I apologize in advance for offering up another round of Democracy Sours. And I freely admit that nobody likes a serious Wombat. But a number of articles and discussions I've read over the last few days are perhaps worth sharing. If, therefore, you want to join me for one more lashing of the poor dead beast...

The Blue in the Red
I've said before and I'll say again: the idea of the solidly right-wing heartland is a G.O.P. weapon, a myth carefully nurtured to isolate both ends and destroy the possibility of common ground and evolution of the status quo. Diversity of opinion exists throughout the country.

No, I'm not high. Yes, it's sunk in that the Republicans have very effective majorities in most of the rural areas and throughout much of the South, and that's devastating right now. Those majorities are big electorally, where small margins of victory in a two-party system can deliver roughly the same political dominance engendered by a big gap (as long as the demographics don't change on you: it's the stability of the lead that matters). But even a 60-40 split in terms of cultural position is a different story. A minority that large is neither invisible nor inconsequential in day-to-day affairs. New York and California dwellers disheartened by what their seeing on all those crimson-stained maps floating around (who've been unable, by the way, to oust our Republican stooge of a governor, or stop a Republican mayoral candidate from buying the office) need to realize that we need more than ever to listen to people in Cleveland and Santa Fe and Jacksonville and Richmond and lots of communities in between those big cities. Some of them really are on our side. And some of them aren't now -- but could be if they felt they were being heard.

(UPDATE: see this visual aid for a nice illustration of the above from a demographic perspective.

The Spiritual War
Pato picked up on this must-read essay after it spawned a particularly heated MeFi thread. The linked article should be required reading for everyone who wants to understand how religion shapes ideology shapes politics these days. But note the argument that begins in the Metafilter thread as well -- Bush voters who regularly interact with communities (like MetaFilter) which are on the left as a whole take as their refrain our arrogance, our sheer unbelievable condecension toward the rest of the country. They are still able to see the left as the Establishment (this after 8 years of Reagan and two terms of a Democrat who bodily hauled his party further to the right than it had been since JFK), and the right as the opposition.

Lefties do not understand this, on the whole. We have been seeing ourselves, over the last several years, as the outraged victims. The Supreme Court stops the 2000 recount in a split decision. The GOP runs hard right, and don't get called on it by the press. Smear campaigns are run at will, the newest and fastest-growing network is openly allied with the party in power. And the man in charge, who had campaigned on a platform of bipartisan co-operation, switches to a set of decisions that seem calculated to demonstrate his disregard for viewpoints outside of his inner circle.

Etecetera etcetera -- point is, it hasn't sunk in to us yet that as far as many people are concerned a radical left-wing agenda is using media and money power to dominate the country. Is this another myth fostered by the Republican party, with the goal of keeping its base angry and ready to rumble? Absolutely. But identifying that doesn't solve the problem. Even if Limbaugh disappeared tomorrow, the damage is done. We've got to find a way to make the majority of people assign the "arrogance" where it belongs -- to a ruling clique who discard their responsibilities for stewardship, even as they claim a God-given mandate.

An Interesting Contradiction
This Ask Metafilter post prompted some Bush voters to give illuminating responses to the question: what were your reasons for your choice? While there was no individual reason that came as a surprise, I wish to note for the record what I haven't followed before: that there are some strongly competing views within that 51% who voted for Bush concerning what is it that vote means. Observe the support for Bush and the G.O.P. among people who do not believe the social conservatives will actually get their way in the end, and who have a view (right or wrong) of the administration as responsible and centrist at the end of the day. Some of them are pro-choice and/or against the notion of an anti-gay constitutional amendment. But, of course, for many others, social-conservative issues were pre-eminent, and their votes were made in the belief that Bush will address. In short, different subsets among Bush voters believe opposite things about what his administration will set out to do.