What the hell happened?  How did a corrupt idiot lead a corrupt and brutish lot of greedy jerks to a landslide in 2002?  All the liberals, Democrats and real leftists will be arguing about this for months now.  Here's my take on it:

First, and most importantly, America is slipping rapidly into fascism. I don't mean that as hyperbole or name-calling.  This is the real thing.  Fascism.  Mussolini-styled fascism.  For more on the fascist movement and its parallels to 21st century American Bushreich, click here.

As the mantra "ever since 9-11" has salved guilt and evoked rude, brutish behavior from a frightened population, people have increasingly retreated to the escapism of prime time television and Republican politics.  Fascism can easily slip itself by right wingers, who don't realize what they let in.  Liberals are disconnected or frustrated.  Aside from the obvious appeal during times of fear and economic decline of fascist candidates, there are also some other possible explanations.  

Democrats used to represent the "little guy".  Bill Clinton, Dick Gephardt and Joseph Lieberman have led the Democratic party "to the center."  This means that, like Coca-Cola trying to imitate Pepsi, they tried to become like the more powerful and popular Republican party.  The only meaningful differences between these sleazy "New Democrats" and the moderate Republicans are campaign funding and the corporate special interests they are aligned with.  Most of us on the real left see the Democrats as whores who sold their souls to corporate interests and PRETEND to be protecting "the little guy."  Sure, you can say Republicans are Pro-Life, and Democrats are Pro-Choice, but that distinction is only statistically true.  There are indeed Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans.  Besides, the abortion debate is a red herring--a litmus test or article of faith used to situate politicians along religious or secular lines.  The point is that most Americans just can't tell the difference between the two parties.

Democrats used to represent peace, diplomacy, manners, restraint, intelligence, philosophical reflection and erudition.  This was true at least from the Civil Rights Act until Bill Clinton at least.  Republicans have always represented war, power, unilateralism, arrogant rudeness, anti-intellectualism, impulsiveness, xenophobia and short-sighted selfishness.  After 9/11, slutty Democrats like Gephardt and Lieberman turned into bellicose demagogues crying out for war.  The disgusting former Vice Presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman joined Lynn Cheney in a crusade to stop academic criticism of the right wing trends in government.  In short, the Democrats lost the respect of their intellectual, academic and worldly-wise constituents who tend to lean slightly or strongly to the left.  

Democratic candidates were simpering, insipid, old, uninteresting and underfunded.  Republicans were young, charismatic, confrontational and generally better organized.  Not to mention far wealthier.  I would have to say that in spite of his advanced age, and less-left-than-Wellstone politics that Walter Mondale put up a valiant fight with impressive results.  At least he kicked Norm Coleman's ass in St. Paul and even in the whole of Ramsey County.  "Mayor Quimby's" own hometown (where I live) voted heavily against him.  If Minneapolis had swung more to the Democrats like they usually do, then Coleman would be looking for a job in the private sector right now.  But, Roger Moe and Tim Pawlenty--that's another story.  Moe just couldn't stand up to him on the basis of charisma and vigor.  Furthermore, Moe is a great example of a Democrat who lost hold of the Democratic foundation.  He was just too far to the center, and he wasn't clean of the taint of corporate money and pandering.  Ken Pentell was such a strong and competent candidate, but the Green Party was skunked--probably by fear of Pawlenty, and by the strong shift to the right in Minnesota politics.  Minnesotans by and large still believe that Republicans are better at managing money in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of evidence to support this propaganda fantasy.

Further, if we look closely at the Democrats who lost elections, we see pretty easily that the ones who voted against war are still doing well.  Those who voted against it received stronger support.  For example, if the election had been held on October 24th, Paul Wellstone would have beaten Norm Coleman to a pulp.  Jean Carnahan voted "yes."  She's headed back to Missouri now where disappointed Democrats will probably not be too glad to see her.  Most educated Americans who don't listen to AM shock radio know that the proposed pre-emptive war on Iraq is counterproductive and wholly sinister.  I predict that the ever-more creepy Hillary Clinton will not survive her next election, even though she has been masterful at playing the middle ground between liberalism and fascism.  

So,  what should Democrats do?  Some of them are already suggesting that they need to be even more like the Republicans.  I can see it now.  The Trent Lott haircut becoming de rigueur among house Democrats.  Maybe cowboy boots on Tom Daschle.  Dick Gephardt pushing a plan to let corporations relax emissions control standards.  I guarantee that anything like this will end in failure for the Democrats.  For example, nominating Lieberman as the Democratic candidate will be suicide.  

For an example of the incompetence and willful ethical bankruptcy of both the Democrats and Republicans, take a look at the on-going Native American lawsuit against the Interior Secretaries of Clinton and Bush.  Three Interior Secretaries have all been sued and found in contempt of court.  In both presidencies, the Secretary was found in contempt of court for hiding and obstructing investigations into the documentation.  Gale Norton is the current one, but she's just one in a line of three.  It's a suit of similar nature to the attempt to compensate African Americans for slavery, but smaller, and much easier to document and tally.  Whether or not the money is ever paid out to the Indians, it would be interesting, just and perhaps therapeutic to at least open up the records.  Why do they withhold this information?  Democrats AND Republicans. 

The only hope they have now, I believe, is that something will go horribly wrong for the pseudo-Republicans in the White House, and they will not be able to respond effectively.  When the Republican agenda fails, which anyone but an avaricious zealot can tell you WILL happen, then the Democrats need to be situated on the other side of the political spectrum and the other side of the aisle.  When the shit hits the fan, if the Democrats are licking Republican boots, then they will be swept into the trash along with the Republicans. 

But, assuming that the war actually goes well for Bush, and Al Qaida doesn't make some other major attack on America, then we can be sure of what our future holds: more pollution, more violence, less civil rights, less freedom, more religious intolerance and dogmatism, greater concentration of the wealth among the rich, corrupt elections and the utter destruction of the social security system, our pension plans and the United Nations.  I hate to sound apocalyptic, but the only thing I can see in the crystal ball is that things are going to have to get a lot worse before they get any better. 

Meanwhile, right wing bullies are even now making plans for getting rid of liberals like us.  Just listen to some AM talk radio.  "Jump on the GOP bandwagon, or die!"

A friend of mine pointed out a potentially bright spot for the future--since this is probably going to be even worse than the regimes of Nixon and Reagan, we can expect to see a musical revolution like the 1960's and the 1980's.  Hot damn, some good music again!  It would sure be nice to hear something other than that tedious techno schlock and that insipid computerized soul music drivel.  As a musician, this might give me reason enough to want to live, in spite of the sound of goose stepping brownshirts in the streets. 

______________________

Updates and links

Garrison Keillor finally wakes up to the fascist menace, but may have lost his wits in the process.  Maybe he's just telling us good-bye again.  

If you haven't read Keillor's savage ad hominem of Norm Coleman, you definitely should.  It is a rare opportunity to see this somewhat repressed Norwegian explode in furious, cruel anger--the sort of attack that might even make Ann Coulter tremble slightly.  I agree with critics who say that it's over the top and probably not helpful in healing the split between liberals and conservatives in America.  

There may be a method to Keillor's madness.  Bruce Sanborn analyzes the speech in the light of Greek tragedy.  I think he could be right: Keillor wants to utterly alienate the right wing listeners who have been lured in by the music.  Even more important, he seems to be trying to share his belated awakening with dormant liberals.  

Steve Perry of the City Pages has an excellent and informative article that expands on my anti-Democrat rant.  The long history of their "Right Turn" is explained.

Tom Stephens article on The Dangers of LSD: Lame Spineless Democrats is excellent.

Will Durst The Case for California hilarious and disturbingly plausible--America needs California more than California needs America.  What if the Left Coast started its own country?  Bush wouldn't have to worry about all those electoral votes, and the liberals would have a safe place to live.  Better yet, they could sue Kenneth Lay for robbing them of 20 billion dollars.  I have my passport ready, and we'll be first in line to immigrate if they do it.  

Scam-Pain 2000 page--my Bush "election" analyses and interesting links

Wellstone Conspiracies -- fairly interesting and objective/critical article.  It seems to me very strategically implausible that the Republicans killed him, as many Democrats suggest.  There are other possibilities, though--including New Democrats who thought they should be moving to the right, or Israeli extremists killing a traitor who voted against the Iraq War.  The accident definitely has enough suspicious elements to make Paul Wellstone the next JFK--expect to see "grassy knoll" and "single bullet" theories bouncing about the internet.  Personally, I'm a lot more interested in trying to figure out what to do next.  Wellstone is dead.  It was probably an accident, and if it wasn't an accident, I am more inclined to think corporate whore Democrats killed him.  Whatever is the case, the Republicans and Republicrats are about to squash our heads under their jackboots.  Stop worrying about how Wellstone died, and find electable liberal candidates for 2004!  It's important to look at the facts so we can get beyond this.  Besides, if there is a real conspiracy, you'll never find out the truth.  Why waste your time?  Great article ridiculing the "tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists."  And another piece from Yahoo with lots of tantalizing conspiracy shards.   

January 4, 2004-- interesting new information on Wellstone conspiracies.  Paul Wellstone was threatened by Dick Cheney over his vote for Bush's blank check for war in Iraq.  The article states: At a meeting full of war veterans in Willmar, Minn., days before his death, Wellstone told attendees that Cheney told him, "If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota." 

October 25, 2003 -- Pioneer Press article on the progress of the Wellstone plane crash investigation.