—

A new consensus is emerging among leading Democrats: Winning congressional and presidential races in the post-9/11 world requires candidates who are willing to use military might and keep the nation safe. The emerging strategy is to support a more aggressive foreign policy that focuses on threats being neglected by the Bush administration, but avoid taking a contentious stance on Iraq, according to an analysis published in the Boston Globe last week.

Even Democrats associated with liberal positions are calling for a larger military, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression, according to the analysis.

Despite pressure from some liberal groups for a quick exit from Iraq, several of the party's White House aspirants and congressional leaders have called for intensified efforts to stabilize the nation before troops come home.

“Having the strongest military in the world is the first step, but we also have to have a strong commitment to using our military in smart ways that further peace, stability, and security around the world," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, argued last month at the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in Columbus, OH. Clinton, a possible 2008 presidential contender, has called for adding 80,000 troops to the armed services.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden, D-DE, also a potential presidential candidate, has laid out a doctrine of rebuilding alliances while making clear that “force will be used — without asking anyone's permission — when circumstances warrant.”

The new message has grown out of a series of party caucuses, conferences on national security, and polling by Democratic think tanks. “If you're not credible on security, it doesn't matter if you have better ideas on health care and education and everything else," explained Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank.

Liberal groups such as MoveOn.org are urging an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, while Howard Dean has mostly remained silent on foreign affairs since becoming chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The top Democrats in the House and Senate issued a report in July that criticized Bush administration efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The report called for the United States to engage in more direct negotiations with Iran and North Korea, and for such talks to be reinforced with military pressure, including “the possibility of repeated and unwarned strikes.”

At the DLC convention Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, noted that John Kerry lost the presidential race in 2004 primarily “because we did not have a compelling national-security message." He urged Democrats to return to the foreign policy visions of Democratic presidents Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy. “We must be prepared to strategically use our military, as a party, for good, and against other transnational threats in addition to the threat of terrorism," he said.

Can I vote for this scum? One moment while I consider the alternative ... Oh! You bet!

Related posts
My nominee for President in 2008 (11/9/04)
Another reason I won't be supporting Hillary for President in 2008 (12/13/04)
Newt nominates Hillary (4/15/05)