Meanwhile, in North Carolina...

My friend Bill Grantham writes about his experience in the presidential election:
-----

Hey Brian,



[this started out as a response to your message and turned into

self-therapy.  Sorry if I sound preachy or pundit-like -- I'm more

trying to work out my own feelings than convince you of anything]



Thanks for trying -- seriously, I mean that.  For my part, I spent

three Saturdays canvassing door to door, and worked the polls on election

day.  Mostly, I contented myself with giving fairly large sums of money, by

my standards, to Kerry, the DNC, ACT, and MoveOn.  I did my volunteering

with a group that splintered off from ACT in order to be more partisan.

So we were a grass roots bunch of Democrats with no name or official

status.  But we had very good organization at the tactical level.  We

were actually optimistic that we could get enough turnout of unlikely

voters in Wake County (Raleigh) to overwhelm the rural vote and tip NC

to Kerry, despite the polls and the fact that Kerry/Edwards had written

off the state.  Turns out we were wrong, obviously, but the process

illuminated how ineffectual and petty the Democratic party is in NC.

It seems they were more interested in turf and protocol than being

effective.  However, this is only based on one side of the story -- our

leader's -- as I didn't work directly with the party.  But there seemed

to be some truth to it.



I have had a strange reaction to the results, so far.  Perhaps it is

some sort of physiological defense mechanism, a deep form of shock or

denial, but I have a strange sense of peace, rather than grief or

anger. I'm sure it will pass as soon as Bush resumes his willfully ignorant

policies and pushes for something egregious like drilling in ANWR, but

at the moment I feel no hatred.  God knows there's plenty to be bitter

about, from Rove to the Swift Boat veterens to Bush's outright

slanderous misrepresentation of Kerry's positions on security, but I

just can't get myself worked up. Maybe I have indignation fatique.

Maybe I suffer from a variation of the Stockholm syndrome.



But I think another reason for this feeling is that some internal

tensions are resolved.  I can now root wholeheartedly for a complete

and total success in Iraq.  Previoulsy I was torn.  I had opposed the war

from the start, never believing that WMD  was the real reason (that

much was patently obvious) even when I believed they existed.  I was

appalled by the arrogance, stupidity, wishfull thinking, and plain

boneheadedness with which it was conducted, and hated to think Bush could get away

with it.  So I found myself wanting to things to go badly, but not so badly

Kerry couldn't fix them.  Until I remembered that going badly means

people dying.  So how many people do I want to die, in order prevent

Bush from being re-elected and pursuing policies that will result in

even greater tragedies -- more wars, a viscious cycle of terrorist acts

and responses?  A moral quagmire I don't have to deal with anymore.

For better or worse, the people have endorsed Bush's approach.



So now I can hope for a spectacular success in Iraq (just as I would

have if Kerry had won, as I fervently hoped).  I hope Iraq becomes a

stable democracy as soon as possible, Osama is captured,  Al quada is

crushed, peace is acheived between Israel and Palestine, and the whole

Arab world changes its mind and embraces Bush as a saviour.   Not

likely, but nothing would make me happier than for all these things to

be solved and off the table in 2008, so we can get on to what to me are

the real issues -- how can 5 or 6 billion (and counting) humans survive

and prosper without destroying all our fellow creatures on this planet?



What has enraged me most about Bush is not just the folly of his

foreign policy.  It is that his administration systematically and relentlessly

undermines the only tools that offer hope in dealing with this grand

question: rational thought based on empirical evidence, and peaceful

resolution of issues through an open democratic process.  I don't

expect him to change on this, and we must redouble our efforts to prevent him

from taking us back from the age of reason to the age of faith.  In

foreign policy, Democrats and moderate (or non-neocon, at any rate)

republicans must try to make Bush's policy more responsive to reality.

But I am no longer (as far as I can see) faced with conflicting

desires. I don't worry about the Republicans getting credit for winning the" war

on terrorism"  -- if they actually did, it would be worth it.  Besides,

winning wars doesn't necessarily secure power.   The Dems lost in a

landslide after Wilson won WWI,  Churchill was voted out after WWII,

Truman barely hung on for another term, Bush I lost after what appeared

to be a decisive victory in the Gulf War.  If anything, there seems to

be a trend to turn to the other party for a fresh start after a war.



-- [Well that's as far as I got yesterday, and I didn't get time to

finish it today.  Need to go for a run before the light fades, and to

send this before the feeling goes away.  Was going to talk about some

more concrete reasons for hope and strategy Dems should take, but that

will have to wait.  The one thing I will say is that it does no good to

try to move to the right -- the right will just keep moving the target

rightwards.  they will always call Dems extreme left wing liberals out

of touch with the mainstream, so if we let the center become labeled

leftist, the far right will become center.]

-----

My one comment right now to Bill's post is that the Republicans are not looking for an end to the War on Terror, maybe hoping it will be a very long time before people start thinking of a change in political parties for the postwar era. We'll have to persuade the people otherwise.

Anyone else wishing to respond can post in the comments section here, or email Bill at wgrantham @earthlink.net (eliminate the space before the @ symbol).