A few morning-after thoughts

It says much about the state of our culture that we're astonished by the victory of a decent, well-qualified Dem over an accused child molester. Even before the WP first published the investigative piece which sealed Roy Moore's fate, he was considered a bizarre character -- bizarre even by Alabama standards.

This race should not have been this close. The fact that it was close must force Democrats to rethink their strategies.

In order to defeat Trump and the fascist revival, Democrats need more wins in purple and red states. In other races, Democrats won't run against accused molesters. We cannot expect the gods of politics to keep tossing Roy Moores at us.

Losers don't legislate. In many parts of the country, "progressive purists" will always lose. So we need to define areas where purity can be compromised. I propose these three:

1. Abortion. I know that the very mention of this word will set off feminists, who will no doubt want to recite a pro-abortion speech that I have heard many (MANY) times since the 1970s. Please don't bother. I already agree with every word of that speech. If women lose the right to choose abortion, the nation will suffer a great tragedy. I also strongly support Planned Parenthood.

But: As paradoxical as it may seem, a woman's right to have an abortion faced less danger back in the days when the Democratic party made room for a nearly-extinct creature called the anti-abortion Democrat. In order to comprehend this paradox, you must remember that, on this issue, the great danger comes not from Congress but from the Supreme Court. If women lose the right to choose abortion, the Court will be to blame.

A Democratic majority in the Senate means that a Republican president cannot expect an ultra-conservative zealot to sail through the confirmation hearings. A Democratic senator who opposes abortion is still likely to vote against a far-right nominee if a Democratic Senate Majority Leader says no way to that nominee. Although arms may need some twisting and horses may need to be traded, any Dem, even a rather conservative Dem, will probably hew to the party line. Probably. A Republican won't. Definitely.

I agree with those who argue that, in the days of Reagan and the Bushes, top-level Republican strategists were not serious in their opposition to abortion. The issue always helped to herd evangelicals and conservative Catholics into the polling booths; the actual abolition of abortion rights would have hurt the GOP in subsequent elections. Such was the old dynamic. I suspect that this dynamic no longer holds, and that the Bannonites have a genuine desire to see Roe reversed. If that's true, then we have all the more reason to fight like hell for a blue Senate, which means that we must support Dems who may not be our preferred shade of blue.

(As the reader may have noted, I refuse to employ the commonly-heard euphemisms "right to life" and "pro-choice." Since the word "fuck" is now heard in places where it once was considered unspeakable, why should we shiver in supernatural fear of the word "abortion"?)

2. Religion. Few things have been so destructive to the Democratic brand as the ludicrous conflation of liberalism with the neo-atheist movement. In particular, I am appalled by the growing perception (pushed by Bill Maher, Greg Proops and others) that one cannot be a proper progressive unless one embraces the "mythicist" position of the historicity of Jesus. This position is shared by no academic specialists in first century history -- even though most of these historians are not very religious, and many are agnostics and atheists. In other words, the mythicists occupy a "fringe" position analogous to that of the climate change denialists: Neither viewpoint commands any scholarly respect. Yet mythicism and progressivism have become, in the minds of many, closely related concepts.

(Bart Ehrman, who hovers between agnosticism and atheism, wrote a book explaining why every university-level religious historian does not question the fact that Jesus existed. This book infuriated many "new atheists." I recently heard a podcast in which Ehrman had to answer a mythicist assault on his credentials. Bart Ehrman teaches history at an ivy league university! Meanwhile, the primary "apostle" of mythicism is a ludicrous, fringe-dwelling dolt who writes under the cringe-inducing name of Archaya X.)

In my view, the Democratic party should welcome people of all religious faiths and all levels of faith, including the lack of religious belief. From the perspective of hard-nosed, pragmatic politics, Dems should do everything possible to encourage committed Christians to run in contests in the red states. The last Democratic presidential candidate to do well in the south was Jimmy Carter in 1976, whose "born again" Christianity seemed novel, even exotic, on the national stage in that year. (The novelty has since worn off.) Although we're very unlikely to see another 1976, I still think that southerners are more likely to vote "D" if the candidate flaunts his faith.

I am not particularly pious, and I often find religious zealots annoying -- yet I would happily support a Dem who bleeds on Easter Sunday if doing so gets us closer to the goal of turning Congress blue. The Mueller probe is in mortal peril, which means that we need real congressional investigations of Trump. Congress must go blue or fascism will triumph.

3. Guns. Personally, I favor modest regulations in this area, such as background checks and the closing of the "gun show loophole." But we must face facts: Gun control is a toxic issue in the red and purple states.

That said, even a Democrat who hews to the NRA line will be accused of favoring Total Gun Confiscation. Many rural voters believe that anyone who has a D next to his or her name is a gun-grabber. Trump successfully convinced many that Hillary Clinton would somehow rescind the Second Amendment, even though she has never voiced a desire to do so, and even though she would not have had the power to do so.

Do they still teach civics in high school? Americans are more politically engaged than ever before, yet few Americans understand how our system works.